politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » To add to BoJo’s woes it’s Corbyn not the PM who’ll decide whe
Comments
-
-
What a great advert Boris is for FPTP...MarqueeMark said:
Such is the nature of no party winning a majority.surbiton19 said:
Is that the one in which he said this Parliament was dead. It was only elected 2 years ago.Brom said:Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
What a great advert these past months have been for PR. Not.0 -
If all the other parties had spent 10 years trying to dream up something utterly destructive for Labour they could not have come up with this.
It is just insane and will lose them millions of votes.
https://twitter.com/labfreemvmt/status/1176809015893995520/photo/10 -
Would kick off the process for a General Election without 2/3rds being required is what....MyBurningEars said:
Not sure what a mocked up VONC would achieve, the opposition would presumably abstain. Symbolically that looks naff but not a great deal worse than their refusal to have VONC now, and they'd have the same excuse/rationale up their sleeve. Winning a VONC wouldn't alleviate any of the actual problems Johnson is facing.MarqueeMark said:
He shouldn't go for a tactcal resignation. He should instead go for a VONC and instruct his MPs to vote against. Defy the MPs to either vote they have confidence in him - and how much of a laugh would that be? Or else defy the House to find somebody to head up the Remainer Coup.Scott_P said:
Come up with a new PM - or off to the races we go.1 -
Hitchens disagrees with Boris’ prorogation, yet his principal concern seems to be just that.Stark_Dawning said:
I wonder how Hitchens - and others in the magna-carta-underpants brigade - would have reacted if, say, Mr Blair had prorogued parliament for over a month. Somehow I can't imagine their principal concern being whether or not the courts had the right to overrule him.isam said:0 -
He will be - when he gets his stonking majority.....eek said:
What a great advert Boris is for FPTP...MarqueeMark said:
Such is the nature of no party winning a majority.surbiton19 said:
Is that the one in which he said this Parliament was dead. It was only elected 2 years ago.Brom said:Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
What a great advert these past months have been for PR. Not.0 -
If events are unprecedented then, by definition, there is no precedent governing them. The government argued it was necessary to close down parliament for five weeks in order to prepare for a Queen's Speech. It was unable to explain why this was necessary. The court looked at what a five week shut down would involve, observed the government's failure to justify it and concluded that there was no reason for the shutdown to be any longer than the one usually required for a Queen's Speech. If there are no limits to the government's ability to prorogue, we are but a short step from there being no need for a Parliament at all. In years to come, we may well be very relieved that a minority government does not have unlimited powers to shut down scrutiny of its policies.DavidL said:
You will that there is no precedent whatsoever in paragraph 50. It is not compatible with previous decisions. The SC has the right to do that but the right and it being desirable are not the same things.Chris said:
But of course all the issues you're talking about here in a rather half-baked way - the Supreme Court's own role, the roles of statute law and common law, and so on - are discussed systematically in the judgment, with reference to the relevant precedents.DavidL said:
I am not as nannies for incompetent MPs would couldn't organise themselves out of the proverbial paper bag.OblitusSumMe said:I have some sympathy with this argument. I'm glad, for example, that abortion law was changed in the UK in the 60s by a Parliamentary vote, than because of a changing interpretation of a 200 year old constitution.
In the present example I cannot agree.
Let uelect committees.
Under of MPs.
A new session of Parliament can be brought about by a short prorogation of less than a week. A prorogation of five weeks is an attempt to evade Parliamentary scrutiny.
It might have been preferable for Parliament to have prevented the prorogation by replacing the PM, but the Courts must be able to protect Parliament when a majority of MPs are not willing to take that action.
That judgment was assented to by all 11 judges unanimously. We're not talking about arguments that were viewed doubtfully by even a single judge.
You can't just say they were wrong without addressing what the judgment actually said. Or if you do, you can't expect to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
1 -
Cummings has game theorised it and will give each tory MP a random number generator which will instruct them individually whether to vote confidence, no confidence or abstain. The opposition will not know what to do in response, and in panic will make an error.MyBurningEars said:
Not sure what a mocked up VONC would achieve, the opposition would presumably abstain. Symbolically that looks naff but not a great deal worse than their refusal to have VONC now, and they'd have the same excuse/rationale up their sleeve. Winning a VONC wouldn't alleviate any of the actual problems Johnson is facing.MarqueeMark said:
He shouldn't go for a tactcal resignation. He should instead go for a VONC and instruct his MPs to vote against. Defy the MPs to either vote they have confidence in him - and how much of a laugh would that be? Or else defy the House to find somebody to head up the Remainer Coup.Scott_P said:0 -
There is, apparently, a chance it will be killed before it makes the manifesto. I suspect they will do that... but with Corbyn's Labour, who knows.CaptainBuzzkill said:If all the other parties had spent 10 years trying to dream up something utterly destructive for Labour they could not have come up with this.
It is just insane and will lose them millions of votes.
https://twitter.com/labfreemvmt/status/1176809015893995520/photo/1
Even if they do kill it, much of the damage will have been done, as knowledge of this ripples out from Twitter into Facebook and the papers. Labour Want An Open Border.0 -
You think he'll get 17.4m to vote for it then?noneoftheabove said:
It is a ridiculous policy but I am surprised you cannot work out what drives it. They dont care about pragmatism, instead for them at the moment it is all about emotion and righteousness. If you try hard, might you be able to think of another similar set of nonsensical policies driven by emotion and righteousness rather than pragmatism that you happily cheer on?Byronic said:And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
So that means Labour's immigration policy is.... what? What exactly? Their policy seems to be to not have a policy ,just invite as many people as possible, whatever their skills, or values, or attitudes, and basically let them all in. If you can get here we will take you in, and give you all benefits, and you also get a vote.
I can't work out if Labour think this is vote-winning, or they reckon they can sneak it past the voters amongst all the other crazy ideas, or they don't care about winning and just want to say pleasing things to each other.
It is grandiloquently irresponsible.
Pillock.0 -
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for:Byronic said:
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.Chris said:
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."Byronic said:And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.0 -
Do expand.isam said:
The ‘Farage failed to get elected 7 times’ meme is so disingenuous, without context, that it frames whoever tries to use it as either wilfully ignorant or a complete imbecileGardenwalker said:
Farage is good strategist, a mediocre tactician, and appalling at execution.Yellow_Submarine said:
Indeed. This is about levelling the killing field. When Boris turns into a Pumpkin at 11pm on Hallowe'en and becomes just another politican Farage's early spade work on a " I told you so " narrative will pay off. Farage has absolutely nothing to gain by helping Johnson as Johnson's positioning and persona are his biggest strategic competitor.Richard_Nabavi said:
Farage is simply thinking one step ahead, to after October 31st when Boris will be a busted flush with all those naïfs who still think Boris is going to deliver his pledge.kle4 said:
Farage only need some to come with him and in so doing sink Boris and brexit. I think he will oblige and enough will go with him.TGOHF2 said:More on Farage foul up
https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/1176844933719822337?s=21
Hence, he “won” Brexit but still can’t get elected to Parliament at the umpteenth time of trying.
