politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » To add to BoJo’s woes it’s Corbyn not the PM who’ll decide whe

surbiton19 said:

MarqueeMark said:

surbiton19 said:

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.

Is that the one in which he said this Parliament was dead. It was only elected 2 years ago.

Such is the nature of no party winning a majority.

What a great advert these past months have been for PR. Not.

More countries in this world have PR than FPTP. They survive and thrive.

Alanbrooke said:

glw said:

Alanbrooke said:

glw said:

Alanbrooke said:

yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Recidivist said:

Byronic said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Gardenwalker said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Gardenwalker said:

Sorry.

Only the very dim think No Deal is a legitimate “course of action”.

Might you consider engaging in debate here without insulting people whose comments you disagree with?

The truth hurts sometimes.

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.

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.

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.

Brexit: sending everyone mad since June 2016. Thanks Dave,

Amen to that last line.

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.

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.

And this is an absolutely impossible policy to sell on the doorstep. Labour have surrendered their last slender chance of winning the election.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1176859350402568193

Not a good look for Barr, I'd have thought.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

noneoftheabove said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

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.

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".

"Ensure unconditional right to family reunion."

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.

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.

OblitusSumMe said:

Alanbrooke said:

glw said:

Alanbrooke said:

glw said:

Alanbrooke said:

yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

Pulpstar said:

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.

The way to cut Chinas emissions is to stop buying stuff from China its the only direct way westerners can influence it.

Alanbrooke said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Alanbrooke said:

glw said:

Alanbrooke said:

glw said:

Alanbrooke said:

yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.

UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.

so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Alanbrooke said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

The way to cut Chinas emissions is to stop buying stuff from China its the only direct way westerners can influence it.

Mr Thicky will be all in favour of increasing our imports of medical products from there. They have absolutely no regard or understanding of patent infringement either

MarqueeMark said:

noneoftheabove said:

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.

Again, this is why Cummings HAD to ensure that the Labour Conference went ahead. He almost certianly knew that prorogation would be challenged by Gina Miller et al. He almost certainly expected the Supreme Court to reject it. The only surprise he will have got recently is the Queen's Bench supporting it. Probably a wry smile at that - it allows the "even the judges can't agree amongst themselves" line to be run - a bonus.

But the shit Boris is enduring now was deemed essential to prevent Labour cottoning on to the idea that they could get on their high horse and cancel their conference - "because the Brexit crisis demands we sit". And what we have seen from Labour this week isn't just gold - it is diamond-set platinum for the inevitable upcoming election.

You people aren't remotely cynical enough about how this all works.

OllyT said:

MarqueeMark said:

eek said:

MarqueeMark said:

surbiton19 said:

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.

Is that the one in which he said this Parliament was dead. It was only elected 2 years ago.

Such is the nature of no party winning a majority.

What a great advert these past months have been for PR. Not.

What a great advert Boris is for FPTP...

He will be - when he gets his stonking majority.....

on 35% of the vote

blueblue said:

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.

All the modern left has is shouting, so why not?

Pulpstar said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Pulpstar said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Pulpstar said:

glw said:

Alanbrooke said:

glw said:

Alanbrooke said:

yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.

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.

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.

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.

Going after France suggests nothing will ever be good enough for Thunberg. It's a model country wrt CO2 emissions.

It emits more than zero, so, yes, it's not good enough.

Aren't Somalia, Burundi, Uganda, Rwanda, Niger, Mali, Malawi, Madagascar, Ethipoia, Congo, Chad, Central African Republic the only countries at net zero ?

I don't know, but possible. This might be why people concerned about this issue are really concerned and believe that we need to deal with it with more urgency.

CO2 emissions currently seem highly, highly correlated with living standards. The USA is an obvious high side outlier and France likely a low side outlier.

What can we actually do that won't cripple our living standards beyond moving to a pretty much total renewable economy (France) and electric cars ?

Pulpstar said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Pulpstar said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Pulpstar said:

glw said:

Alanbrooke said:

glw said:

Alanbrooke said:

yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.

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.

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.

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.

Going after France suggests nothing will ever be good enough for Thunberg. It's a model country wrt CO2 emissions.

It emits more than zero, so, yes, it's not good enough.

