Mr. Barnesian, maybe. If we end up having a second referendum with a Remain option then pro-EU types will 'win' with a 1-1 referendum draw.
But it would be more up to date and would pit Remain versus just ONE option for Leave. If that had been done in 2016 Remain would have won by a mile. Leave was interpreted as a whole spectrum of possibilities.
Not this one again. I am sorry it would not be one option. The wording is decided by the electoral commission and no deal would be integral to the fairness as commented by various constitutional experts
I really do want someone to provide a source to disprove this
I am content for a referendum post a remain HOC but the wording needs clarification before those who think it will be deal v remain are seriously let down
And many on here do not accept this, and I am willing to accept it is not the case when it has been proven beyond doubt
And before someone asks me for my sources they have been independent experts on the media over the last few weeks. And as an aside Dominic Grieve of all people and an ex Attorney General said it on the media in the last two weeks
Au contraire, I suspect that if we Revoke and then go forward with this or another hung Parliament that, apart from a few fanatics, the matter will slide into the background, where it was for 40+ years. I agree, though, that the present agreement is something with which the EU is 'happy'. After all, it protects the position of their threatened member (Ireland) and even gives that country a closer prospect of Reunion. What's not to like?
Sorry but this is just herds of Remainer unicorns. If you revoke you invite complete chaos. A massive increase in support for extremist parties and a fracturing of the existing parties. Brexit then stays as the foremost issue at every election for the foreseeable future and many people give up on democracy entirely and look for other means to achieve their aims.
It really is the very worst of any possible outcomes.
Give us what we want or we vote fascist! Anyone who makes that argument in earnest deserves to never get their way.
They will just as likely vote for extreme left wing parties. Anyway you are the last person to complain. It is already well established that you see democracy as nothing more than means to an end. Once again you only like democracy when you are winning.
What is "well-established" is that I see democracy as a process, not a frozen point in time. I've don't shy away from the view that we should remain in the EU through a referendum or an election. Last time I checked, those were part of the democratic process.
Not until you fulfil the instruction of the first referendum. Until then you are just making excuses and ignoring the democratic process.
There we go. Your view of democracy is that a fixed point in time is holy. That it binds us to future actions even if the majority no longer want it. Consent given cannot be revoked.
Consent given cannot be revoked. That's a rapist's charter.
Utter fucking bullshit from you. You really are a disgusting turd. Any argument you can make no matter how ludicrous to try and support your hatred of democracy. And all because you lost.
Yours is the truly fascist view that the democratic process is only there to help you achieve your aims and once it fails to do that it should be discarded. The view of tyrants and the sorts of scum that support them. You would clearly be happy in a black shirt.
Not at all - Revoke only happens IF the Liberal Democrats win a Parliamentary majority, that's all. Otherwise the Party line is to support a second referendum.
Mmm, but that's a subtle position which I don't think most people notice - for better or worse, people see them as a Revoke party. Arguably that's why they've slipped back a bit in the polls> People whose first choice is a referendum (and there are still a good many) find it only offered as a first choice by Labour. Which is somewhat ironical as we only came round to it gradually and the LibDems were there first before they moved on.
I think the LDs have probably lost a bit of support due to their support for Revoke without a referendum. Having said that, it may have improved their potential in target seats in areas like SW London and the Home Counties. The places where it's lost them support are most likely areas where they weren't going to win any seats.
What remains to be seen is whether the shift in support is of the right type. Different people with different views will also have different levels of motivation when it comes to delivering leaflets, canvassing, peopling phone banks, donating, and actually coming out to vote. I've not idea whether there will be a differential in there, but there could be. Getting the right people on board can help grow your vote.
Not at all - Revoke only happens IF the Liberal Democrats win a Parliamentary majority, that's all. Otherwise the Party line is to support a second referendum.
Mmm, but that's a subtle position which I don't think most people notice - for better or worse, people see them as a Revoke party. Arguably that's why they've slipped back a bit in the polls> People whose first choice is a referendum (and there are still a good many) find it only offered as a first choice by Labour. Which is somewhat ironical as we only came round to it gradually and the LibDems were there first before they moved on.