Nabavi’s analysis is correct. Farage is fattening his pig for market.0 -
Have a thinkGardenwalker said:
Do expand.isam said:
The ‘Farage failed to get elected 7 times’ meme is so disingenuous, without context, that it frames whoever tries to use it as either wilfully ignorant or a complete imbecileGardenwalker said:
Farage is good strategist, a mediocre tactician, and appalling at execution.Yellow_Submarine said:
Indeed. This is about levelling the killing field. When Boris turns into a Pumpkin at 11pm on Hallowe'en and becomes just another politican Farage's early spade work on a " I told you so " narrative will pay off. Farage has absolutely nothing to gain by helping Johnson as Johnson's positioning and persona are his biggest strategic competitor.Richard_Nabavi said:
Farage is simply thinking one step ahead, to after October 31st when Boris will be a busted flush with all those naïfs who still think Boris is going to deliver his pledge.kle4 said:
Farage only need some to come with him and in so doing sink Boris and brexit. I think he will oblige and enough will go with him.TGOHF2 said:More on Farage foul up
https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/1176844933719822337?s=21
Hence, he “won” Brexit but still can’t get elected to Parliament at the umpteenth time of trying.
Nabavi’s analysis is correct. Farage is fattening his pig for market.0 -
If the immigration system is not based on income, having a job, or doesn't have numbers or caps, what is it based on?Chris said:
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for:Byronic said:
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.Chris said:
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."Byronic said:And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.0 -
IfMarqueeMark said:
He will be - when he gets his stonking majority.....eek said:
What a great advert Boris is for FPTP...MarqueeMark said:
Such is the nature of no party winning a majority.surbiton19 said:
Is that the one in which he said this Parliament was dead. It was only elected 2 years ago.Brom said:Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
What a great advert these past months have been for PR. Not.0 -
Cabinet members were obviously reading PB this morning.MarqueeMark said:
He shouldn't go for a tactcal resignation. He should instead go for a VONC and instruct his MPs to vote against. Defy the MPs to either vote they have confidence in him - and how much of a laugh would that be? Or else defy the House to find somebody to head up the Remainer Coup.
Johnson resigning the government and handing over responsibility for requesting A50 extension to Corbyn would be an absolute hammer blow to Labour.
Not that they will need finishing off by the look of their latest policies.0 -
Here's the new policy in full,Chris said:
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for:Byronic said:
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.Chris said:
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."Byronic said:And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
In its next manifesto, Labour will commit to:
Oppose the current Tory immigration legislation and any curbing of rights.
Campaign for free movement, equality and rights for migrants.
Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets.
Close all detention centres.
Ensure unconditional right to family reunion.
Maintain and extend free movement rights.
End “no recourse to public funds” policies.
Scrap all Hostile Environment measures, use of landlords and public service providers as border guards, and restrictions on migrants’ NHS access.
Actively challenge anti-immigrant narratives.
Extend equal rights to vote to all UK residents
Good luck.0 -
Read some interesting things about the Trump Ukraine transcript. Mostly that it is not a verbatim copy of the conversation.
The real meat is the whistle-blower complaint.
Also Guiliani seem to be admitting to crimes all over the shop.0 -
This week has told us very clearly is that Labour does not believe it can win the next election. It has been all about keeping the base on board with the Corbyn project after the inevitable defeat.Byronic said:
There is, apparently, a chance it will be killed before it makes the manifesto. I suspect they will do that... but with Corbyn's Labour, who knows.CaptainBuzzkill said:If all the other parties had spent 10 years trying to dream up something utterly destructive for Labour they could not have come up with this.
It is just insane and will lose them millions of votes.
https://twitter.com/labfreemvmt/status/1176809015893995520/photo/1
Even if they do kill it, much of the damage will have been done, as knowledge of this ripples out from Twitter into Facebook and the papers. Labour Want An Open Border.
0 -
No because it is a ridiculous policy. It wont even get anywhere near the actual Labour manifesto.MarqueeMark said:
You think he'll get 17.4m to vote for it then?noneoftheabove said:
It is a ridiculous policy but I am surprised you cannot work out what drives it. They dont care about pragmatism, instead for them at the moment it is all about emotion and righteousness. If you try hard, might you be able to think of another similar set of nonsensical policies driven by emotion and righteousness rather than pragmatism that you happily cheer on?Byronic said:And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
So that means Labour's immigration policy is.... what? What exactly? Their policy seems to be to not have a policy ,just invite as many people as possible, whatever their skills, or values, or attitudes, and basically let them all in. If you can get here we will take you in, and give you all benefits, and you also get a vote.
I can't work out if Labour think this is vote-winning, or they reckon they can sneak it past the voters amongst all the other crazy ideas, or they don't care about winning and just want to say pleasing things to each other.
It is grandiloquently irresponsible.
Pillock.
Brexit is not a ridiculous policy, it is not optimal but has some merits as well as downsides. We voted for it so I support leaving with a deal.
No deal is the ridiculous policy and it got 1.8% of the electoral support at the last GE.0 -
When do we get the SO type rational Labour party back i.e. one that somebody who isn't a Marxist can vote for?SouthamObserver said:
This week has told us very clearly is that Labour does not believe it can win the next election. It has been all about keeping the base on board with the Corbyn project after the inevitable defeat.Byronic said:
There is, apparently, a chance it will be killed before it makes the manifesto. I suspect they will do that... but with Corbyn's Labour, who knows.CaptainBuzzkill said:If all the other parties had spent 10 years trying to dream up something utterly destructive for Labour they could not have come up with this.
It is just insane and will lose them millions of votes.
https://twitter.com/labfreemvmt/status/1176809015893995520/photo/1
Even if they do kill it, much of the damage will have been done, as knowledge of this ripples out from Twitter into Facebook and the papers. Labour Want An Open Border.0 -
Haha. The delusions of the supremely gullible are so quaint..MarqueeMark said:
He will be - when he gets his stonking majority.....eek said:
What a great advert Boris is for FPTP...MarqueeMark said:
Such is the nature of no party winning a majority.surbiton19 said:
Is that the one in which he said this Parliament was dead. It was only elected 2 years ago.Brom said:Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
What a great advert these past months have been for PR. Not.0 -
-
The word "therefore" in the first sentence of that paragraph indicates that the judges are drawing a conclusion from what they have said just before that.DavidL said:
You will that there is no precedent whatsoever in paragraph 50. It is not compatible with previous decisions. The SC has the right to do that but the right and it being desirable are not the same things.Chris said:
But of course all the issues you're talking about here in a rather half-baked way - the Supreme Court's own role, the roles of statute law and common law, and so on - are discussed systematically in the judgment, with reference to the relevant precedents.DavidL said:
I am not trying to defend what Boris did. I criticised it from the moment it was announced. But I respectfully disagree with your last sentence. The point of having a Supreme Parliament is that it regulates itself according to the membership at the time. The only restriction is the laws already passed and not repealed so, for example, if a majority decided to sit on for 10 years without an election the courts could uphold the laws that Parliament has passed and require an election. The courts are not there to act as nannies for incompetent MPs would couldn't organise themselves out of the proverbial paper bag.
That judgment was assented to by all 11 judges unanimously. We're not talking about arguments that were viewed doubtfully by even a single judge.