Aren't Somalia, Burundi, Uganda, Rwanda, Niger, Mali, Malawi, Madagascar, Ethipoia, Congo, Chad, Central African Republic the only countries at net zero ?

I don't know, but possible. This might be why people concerned about this issue are really concerned and believe that we need to deal with it with more urgency.

CO2 emissions currently seem highly, highly correlated with living standards. The USA is an obvious high side outlier and France likely a low side outlier.

What can we actually do that won't cripple our living standards beyond moving to a pretty much total renewable economy (France) and electric cars ?

Alanbrooke said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Alanbrooke said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

The way to cut Chinas emissions is to stop buying stuff from China its the only direct way westerners can influence it.

Mr Thicky will be all in favour of increasing our imports of medical products from there. They have absolutely no regard or understanding of patent infringement either

Is that the Mr Thicky who is outwitting all the folk from Oxford with pointy heads and earnest thoughts ?

Gabs2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

noneoftheabove said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

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.

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".

"Ensure unconditional right to family reunion."

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.

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.

There is surely a sensible middle ground between kicking out parents raising kids in the UK (Tory policy) and not having restrictions on arranged tribal marriages of middle aged men to teenage brides to get them in the country (Labour policy).

Morris_Dancer said:

Will Trump be impeached?

It'd require Republican senators to go along with it, no?

anothernick said:

CaptainBuzzkill said:

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.

Cabinet members were obviously reading PB this morning.

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.

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.

DecrepitJohnL said:

blueblue said:

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.

All the modern left has is shouting, so why not?

Shouting down opponents at PMQs was a Conservative innovation.

TOPPING said:

anothernick said:

CaptainBuzzkill said:

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.

Cabinet members were obviously reading PB this morning.

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.

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.

LOL exactly. Giving up government in favour of the opposition is somehow a strategic masterstroke.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Alanbrooke said:

Foxy said:

Alanbrooke said:

Pulpstar said:

Alanbrooke said:

So anyway.

Greta Grump is suing France for not taking climate change seriously

but not China or the USA.

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.

73% nuclear, 18% renewables !

well maybe but La Thunberg is taking a number of countries to court

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.

Greta's case is based on the UN Convention of rights of the Child, so she can only litigate against signatories.

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1176525238206640136?s=19

which simply shows the stupidity of vacuous virtue signalling

Yet she has done more than anyone else to raise this issue in the public mind around the world, so she must be doing something right.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Alanbrooke said:

Foxy said:

Alanbrooke said:

Pulpstar said:

Alanbrooke said:

So anyway.

Greta Grump is suing France for not taking climate change seriously

but not China or the USA.

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.

73% nuclear, 18% renewables !

well maybe but La Thunberg is taking a number of countries to court

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.

Greta's case is based on the UN Convention of rights of the Child, so she can only litigate against signatories.

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1176525238206640136?s=19

which simply shows the stupidity of vacuous virtue signalling

Yet she has done more than anyone else to raise this issue in the public mind around the world, so she must be doing something right.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Alanbrooke said:

Foxy said:

Alanbrooke said:

Pulpstar said:

Alanbrooke said:

So anyway.

Greta Grump is suing France for not taking climate change seriously

but not China or the USA.

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.

73% nuclear, 18% renewables !

well maybe but La Thunberg is taking a number of countries to court

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.

Greta's case is based on the UN Convention of rights of the Child, so she can only litigate against signatories.

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1176525238206640136?s=19

which simply shows the stupidity of vacuous virtue signalling

Yet she has done more than anyone else to raise this issue in the public mind around the world, so she must be doing something right.

Alanbrooke said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Alanbrooke said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Alanbrooke said:

glw said:

Alanbrooke said:

glw said:

Alanbrooke said:

yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.

UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.

so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.

But the UK can do very little about emissions in the US and China - so perhaps we should concentrate on putting our own house in order?

certainly but since we are a large importer of stuff we can also cut carbon emissions by buying less from high polluting countries. Lets start with crap made from plastics.

Scott_P said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Will Trump be impeached?

It'd require Republican senators to go along with it, no?

https://twitter.com/patdennis/status/1176871916809916417

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Alanbrooke said:

Foxy said:

Alanbrooke said:

Pulpstar said:

Alanbrooke said:

So anyway.

Greta Grump is suing France for not taking climate change seriously

but not China or the USA.

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.

73% nuclear, 18% renewables !

well maybe but La Thunberg is taking a number of countries to court

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.

Greta's case is based on the UN Convention of rights of the Child, so she can only litigate against signatories.

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1176525238206640136?s=19

which simply shows the stupidity of vacuous virtue signalling

Yet she has done more than anyone else to raise this issue in the public mind around the world, so she must be doing something right.

I agree with this she has captured the Zeitgeist. Whether people will be as willing to go along with it when they are restricted from driving/flying/heating their homes as they do currently we shall see.

ozymandias said:

Alanbrooke said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Alanbrooke said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Alanbrooke said:

glw said:

Alanbrooke said:

glw said:

Alanbrooke said:

yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.

UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.

so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.

But the UK can do very little about emissions in the US and China - so perhaps we should concentrate on putting our own house in order?

certainly but since we are a large importer of stuff we can also cut carbon emissions by buying less from high polluting countries. Lets start with crap made from plastics.

It’s obvious the future is fusion. Why not a fully coordinated global push to get it done. Pool all resources and knowledge in a scientific endeavour for all mankind.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

ReggieCide said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

noneoftheabove said:

Should that also apply to siblings? Grand parents? Cousins? Uncles & Aunts? Second Cousins? Should someone with six wives be able to bring them all to the UK? What about step brothers? Half sisters? Foster parents?

At some point a condition needs to be set. They may be difficult and uncomfortable decisions to have to make. Grown up politics is discussing what the limits should be, not calling for unconditional migration or no migration.

You will note that in my comments above I said that I would "qualify or limit" some of it. The examples you cite illustrate that setting those limits will be important. Generally I would limit it to parents, spouses and children. But I would allow flexibility and sensitivity, eg if your niece were orphaned she could join you in the UK so you could bring her up, subject to verification that it isn't a scam. My starting point is that the family is the building block of society and immigration policy should allow people to enjoy stable and happy family life, something it clearly fails to do now.

I bet you're good company

I'll always get my round in.

OblitusSumMe said:

Sean_F said:

Gallowgate said:

KentRising said:

Gallowgate said:

KentRising said:

Gallowgate said:

KentRising said:

CD13 said:

MPs rushing back to gaze at their navel. "What an impressive navel you are."

It's making Cox's job easy. "Put your money where your mouth is."

"No, we just want to sit and let the weeks go by. Oh, look, there goes some tumbleweed."

It is quite amusing watching some real venom from the opposition benches - Sheerman being just the latest - in recent weeks when their very parties refuse to trigger a general election.

You’ve refused a 2nd referendum. What’s your point?

'I' have done nothing.

The people made their decision, in 2016. It is not their fault politicians cannot.

The people made their decision, in 2017. It is not their fault politicians cannot.

Which is why there needs to be a GE to break the deadlock!

Which is why there needs to be a 2nd referendum against a specific Brexit settlement to break the deadlock!

The result would only be implemented if we voted to Remain

You could get around that by passing the relevant legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement with a clause stipulating that it would come into effect following confirmation in a referendum.

Then Parliament would not have to take any further action following the confirmatory referendum to implement the result.

I don't think this is a compromise that will fly, because I would expect Leavers like Farage to call for a boycott of such a referendum, and so the result would lack legitimacy.

Alanbrooke said:

Pulpstar said:

ozymandias said:

Alanbrooke said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Alanbrooke said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Alanbrooke said:

glw said:

Alanbrooke said:

glw said:

Alanbrooke said:

yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.

UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.

so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.

But the UK can do very little about emissions in the US and China - so perhaps we should concentrate on putting our own house in order?

certainly but since we are a large importer of stuff we can also cut carbon emissions by buying less from high polluting countries. Lets start with crap made from plastics.

It’s obvious the future is fusion. Why not a fully coordinated global push to get it done. Pool all resources and knowledge in a scientific endeavour for all mankind.

Near term for us it's massively expanding our wind sufficiently so we have enough on windy days to... export ! to France and buying nuclear off them (Our costs are horrendous so its a non starter or should be) during winter high pressure periods.