You can't just say they were wrong without addressing what the judgment actually said. Or if you do, you can't expect to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
0 -
That is certainly one rational explanation. The others are even scarier.SouthamObserver said:
This week has told us very clearly is that Labour does not believe it can win the next election. It has been all about keeping the base on board with the Corbyn project after the inevitable defeat.Byronic said:
There is, apparently, a chance it will be killed before it makes the manifesto. I suspect they will do that... but with Corbyn's Labour, who knows.CaptainBuzzkill said:If all the other parties had spent 10 years trying to dream up something utterly destructive for Labour they could not have come up with this.
It is just insane and will lose them millions of votes.
https://twitter.com/labfreemvmt/status/1176809015893995520/photo/1
Even if they do kill it, much of the damage will have been done, as knowledge of this ripples out from Twitter into Facebook and the papers. Labour Want An Open Border.0 -
Well if we dispense with income/assets considerations and ability to work / education or usefulness to the domestic economy what other criteria do you suggest? Aside from refugees/asylum seekers which we're not talking about here.Chris said:
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for:Byronic said:
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.Chris said:
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."Byronic said:And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
Willingness to vote for Labour perhaps? Swearing an oath to Dear Leader?
Here's a thing. Why don't Labour kite-fly this policy if you're so assured of its inherent virtue. Put up say twenty or thirty billboards in and around Stoke. "Labour promise to give benefits to EVERY immigrant". Or put it on the side of a bus perhaps and drive it through Sunderland. See what happens.0 -
After this Labour conference? When.....Gallowgate said:
IfMarqueeMark said:
He will be - when he gets his stonking majority.....eek said:
What a great advert Boris is for FPTP...MarqueeMark said:
Such is the nature of no party winning a majority.surbiton19 said:
Is that the one in which he said this Parliament was dead. It was only elected 2 years ago.Brom said:Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
What a great advert these past months have been for PR. Not.
The prorogation exercise has prevented Labour from cancelling it. Job done.0 -
So anyway.
Greta Grump is suing France for not taking climate change seriously
but not China or the USA.0 -
I think you were asked to. My guess, if you need some help, is that in the constituencies he tried he was seen for what he is: A narcissistic toff acting the part of a spiv at best or at worst, a nasty xenophobic crypto-fascist. Which side of his personality most appeals to you?isam said:
Have a thinkGardenwalker said:
Do expand.isam said:
The ‘Farage failed to get elected 7 times’ meme is so disingenuous, without context, that it frames whoever tries to use it as either wilfully ignorant or a complete imbecileGardenwalker said:
Farage is good strategist, a mediocre tactician, and appalling at execution.Yellow_Submarine said:
Indeed. This is about levelling the killing field. When Boris turns into a Pumpkin at 11pm on Hallowe'en and becomes just another politican Farage's early spade work on a " I told you so " narrative will pay off. Farage has absolutely nothing to gain by helping Johnson as Johnson's positioning and persona are his biggest strategic competitor.Richard_Nabavi said:
Farage is simply thinking one step ahead, to after October 31st when Boris will be a busted flush with all those naïfs who still think Boris is going to deliver his pledge.kle4 said:
Farage only need some to come with him and in so doing sink Boris and brexit. I think he will oblige and enough will go with him.TGOHF2 said:More on Farage foul up
https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/1176844933719822337?s=21
Hence, he “won” Brexit but still can’t get elected to Parliament at the umpteenth time of trying.
Nabavi’s analysis is correct. Farage is fattening his pig for market.0 -
When even George Galloway - George Galloway! - thinks your new immigration policy is "surreal", you know you've got a corker.
https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/11768592140918824960 -
Never, I suspect.FrancisUrquhart said:
When do we get the SO type rational Labour party back i.e. one that somebody who isn't a Marxist can vote for?SouthamObserver said:
This week has told us very clearly is that Labour does not believe it can win the next election. It has been all about keeping the base on board with the Corbyn project after the inevitable defeat.Byronic said:
There is, apparently, a chance it will be killed before it makes the manifesto. I suspect they will do that... but with Corbyn's Labour, who knows.CaptainBuzzkill said:If all the other parties had spent 10 years trying to dream up something utterly destructive for Labour they could not have come up with this.
It is just insane and will lose them millions of votes.
https://twitter.com/labfreemvmt/status/1176809015893995520/photo/1
Even if they do kill it, much of the damage will have been done, as knowledge of this ripples out from Twitter into Facebook and the papers. Labour Want An Open Border.
0 -
I'm not assured of anything. I'm not advocating the policy. I'm just cautioning people against swallowing the wilder misrepresentations by Labour's opponents.ozymandias said:
Well if we dispense with income/assets considerations and ability to work / education or usefulness to the domestic economy what other criteria do you suggest? Aside from refugees/asylum seekers which we're not talking about here.Chris said:
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for:Byronic said:
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.Chris said:
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."Byronic said:And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
Willingness to vote for Labour perhaps? Swearing an oath to Dear Leader?
Here's a thing. Why don't Labour kite-fly this policy if you're so assured of its inherent virtue. Put up say twenty or thirty billboards in and around Stoke. "Labour promise to give benefits to EVERY immigrant". Or put it on the side of a bus perhaps and drive it through Sunderland. See what happens.
[Edit: It's probably worth pointing out that you've just introduced several more misrepresentations, with your insertion of references to "assets," "ability to work" and "education." Thanks for underlining my note of caution not to believe what people here say.]0 -
We don't.FrancisUrquhart said:
When do we get the SO type rational Labour party back i.e. one that somebody who isn't a Marxist can vote for?SouthamObserver said:
This week has told us very clearly is that Labour does not believe it can win the next election. It has been all about keeping the base on board with the Corbyn project after the inevitable defeat.Byronic said:
There is, apparently, a chance it will be killed before it makes the manifesto. I suspect they will do that... but with Corbyn's Labour, who knows.CaptainBuzzkill said:If all the other parties had spent 10 years trying to dream up something utterly destructive for Labour they could not have come up with this.
It is just insane and will lose them millions of votes.
https://twitter.com/labfreemvmt/status/1176809015893995520/photo/1
Even if they do kill it, much of the damage will have been done, as knowledge of this ripples out from Twitter into Facebook and the papers. Labour Want An Open Border.0 -
Do they still have millions of votes to lose?CaptainBuzzkill said:If all the other parties had spent 10 years trying to dream up something utterly destructive for Labour they could not have come up with this.
It is just insane and will lose them millions of votes.
https://twitter.com/labfreemvmt/status/1176809015893995520/photo/10 -
oh come on, youll get to the GE and crack for Jezza "to keep out the Tory"SouthamObserver said:
Never, I suspect.FrancisUrquhart said:
When do we get the SO type rational Labour party back i.e. one that somebody who isn't a Marxist can vote for?SouthamObserver said:
This week has told us very clearly is that Labour does not believe it can win the next election. It has been all about keeping the base on board with the Corbyn project after the inevitable defeat.Byronic said:
There is, apparently, a chance it will be killed before it makes the manifesto. I suspect they will do that... but with Corbyn's Labour, who knows.CaptainBuzzkill said:If all the other parties had spent 10 years trying to dream up something utterly destructive for Labour they could not have come up with this.
It is just insane and will lose them millions of votes.
https://twitter.com/labfreemvmt/status/1176809015893995520/photo/1
Even if they do kill it, much of the damage will have been done, as knowledge of this ripples out from Twitter into Facebook and the papers. Labour Want An Open Border.