And tidal

Mays refusal to advance the technology was immensely short sighted

OblitusSumMe said:

Alanbrooke said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Alanbrooke said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Alanbrooke said:

glw said:

Alanbrooke said:

glw said:

Alanbrooke said:

yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.

UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.

so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.

But the UK can do very little about emissions in the US and China - so perhaps we should concentrate on putting our own house in order?

certainly but since we are a large importer of stuff we can also cut carbon emissions by buying less from high polluting countries. Lets start with crap made from plastics.

Well, yes, I'm in favour of that, but if we do more we can limit temperatures to a lower level and avoid some of the damaging changes to the climate that we will otherwise experience.

Pulpstar said:

@JosiasJessop Only a couple of days to go !

MarqueeMark said:

noneoftheabove said:

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.

Again, this is why Cummings HAD to ensure that the Labour Conference went ahead. He almost certianly knew that prorogation would be challenged by Gina Miller et al. He almost certainly expected the Supreme Court to reject it. The only surprise he will have got recently is the Queen's Bench supporting it. Probably a wry smile at that - it allows the "even the judges can't agree amongst themselves" line to be run - a bonus.

But the shit Boris is enduring now was deemed essential to prevent Labour cottoning on to the idea that they could get on their high horse and cancel their conference - "because the Brexit crisis demands we sit". And what we have seen from Labour this week isn't just gold - it is diamond-set platinum for the inevitable upcoming election.

You people aren't remotely cynical enough about how this all works.

Alanbrooke said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Alanbrooke said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Alanbrooke said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Alanbrooke said:

glw said:

Alanbrooke said:

glw said:

Alanbrooke said:

yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.

UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.

so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.

But the UK can do very little about emissions in the US and China - so perhaps we should concentrate on putting our own house in order?

certainly but since we are a large importer of stuff we can also cut carbon emissions by buying less from high polluting countries. Lets start with crap made from plastics.

Well, yes, I'm in favour of that, but if we do more we can limit temperatures to a lower level and avoid some of the damaging changes to the climate that we will otherwise experience.

Nothing the UK does will significantly impact. The problem lies elsewhere. And while yes we should be good citizens, beating ourselves up to no avail is simply a means of pissing people off.

Alanbrooke said:

Foxy said:

Alanbrooke said:

Pulpstar said:

Alanbrooke said:

So anyway.

Greta Grump is suing France for not taking climate change seriously

but not China or the USA.

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.

73% nuclear, 18% renewables !

well maybe but La Thunberg is taking a number of countries to court

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.

Greta's case is based on the UN Convention of rights of the Child, so she can only litigate against signatories.

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1176525238206640136?s=19

which simply shows the stupidity of vacuous virtue signalling

Pulpstar said:

Hinkley C costs going up and delayed shocker.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

noneoftheabove said:

Should that also apply to siblings? Grand parents? Cousins? Uncles & Aunts? Second Cousins? Should someone with six wives be able to bring them all to the UK? What about step brothers? Half sisters? Foster parents?

At some point a condition needs to be set. They may be difficult and uncomfortable decisions to have to make. Grown up politics is discussing what the limits should be, not calling for unconditional migration or no migration.

You will note that in my comments above I said that I would "qualify or limit" some of it. The examples you cite illustrate that setting those limits will be important. Generally I would limit it to parents, spouses and children. But I would allow flexibility and sensitivity, eg if your niece were orphaned she could join you in the UK so you could bring her up, subject to verification that it isn't a scam. My starting point is that the family is the building block of society and immigration policy should allow people to enjoy stable and happy family life, something it clearly fails to do now.

CatMan said:

Gove telling porkies in the chamber
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1176872497901445121?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1176872497901445121&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/25/boris-johnson-flies-to-uk-as-parliament-returns-after-court-ruling-politics-live

MarqueeMark said:

CatMan said:

Gove telling porkies in the chamber
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1176872497901445121?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1176872497901445121&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/25/boris-johnson-flies-to-uk-as-parliament-returns-after-court-ruling-politics-live

A lobby chief you say? Well, there's someone impartial - a guy who gets paid to say the sky will fall in.....

OblitusSumMe said:

timple said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Sean_F said:

Gallowgate said:

KentRising said:

Gallowgate said:

KentRising said:

Gallowgate said:

KentRising said:

CD13 said:

MPs rushing back to gaze at their navel. "What an impressive navel you are."