0 -
I think you are a something with the initials CC, I won’t expandNigel_Foremain said:
I think you were asked to. My guess, if you need some help, is that in the constituencies he tried he was seen for what he is: A narcissistic toff acting the part of a spiv at best or at worst, a nasty xenophobic crypto-fascist. Which side of his personality most appeals to you?isam said:
Have a thinkGardenwalker said:
Do expand.isam said:
The ‘Farage failed to get elected 7 times’ meme is so disingenuous, without context, that it frames whoever tries to use it as either wilfully ignorant or a complete imbecileGardenwalker said:
Farage is good strategist, a mediocre tactician, and appalling at execution.Yellow_Submarine said:
Indeed. This is about levelling the killing field. When Boris turns into a Pumpkin at 11pm on Hallowe'en and becomes just another politican Farage's early spade work on a " I told you so " narrative will pay off. Farage has absolutely nothing to gain by helping Johnson as Johnson's positioning and persona are his biggest strategic competitor.Richard_Nabavi said:
Farage is simply thinking one step ahead, to after October 31st when Boris will be a busted flush with all those naïfs who still think Boris is going to deliver his pledge.kle4 said:
Farage only need some to come with him and in so doing sink Boris and brexit. I think he will oblige and enough will go with him.TGOHF2 said:More on Farage foul up
https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/1176844933719822337?s=21
Hence, he “won” Brexit but still can’t get elected to Parliament at the umpteenth time of trying.
Nabavi’s analysis is correct. Farage is fattening his pig for market.0 -
France is one of the greenest developed nations in the world, 4.57 metric tonnes of CO2 per person - their love of nuclear power practically guarantees a decent CO2 footprint.Alanbrooke said:So anyway.
Greta Grump is suing France for not taking climate change seriously
but not China or the USA.
73% nuclear, 18% renewables !
I can understand Macron hitting the roof at this one.0 -
It is a ridiculous policy and should be called out and never heard of again. Just because the people shouting the loudest about it are wrong on other matters doesnt mean they are not right here.Chris said:
I'm not assured of anything. I'm not advocating the policy. I'm just cautioning people against swallowing the wilder misrepresentations by Labour's opponents.ozymandias said:
Well if we dispense with income/assets considerations and ability to work / education or usefulness to the domestic economy what other criteria do you suggest? Aside from refugees/asylum seekers which we're not talking about here.Chris said:
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for:Byronic said:
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.Chris said:
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."Byronic said:And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
Willingness to vote for Labour perhaps? Swearing an oath to Dear Leader?
Here's a thing. Why don't Labour kite-fly this policy if you're so assured of its inherent virtue. Put up say twenty or thirty billboards in and around Stoke. "Labour promise to give benefits to EVERY immigrant". Or put it on the side of a bus perhaps and drive it through Sunderland. See what happens.0 -
Perhaps their strategy is to propose such extremely mental policies that when the real ones come out they will seem moderate by comparison?Byronic said:
Here's the new policy in full,Chris said:
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for:Byronic said:
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.Chris said:
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."Byronic said:And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
In its next manifesto, Labour will commit to:
Oppose the current Tory immigration legislation and any curbing of rights.
Campaign for free movement, equality and rights for migrants.
Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets.
Close all detention centres.
Ensure unconditional right to family reunion.
Maintain and extend free movement rights.
End “no recourse to public funds” policies.
Scrap all Hostile Environment measures, use of landlords and public service providers as border guards, and restrictions on migrants’ NHS access.
Actively challenge anti-immigrant narratives.
Extend equal rights to vote to all UK residents
Good luck.0 -
I know that Brexit has challenged many of our previous assumptions about politics but the idea that being appointed PM is "an absolute hammer blow" for a LOTO is not easy to grasp.CaptainBuzzkill said:
Cabinet members were obviously reading PB this morning.MarqueeMark said:
He shouldn't go for a tactcal resignation. He should instead go for a VONC and instruct his MPs to vote against. Defy the MPs to either vote they have confidence in him - and how much of a laugh would that be? Or else defy the House to find somebody to head up the Remainer Coup.
Johnson resigning the government and handing over responsibility for requesting A50 extension to Corbyn would be an absolute hammer blow to Labour.
Not that they will need finishing off by the look of their latest policies.0 -
You watch the howls of outrage if the government resigns before 31/10.anothernick said:
I wonder if anyone can cite an example of a successful "tactical resignation" by any previous government?
Tactical desperation seems a more appropriate description.
0 -
Adam Schiff said yesterday that the whistleblower wasn't complaing about Trump asking for dirt, but about Trump inviting the fabrication of dirt to harm Biden in return for military aid. i.e. Please do to Biden in 2020, what the Russians did to Clinton in 2016, except in the 2016 case it was going to be for sanctions being weakened or removed.Alistair said:Read some interesting things about the Trump Ukraine transcript. Mostly that it is not a verbatim copy of the conversation.
The real meat is the whistle-blower complaint.
Also Guiliani seem to be admitting to crimes all over the shop.0 -
If you fully quoted what I wrote it would be very clear.anothernick said:
I know that Brexit has challenged many of our previous assumptions about politics but the idea that being appointed PM is "an absolute hammer blow" for a LOTO is not easy to grasp.0 -
well maybe but La Thunberg is taking a number of countries to courtPulpstar said:
France is one of the greenest developed nations in the world, 4.57 metric tonnes of CO2 per person - their love of nuclear power practically guarantees a decent CO2 footprint.Alanbrooke said:So anyway.
Greta Grump is suing France for not taking climate change seriously
but not China or the USA.
73% nuclear, 18% renewables !
http://madame.lefigaro.fr/societe/iris-duquesne-la-bordelaise-de-16-ans-qui-porte-plainte-contre-la-france-avec-greta-thunberg-250919-167191
yet weirdly not the worlds two largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.0 -
President helps investigate potential criminal activity.
Is that illegal now ?0 -
-
I wonder if Labour are too emotionally invested in this new policy, to go back now. Twitter lefties are absolutely exulting in it. It will be very difficult to row back.noneoftheabove said:
It is a ridiculous policy and should be called out and never heard of again. Just because the people shouting the loudest about it are wrong on other matters doesnt mean they are not right here.Chris said:
I'm not assured of anything. I'm not advocating the policy. I'm just cautioning people against swallowing the wilder misrepresentations by Labour's opponents.ozymandias said:
Well if we dispense with income/assets considerations and ability to work / education or usefulness to the domestic economy what other criteria do you suggest? Aside from refugees/asylum seekers which we're not talking about here.Chris said:
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for:Byronic said:
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.Chris said:
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."Byronic said:And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
Willingness to vote for Labour perhaps? Swearing an oath to Dear Leader?
Here's a thing. Why don't Labour kite-fly this policy if you're so assured of its inherent virtue. Put up say twenty or thirty billboards in and around Stoke. "Labour promise to give benefits to EVERY immigrant". Or put it on the side of a bus perhaps and drive it through Sunderland. See what happens.
And this is an absolutely impossible policy to sell on the doorstep. Labour have surrendered their last slender chance of winning the election.0 -
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.Alanbrooke said:yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
0 -
yes we know about Bill, but what about Trump?Scott_P said:2 -
Can you cite an example of "tactical resignation" being successful anywhere at any time?CaptainBuzzkill said:
You watch the howls of outrage if the government resigns before 31/10.anothernick said:
I wonder if anyone can cite an example of a successful "tactical resignation" by any previous government?
Tactical desperation seems a more appropriate description.0 -
Oh, I am skewered by your rapier wit. Perhaps not. Please do expand. I am intrigued at the inner workings of the UKIPer/Faragist mind.isam said:
I think you are a something with the initials CC, I won’t expandNigel_Foremain said:
I think you were asked to. My guess, if you need some help, is that in the constituencies he tried he was seen for what he is: A narcissistic toff acting the part of a spiv at best or at worst, a nasty xenophobic crypto-fascist. Which side of his personality most appeals to you?isam said:
Have a thinkGardenwalker said:
Do expand.isam said:
The ‘Farage failed to get elected 7 times’ meme is so disingenuous, without context, that it frames whoever tries to use it as either wilfully ignorant or a complete imbecileGardenwalker said:
Farage is good strategist, a mediocre tactician, and appalling at execution.Yellow_Submarine said:
Indeed. This is about levelling the killing field. When Boris turns into a Pumpkin at 11pm on Hallowe'en and becomes just another politican Farage's early spade work on a " I told you so " narrative will pay off. Farage has absolutely nothing to gain by helping Johnson as Johnson's positioning and persona are his biggest strategic competitor.Richard_Nabavi said:
Farage is simply thinking one step ahead, to after October 31st when Boris will be a busted flush with all those naïfs who still think Boris is going to deliver his pledge.kle4 said:
Farage only need some to come with him and in so doing sink Boris and brexit. I think he will oblige and enough will go with him.TGOHF2 said:More on Farage foul up
https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/1176844933719822337?s=21
Hence, he “won” Brexit but still can’t get elected to Parliament at the umpteenth time of trying.
Nabavi’s analysis is correct. Farage is fattening his pig for market.0 -
Ensure unconditional right to family reunion. Extend equal rights to vote to all UK residentsByronic said:
Here's the new policy in full,Chris said:
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for:Byronic said:
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.Chris said:
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."Byronic said:And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
In its next manifesto, Labour will commit to:
Oppose the current Tory immigration legislation and any curbing of rights.
Campaign for free movement, equality and rights for migrants.
Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets.
Close all detention centres.
Ensure unconditional right to family reunion.
Maintain and extend free movement rights.
End “no recourse to public funds” policies.
Scrap all Hostile Environment measures, use of landlords and public service providers as border guards, and restrictions on migrants’ NHS access.
Actively challenge anti-immigrant narratives.
Extend equal rights to vote to all UK residents
Good luck.
That embraces the world - none of the others matter0 -
Call me a cynic, but that isn't going to help.glw said:
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.Alanbrooke said:yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
0 -
-
USA, Russia, China, Germany, Saudi Arabia would probably be the correct 5 to sue if one must.Alanbrooke said:
well maybe but La Thunberg is taking a number of countries to courtPulpstar said:
France is one of the greenest developed nations in the world, 4.57 metric tonnes of CO2 per person - their love of nuclear power practically guarantees a decent CO2 footprint.Alanbrooke said:So anyway.
Greta Grump is suing France for not taking climate change seriously
but not China or the USA.
73% nuclear, 18% renewables !
http://madame.lefigaro.fr/societe/iris-duquesne-la-bordelaise-de-16-ans-qui-porte-plainte-contre-la-france-avec-greta-thunberg-250919-167191
yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.0 -
JRM looking mighty glum in HoC as Gove is making his statement.0
-
I don't think of myself as a "Marxist" or especially left wing, but I don't really see anything on that list that I disagree with outright. Some of it I would qualify or limit. But most of it is quite sensible in my opinion. I don't pretend that this will be a majority opinion on here or in the country, of course - putting this in the manifesto would be what Sir Humphrey would call "brave".Byronic said:
Here's the new policy in full,
In its next manifesto, Labour will commit to:
Oppose the current Tory immigration legislation and any curbing of rights.
Campaign for free movement, equality and rights for migrants.
Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets.
Close all detention centres.
Ensure unconditional right to family reunion.
Maintain and extend free movement rights.
End “no recourse to public funds” policies.
Scrap all Hostile Environment measures, use of landlords and public service providers as border guards, and restrictions on migrants’ NHS access.
Actively challenge anti-immigrant narratives.
Extend equal rights to vote to all UK residents
Good luck.0 -
Nor India, one of the fastest growing polluters either.Alanbrooke said:
well maybe but La Thunberg is taking a number of countries to courtPulpstar said:
France is one of the greenest developed nations in the world, 4.57 metric tonnes of CO2 per person - their love of nuclear power practically guarantees a decent CO2 footprint.Alanbrooke said:So anyway.
Greta Grump is suing France for not taking climate change seriously
but not China or the USA.
73% nuclear, 18% renewables !
http://madame.lefigaro.fr/societe/iris-duquesne-la-bordelaise-de-16-ans-qui-porte-plainte-contre-la-france-avec-greta-thunberg-250919-167191
yet weirdly not the worlds two largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
Absolute state of that speech yesterday. Dear God. It's spawned many comic moments on twitter so it was good for something. Action has to be taken and it has been taken and is being taken but this is a form of extremism in climate terms. Labour talking of adopting zero emissions by 2030. How. Its nigh on impossible.0 -
Not a good look for Barr, I'd have thought.Scott_P said:0 -
The Gauleiter of Paris has enough issues on his plate at the moment,.Pulpstar said:
France is one of the greenest developed nations in the world, 4.57 metric tonnes of CO2 per person - their love of nuclear power practically guarantees a decent CO2 footprint.Alanbrooke said:So anyway.
Greta Grump is suing France for not taking climate change seriously
but not China or the USA.
73% nuclear, 18% renewables !
I can understand Macron hitting the roof at this one.0 -
On that basis Turkey is a weird one. Canada has a horrendous per person footprint and a PM desperate to be liked.RobD said:
Call me a cynic, but that isn't going to help.glw said:
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.Alanbrooke said:yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
0 -
I'm almost convinced - but since prorogation is a prerogative power, ie the legal fiction is that it is the Monarch instructing Parliamentarians to shut up shop and go away for a bit, then it isn't quite a matter of Parliament regulating itself.DavidL said:
I am not trying to defend what Boris did. I criticised it from the moment it was announced. But I respectfully disagree with your last sentence. The point of having a Supreme Parliament is that it regulates itself according to the membership at the time. The only restriction is the laws already passed and not repealed so, for example, if a majority decided to sit on for 10 years without an election the courts could uphold the laws that Parliament has passed and require an election. The courts are not there to act as nannies for incompetent MPs would couldn't organise themselves out of the proverbial paper bag.OblitusSumMe said:
I have some sympathy with this argument. I'm glad, for example, that abortion law was changed in the UK in the 60s by a Parliamentary vote, than because of a changing interpretation of a 200 year old constitution.DavidL said:I think that the Supreme Court decision has politicised the SC but its not really about Brexit. The problem, so brilliantly discussed by Lord Sumption in his Reith lectures this year, is that the modern judiciary can never see an issue which they think is not a legal issue. The result is that matters that are not legal issues at all get reclassified and a judicial determination is then undertaken.