It's making Cox's job easy. "Put your money where your mouth is."

"No, we just want to sit and let the weeks go by. Oh, look, there goes some tumbleweed."

It is quite amusing watching some real venom from the opposition benches - Sheerman being just the latest - in recent weeks when their very parties refuse to trigger a general election.

You’ve refused a 2nd referendum. What’s your point?

'I' have done nothing.

The people made their decision, in 2016. It is not their fault politicians cannot.

The people made their decision, in 2017. It is not their fault politicians cannot.

Which is why there needs to be a GE to break the deadlock!

Which is why there needs to be a 2nd referendum against a specific Brexit settlement to break the deadlock!

The result would only be implemented if we voted to Remain

You could get around that by passing the relevant legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement with a clause stipulating that it would come into effect following confirmation in a referendum.

Then Parliament would not have to take any further action following the confirmatory referendum to implement the result.

I don't think this is a compromise that will fly, because I would expect Leavers like Farage to call for a boycott of such a referendum, and so the result would lack legitimacy.

Unless Farage gets his no-deal all outcomes will lead to him moaning. And when no-deal does actually turn out to be a mess - well that will be someone else's fault too. So Farage moaning and agitating is pretty much the only certain outcome.

This is certainly true but, for good or ill, politicians such as Farage and Tory members of the ERG have a following in this country, and so if a second referendum is won by 15 million votes to 10 million, because of a boycott by Leavers, rather than, say, 19 million to 14 million, because of a genuine change of view by a large slice of the electorate, then it will lack legitimacy and therefore do little to fix the mess we are in.

Gardenwalker said:

1
If the Govt resigns, there is a more than decent chance that the Remain Alliance *does* get it shit together, that it extends, and indeed that it concludes a deal.

However, I can’t see Boris concluding a Deal, and I can’t see him extending either per the Benn Act.

Therefore I think he *will* resign, at the last possible minute, resulting in a GONU.

2
Corbyn wants an election post October 31 with a humiliated Boris.

Ideally, he wants Boris to be the one extending, but this looks unlikely (see 1). Next best option is for someone - but perhaps not Corbyn - to extend, hence Corbyn should be increasingly open to a GONU.

Probably, he would prefer Clarke to Beckett to avoid the bizarre but not impossible idea that a Beckett premiership leads to split in the Labour Party.

Once extension is effected, I am torn as to whether Corbyn would prefer the GONU to negotiate a deal or not. I *think* Corbyn’s odds of electoral success go up post any deal, but not entirely sure. I also think they could get a deal passed, subject to a referendum.

Throughout, Corbyn’s support for a GONU would depend on Labour’s expected electoral fortune against the Tories (who can be expected to be rubbishing and voting against any Deal).

3
The Lib Dems sniff a chance at overtaking Labour.
They too would want a GONU, but it may be that their odds of overtaking Labour fall the longer a GONU continues and they are tarnished with its inevitable mis-steps.

Conclusion:

A GONU looks decently likely, although the stability of that arrangement will depend on when Corbyn and Swinson respectively think the best opportunity for an election is: before a Deal; after a Deal but before a referendum; or after both?

Gabs2 said:

For those wanting a break from Brexit and following the US, looks like Warren is becoming the front runner. She led the impeachment push, has overtaken Biden nationally, and is now ahead in California (which screws Harris).

My tips for vice-president:

- Pete Buttigieg
- Cory Booker
- Andrew Gillum

TrèsDifficile said:

Don't know if this has been shared here, just seen it on facebook and couldn't find any recent Joris references on a vanilla search..

Joris Bonson has a fan in Stoke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPqHH6LDpuM&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR3FMNcEg2JwtLglpMiQSdJWdazLENwwZbGdKGarbSZMquetQ4pMNdEoslA

Pulpstar said:

Gabs2 said:

For those wanting a break from Brexit and following the US, looks like Warren is becoming the front runner. She led the impeachment push, has overtaken Biden nationally, and is now ahead in California (which screws Harris).

My tips for vice-president:

- Pete Buttigieg
- Cory Booker
- Andrew Gillum

Ah, now the whole Biden angle is starting to make sense.

Smart move from Warren lol