This does not give politics or indeed civil society its proper role...
In the present example I cannot agree.
... ...
It might have been preferable for Parliament to have prevented the prorogation by replacing the PM, but the Courts must be able to protect Parliament when a majority of MPs are not willing to take that action.
It's more the Judiciary intervening between the Monarch and the Legislature, although by the means of reviewing the advice to the Monarch, rather than the actions of the Monarch.
After all, Parliament cannot regulate itself if it isn't allowed to sit.0 -
Oh ffs, you are not trying to defend him?TGOHF2 said:President helps investigate potential criminal activity.
Is that illegal now ?0 -
Sheerman having an utter car crash on Sky.
Burley: Why don't you vote to have a General Election?
Sheerman: Turkeys don't vote for Christmas
I had to rewind it lol.
2 -
Which, of course, was one of the points made explicitly in the judgment.OblitusSumMe said:
I'm almost convinced - but since prorogation is a prerogative power, ie the legal fiction is that it is the Monarch instructing Parliamentarians to shut up shop and go away for a bit, then it isn't quite a matter of Parliament regulating itself.DavidL said:
I am not trying to defend what Boris did. I criticised it from the moment it was announced. But I respectfully disagree with your last sentence. The point of having a Supreme Parliament is that it regulates itself according to the membership at the time. The only restriction is the laws already passed and not repealed so, for example, if a majority decided to sit on for 10 years without an election the courts could uphold the laws that Parliament has passed and require an election. The courts are not there to act as nannies for incompetent MPs would couldn't organise themselves out of the proverbial paper bag.OblitusSumMe said:
I have some sympathy with this argument. I'm glad, for example, that abortion law was changed in the UK in the 60s by a Parliamentary vote, than because of a changing interpretation of a 200 year old constitution.DavidL said:I think that the Supreme Court decision has politicised the SC but its not really about Brexit. The problem, so brilliantly discussed by Lord Sumption in his Reith lectures this year, is that the modern judiciary can never see an issue which they think is not a legal issue. The result is that matters that are not legal issues at all get reclassified and a judicial determination is then undertaken.
This does not give politics or indeed civil society its proper role...
In the present example I cannot agree.
... ...
It might have been preferable for Parliament to have prevented the prorogation by replacing the PM, but the Courts must be able to protect Parliament when a majority of MPs are not willing to take that action.
It's more the Judiciary intervening between the Monarch and the Legislature, although by the means of reviewing the advice to the Monarch, rather than the actions of the Monarch.
After all, Parliament cannot regulate itself if it isn't allowed to sit.0 -
or maybe she could go to school and do maths. That way she might grasp that suing a country which annually produces as much Co2 as China does in a week or the US in a fortnight is ignoring where the problem lies.glw said:
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.Alanbrooke said:yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
0 -
India should probably replace Russia but its a close callPulpstar said:
USA, Russia, China, Germany, Saudi Arabia would probably be the correct 5 to sue if one must.Alanbrooke said:
well maybe but La Thunberg is taking a number of countries to courtPulpstar said:
France is one of the greenest developed nations in the world, 4.57 metric tonnes of CO2 per person - their love of nuclear power practically guarantees a decent CO2 footprint.Alanbrooke said:So anyway.
Greta Grump is suing France for not taking climate change seriously
but not China or the USA.
73% nuclear, 18% renewables !
http://madame.lefigaro.fr/societe/iris-duquesne-la-bordelaise-de-16-ans-qui-porte-plainte-contre-la-france-avec-greta-thunberg-250919-167191
yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.0 -
More countries in this world have PR than FPTP. They survive and thrive.MarqueeMark said:
Such is the nature of no party winning a majority.surbiton19 said:
Is that the one in which he said this Parliament was dead. It was only elected 2 years ago.Brom said:Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
What a great advert these past months have been for PR. Not.
0 -
That's a poor argument, the only way to solve the problem is to get all countries to act. Ideally the worst offenders would be taking action, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the likes of France or ourselves just because there are bigger CO2 emitters.Alanbrooke said:
or maybe she could go to school and do maths. That way she might grasp that suing a country which annually produces as much Co2 as China does in a week or the US in a fortnight is ignoring where the problem lies.glw said:
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.Alanbrooke said:yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
0 -
on 35% of the voteMarqueeMark said:
He will be - when he gets his stonking majority.....eek said:
What a great advert Boris is for FPTP...MarqueeMark said:
Such is the nature of no party winning a majority.surbiton19 said:
Is that the one in which he said this Parliament was dead. It was only elected 2 years ago.Brom said:Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
What a great advert these past months have been for PR. Not.0 -
I've backed all the possible horses in this race* so it's not my pocket talking but if Trump manages to convince the Democrat base to elect Warren over Biden then it's half the job done in terms of re-election.
*Some more than others
1 -
We live in interesting timesCaptainBuzzkill said:
You watch the howls of outrage if the government resigns before 31/10.anothernick said:
I wonder if anyone can cite an example of a successful "tactical resignation" by any previous government?
Tactical desperation seems a more appropriate description.
0 -
Going after France suggests nothing will ever be good enough for Thunberg. It's a model country wrt CO2 emissions.glw said:
That's a poor argument, the only way to solve the problem is to get all countries to act. Ideally the worst offenders would be taking action, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the likes of France or ourselves just because there are bigger CO2 emitters.Alanbrooke said:
or maybe she could go to school and do maths. That way she might grasp that suing a country which annually produces as much Co2 as China does in a week or the US in a fortnight is ignoring where the problem lies.glw said:
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.Alanbrooke said:yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
0 -
Amen to that last line.Byronic said:
The worst of it is that dear Nigel Foremain thinks he is a model of restraint, and he constantly upbraids others for their abuse and hostility. Yet he is one of the most demented and vituperative commenters on the site.Wulfrun_Phil said:
I am asking myself why the fuck should I continue posting here when the likes of you inhabit this site. There are people of opposing views that you can have a reasoned debate with. Then there is the likes of you and your gratuitous insults. Christ knows this site is not the place it once was.Nigel_Foremain said:
To state you have to be very dim indeed to believe no-deal is a legitimate course of action is a very polite English understatement. Thick as pigshit would still be understating it.Gardenwalker said:
The truth hurts sometimes.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Might you consider engaging in debate here without insulting people whose comments you disagree with?Gardenwalker said:
Sorry.
Only the very dim think No Deal is a legitimate “course of action”.
Brexit: sending everyone mad since June 2016. Thanks Dave,
Speaking personally I'll forgive more or less any viewpoint and quite a lot of personal abuse so long as it is interesting or amusing. Repetitive monomaniacs are bad news even when I agree with them.0 -
What about the rational explanation, that all the serious labour members at conference left yesterday because of the change in schedule caused by the SC. The fact that it was approved at conference, does not mean that it will be a policy in the GE manifesto.Byronic said:
That is certainly one rational explanation. The others are even scarier.SouthamObserver said:
This week has told us very clearly is that Labour does not believe it can win the next election. It has been all about keeping the base on board with the Corbyn project after the inevitable defeat.Byronic said:
There is, apparently, a chance it will be killed before it makes the manifesto. I suspect they will do that... but with Corbyn's Labour, who knows.CaptainBuzzkill said:If all the other parties had spent 10 years trying to dream up something utterly destructive for Labour they could not have come up with this.
It is just insane and will lose them millions of votes.
https://twitter.com/labfreemvmt/status/1176809015893995520/photo/1
Even if they do kill it, much of the damage will have been done, as knowledge of this ripples out from Twitter into Facebook and the papers. Labour Want An Open Border.
I seem to remember Mr Blair being instrumental in breaking the hard connection between conference and Labour Party policy.0 -
No country is yet a model country. Nobody is cutting emissions sufficiently to keep us below a 2 degrees temperature rise.Pulpstar said:
Going after France suggests nothing will ever be good enough for Thunberg. It's a model country wrt CO2 emissions.glw said:
That's a poor argument, the only way to solve the problem is to get all countries to act. Ideally the worst offenders would be taking action, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the likes of France or ourselves just because there are bigger CO2 emitters.Alanbrooke said:
or maybe she could go to school and do maths. That way she might grasp that suing a country which annually produces as much Co2 as China does in a week or the US in a fortnight is ignoring where the problem lies.glw said:
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.Alanbrooke said:yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
0 -
yes and I want to lose weight quickly, so Ive cut out lettuce but I still drink 15 pints each night. I have to start somewhere.glw said:
That's a poor argument, the only way to solve the problem is to get all countries to act. Ideally the worst offenders would be taking action, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the likes of France or ourselves just because there are bigger CO2 emitters.Alanbrooke said:
or maybe she could go to school and do maths. That way she might grasp that suing a country which annually produces as much Co2 as China does in a week or the US in a fortnight is ignoring where the problem lies.glw said:
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.Alanbrooke said:yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
0 -
"Ensure unconditional right to family reunion."OnlyLivingBoy said:
I don't think of myself as a "Marxist" or especially left wing, but I don't really see anything on that list that I disagree with outright. Some of it I would qualify or limit. But most of it is quite sensible in my opinion. I don't pretend that this will be a majority opinion on here or in the country, of course - putting this in the manifesto would be what Sir Humphrey would call "brave".Byronic said:
Here's the new policy in full,
In its next manifesto, Labour will commit to:
Oppose the current Tory immigration legislation and any curbing of rights.
Campaign for free movement, equality and rights for migrants.
Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets.
Close all detention centres.
Ensure unconditional right to family reunion.
Maintain and extend free movement rights.
End “no recourse to public funds” policies.
Scrap all Hostile Environment measures, use of landlords and public service providers as border guards, and restrictions on migrants’ NHS access.
Actively challenge anti-immigrant narratives.
Extend equal rights to vote to all UK residents
Good luck.
So no conditions (qualifications or limits) on what family means, I could say the whole world is my family and therefore they have the right to come here.
Conditions have to be set. Yes if you qualify and limit their intentions you can get to a sensible policy, which is what governments try and do. The exact limits, conditions and qualifications are what need to be debated.
Using the world unconditional abandons that structure. It is folly.
0 -
Harsh. I am trying to lose weight you know.Chris said:
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for:Byronic said:
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.Chris said:
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."Byronic said:And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.0 -
You think that's strategically sensible?glw said:
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.Alanbrooke said:yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
0 -
Zing!isam said:
Their legendary modesty forbids them from mentioning they backed the field and laid the winnerDura_Ace said:
The Ludicrous Cox once enjoyed a brief period as the chosen one in pb.com tories' potential leader speed dating.Brom said:Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
0 -
Keir Starmer skewering the government right now.0
-
In July 1911 Asquith was shouted down by Tory MPs to the extent that he was unable to proceed. The Speaker suspended the Sitting.
Perhaps the time has arrived for Opposition MPs to return that favour to a Tory PM - who far more deserves such treatment than Asquith ever did.0 -
-
What metric tonnage of CO2 per person per year do we need to aim for ?Gabs2 said:
No country is yet a model country. Nobody is cutting emissions sufficiently to keep us below a 2 degrees temperature rise.Pulpstar said:
Going after France suggests nothing will ever be good enough for Thunberg. It's a model country wrt CO2 emissions.glw said:
That's a poor argument, the only way to solve the problem is to get all countries to act. Ideally the worst offenders would be taking action, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the likes of France or ourselves just because there are bigger CO2 emitters.Alanbrooke said:
or maybe she could go to school and do maths. That way she might grasp that suing a country which annually produces as much Co2 as China does in a week or the US in a fortnight is ignoring where the problem lies.glw said:
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.Alanbrooke said:yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
0 -
Their chance of winning the next election outright is the same as it has always been. Close to 0 under Corbyn, very likely under most moderate alternatives.Byronic said:
I wonder if Labour are too emotionally invested in this new policy, to go back now. Twitter lefties are absolutely exulting in it. It will be very difficult to row back.noneoftheabove said:
It is a ridiculous policy and should be called out and never heard of again. Just because the people shouting the loudest about it are wrong on other matters doesnt mean they are not right here.Chris said:
I'm not assured of anything. I'm not advocating the policy. I'm just cautioning people against swallowing the wilder misrepresentations by Labour's opponents.ozymandias said:
Well if we dispense with income/assets considerations and ability to work / education or usefulness to the domestic economy what other criteria do you suggest? Aside from refugees/asylum seekers which we're not talking about here.Chris said:
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for:Byronic said:
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.Chris said:
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.Byronic said:And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
Willingness to vote for Labour perhaps? Swearing an oath to Dear Leader?
Here's a thing. Why don't Labour kite-fly this policy if you're so assured of its inherent virtue. Put up say twenty or thirty billboards in and around Stoke. "Labour promise to give benefits to EVERY immigrant". Or put it on the side of a bus perhaps and drive it through Sunderland. See what happens.
And this is an absolutely impossible policy to sell on the doorstep. Labour have surrendered their last slender chance of winning the election.0 -
All the modern left has is shouting, so why not?justin124 said:In July 1911 Asquith was shouted down by Tory MPs to the extent that he was unable to proceed. The Speaker suspended the Sitting.
Perhaps the time has arrived for Opposition MPs to return that favour to a Tory PM - who far more deserves such treatment than Asquith ever did.0 -
Well, it's factual. Turkeys don't even have a vote, yetCaptainBuzzkill said:Sheerman having an utter car crash on Sky.
Burley: Why don't you vote to have a General Election?
Sheerman: Turkeys don't vote for Christmas
I had to rewind it lol.0 -
China has more of a pass on CO2 than the USA, unless you think 5 chinese people only deserve the same amount of energy budget as one American. But its coal output is horrific still, so it doesn't deserve the pass it might otherwise get due to its huge population.
Interestingly the one (Now two ?) child policy has done the world a massive favour in terms of CO2 emissions.
0 -
To any question about why parliament (or Labour or whoever) won’t agree to an election, the response is simply:
“why won’t Boris agree a deal with the EU? He promised us this would happen by October 31 and now he wants to have a general election instead.”0 -
It emits more than zero, so, yes, it's not good enough.Pulpstar said:
Going after France suggests nothing will ever be good enough for Thunberg. It's a model country wrt CO2 emissions.glw said:
That's a poor argument, the only way to solve the problem is to get all countries to act. Ideally the worst offenders would be taking action, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the likes of France or ourselves just because there are bigger CO2 emitters.Alanbrooke said:
or maybe she could go to school and do maths. That way she might grasp that suing a country which annually produces as much Co2 as China does in a week or the US in a fortnight is ignoring where the problem lies.glw said:
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.Alanbrooke said:yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
0 -
Check Labour's conference resolutions amall print.....ReggieCide said:
Well, it's factual. Turkeys don't even have a vote, yetCaptainBuzzkill said:Sheerman having an utter car crash on Sky.
Burley: Why don't you vote to have a General Election?
Sheerman: Turkeys don't vote for Christmas
I had to rewind it lol.0 -
Combined with rerunning the referendum, it will be tought in their traditional working class areas.Byronic said:
I wonder if Labour are too emotionally invested in this new policy, to go back now. Twitter lefties are absolutely exulting in it. It will be very difficult to row back.noneoftheabove said:
It is a ridiculous policy and should be called out and never heard of again. Just because the people shouting the loudest about it are wrong on other matters doesnt mean they are not right here.Chris said:
I'm not assured of anything. I'm not advocating the policy. I'm just cautioning people against swallowing the wilder misrepresentations by Labour's opponents.ozymandias said:
Well if we dispense with income/assets considerations and ability to work / education or usefulness to the domestic economy what other criteria do you suggest? Aside from refugees/asylum seekers which we're not talking about here.Chris said:
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for:Byronic said:
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.Chris said:
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."Byronic said:And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
Willingness to vote for Labour perhaps? Swearing an oath to Dear Leader?
Here's a thing. Why don't Labour kite-fly this policy if you're so assured of its inherent virtue. Put up say twenty or thirty billboards in and around Stoke. "Labour promise to give benefits to EVERY immigrant". Or put it on the side of a bus perhaps and drive it through Sunderland. See what happens.
And this is an absolutely impossible policy to sell on the doorstep. Labour have surrendered their last slender chance of winning the election.0 -
I think that's a weird interpretation of what Labour are proposing. What I took it to mean is that families, defined as immediate family relations, should have an unconditional right to be united, rather than making it dependent on income thresholds as it is now. I believe in the family as the basic building block of society so I support that. Kids shouldn't grow up only knowing their mother or father via Skype.noneoftheabove said:
"Ensure unconditional right to family reunion."OnlyLivingBoy said:
I don't think of myself as a "Marxist" or especially left wing, but I don't really see anything on that list that I disagree with outright. Some of it I would qualify or limit. But most of it is quite sensible in my opinion. I don't pretend that this will be a majority opinion on here or in the country, of course - putting this in the manifesto would be what Sir Humphrey would call "brave".Byronic said:
Here's the new policy in full,
In its next manifesto, Labour will commit to:
Oppose the current Tory immigration legislation and any curbing of rights.
Campaign for free movement, equality and rights for migrants.
Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets.
Close all detention centres.
Ensure unconditional right to family reunion.
Maintain and extend free movement rights.
End “no recourse to public funds” policies.
Scrap all Hostile Environment measures, use of landlords and public service providers as border guards, and restrictions on migrants’ NHS access.
Actively challenge anti-immigrant narratives.
Extend equal rights to vote to all UK residents
Good luck.
So no conditions (qualifications or limits) on what family means, I could say the whole world is my family and therefore they have the right to come here.
Conditions have to be set. Yes if you qualify and limit their intentions you can get to a sensible policy, which is what governments try and do. The exact limits, conditions and qualifications are what need to be debated.
Using the world unconditional abandons that structure. It is folly.0 -
well so you saynoneoftheabove said:
Their chance of winning the next election outrigrate alternatives.Byronic said:
I wonder if Labour are too emotionally invested in this new policy, to go back now. Twitter lefties are absolutely exulting in it. It will be very difficult to row back.noneoftheabove said:
It is a ridiculous policy and should be called out and never heard of again. Just because the people shouting the loudest about it are wrong on other matters doesnt mean they are not right here.Chris said:
I'm not assured of anything. I'm not advocating the policy. I'm just cautioning people against swallowing the wilder misrepresentations by Labour's opponents.ozymandias said:
Well if we dispense with income/assets considerations and ability to work / education or usefulness to the domestic economy what other criteria do you suggest? Aside from refugees/asylum seekers which we're not talking about here.Chris said:
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for:Byronic said:
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.Chris said:
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.Byronic said:And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
Willingness to vote for Labour perhaps? Swearing an oath to Dear Leader?
Here's a thing. Why don't Labour kite-fly th See what happens.
And this is an absolutely impossible policy to sell on the doorstep. Labour have surrendered their last slender chance of winning the election.
but Corbyn is simply avoiding Brexit and fighting on Bread and Butter issues. It may be contrarian but houses and jobs matter more to voters than arcane club rules. He may yet bypass the "sensible" politicans.0 -
Aren't Somalia, Burundi, Uganda, Rwanda, Niger, Mali, Malawi, Madagascar, Ethipoia, Congo, Chad, Central African Republic the only countries at net zero ?OblitusSumMe said:
It emits more than zero, so, yes, it's not good enough.Pulpstar said:
Going after France suggests nothing will ever be good enough for Thunberg. It's a model country wrt CO2 emissions.glw said:
That's a poor argument, the only way to solve the problem is to get all countries to act. Ideally the worst offenders would be taking action, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the likes of France or ourselves just because there are bigger CO2 emitters.Alanbrooke said:
or maybe she could go to school and do maths. That way she might grasp that suing a country which annually produces as much Co2 as China does in a week or the US in a fortnight is ignoring where the problem lies.glw said:
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.Alanbrooke said:yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
0 -
This isn't about who's included. It's about who's excluded.glw said:
That's a poor argument, the only way to solve the problem is to get all countries to act. Ideally the worst offenders would be taking action, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the likes of France or ourselves just because there are bigger CO2 emitters.Alanbrooke said:
or maybe she could go to school and do maths. That way she might grasp that suing a country which annually produces as much Co2 as China does in a week or the US in a fortnight is ignoring where the problem lies.glw said:
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.Alanbrooke said:yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
0 -
You can lose weight and still eat. We cannot restrict temperature rise if we continue to emit CO2 - so there's an important difference between the two scenarios.Alanbrooke said:
yes and I want to lose weight quickly, so Ive cut out lettuce but I still drink 15 pints each night. I have to start somewhere.glw said:
That's a poor argument, the only way to solve the problem is to get all countries to act. Ideally the worst offenders would be taking action, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the likes of France or ourselves just because there are bigger CO2 emitters.Alanbrooke said:
or maybe she could go to school and do maths. That way she might grasp that suing a country which annually produces as much Co2 as China does in a week or the US in a fortnight is ignoring where the problem lies.glw said:
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.Alanbrooke said:yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
0 -
It did not work out well for Arthur J Balfour in December 1905 when his Tory Government resigned. The Liberals won a landslide at the January 1906 election.anothernick said:
I wonder if anyone can cite an example of a successful "tactical resignation" by any previous government?Scott_P said:
Tactical desperation seems a more appropriate description.0