I think the LDs have probably lost a bit of support due to their support for Revoke without a referendum. Having said that, it may have improved their potential in target seats in areas like SW London and the Home Counties. The places where it's lost them support are most likely areas where they weren't going to win any seats.
What remains to be seen is whether the shift in support is of the right type. Different people with different views will also have different levels of motivation when it comes to delivering leaflets, canvassing, peopling phone banks, donating, and actually coming out to vote. I've not idea whether there will be a differential in there, but there could be. Getting the right people on board can help grow your vote.
Utter fucking bullshit from you. You really are a disgusting turd. Any argument you can make no matter how ludicrous to try and support your hatred of democracy. And all because you lost.
Yours is the truly fascist view that the democratic process is only there to help you achieve your aims and once it fails to do that it should be discarded. The view of tyrants and the sorts of scum that support them. You would clearly be happy in a black shirt.
U OK Hun?
You've stopped taking your anti-patronising pills, haven't you? You were told this would happen.....
That referendum was ruled to be invalid, so I'm not sure the comparison is valid (although there are probably others...)
That’s not quite true, The Referendum resulted in a petition to the British Parliament (which had passed the Australian Constitution initially) that was rejected as it had no support from the Australian Government. Theoretically our Parliament could have amended one of its own Acts but it had agreed, under the Statute of Westminster, not to do so in respect of any part of Australia without the consent of the Australian Government.
Utter fucking bullshit from you. You really are a disgusting turd. Any argument you can make no matter how ludicrous to try and support your hatred of democracy. And all because you lost.
Yours is the truly fascist view that the democratic process is only there to help you achieve your aims and once it fails to do that it should be discarded. The view of tyrants and the sorts of scum that support them. You would clearly be happy in a black shirt.
U OK Hun?
You've stopped taking your anti-patronising pills, haven't you? You were told this would happen.....
2000 of those 20MW all spinning at once would supply all the UK's electricity needs even at peak time.
If the wind is blowing. And if it isn't?
I think the wind is always blowing somewhere around the coast of the UK.
It doesn't have to be blowing somewhere, it has to be blowing where we have built these huge windmills.
I have been astonished at the rate that wind has become competitive and it appears that that trend can continue. If we can solve the storage problem it will be a major part of our future but we will always need a backup.
Natural gas is the best "stored energy". It's flexible. It has low capital costs, and low maintenance costs. It's massively more energy dense than batteries could ever be. It's extremely efficient. And it produces very little in the way of pollution.
Natural gas + wind + solar provides cheap, secure, clean electricity.
Coal and nuclear simply can't compete.
(The other thing worth noting is the next generation of solar roof tiles. If you have to replace your roof, and it's largely south facing, then in the next five years, it will be the right choice, even in the UK. They will become de rigeur for new housebuilds. And why not? It will dramatically reduce your annual energy bill for a small increase in the cost of construction.)
That referendum was ruled to be invalid, so I'm not sure the comparison is valid (although there are probably others...)
That’s not quite true, The Referendum resulted in a petition to the British Parliament (which had passed the Australian Constitution initially) that was rejected as it had no support from the Australian Government. Theoretically our Parliament could have amended one of its own Acts but it had agreed, under the Statute of Westminster, not to do so in respect of any part of Australia without the consent of the Australian Government.
I thought it was a requirement of the constitutional the time that the federal government gave consent?
Not at all - Revoke only happens IF the Liberal Democrats win a Parliamentary majority, that's all. Otherwise the Party line is to support a second referendum.
Mmm, but that's a subtle position which I don't think most people notice - for better or worse, people see them as a Revoke party. Arguably that's why they've slipped back a bit in the polls> People whose first choice is a referendum (and there are still a good many) find it only offered as a first choice by Labour. Which is somewhat ironical as we only came round to it gradually and the LibDems were there first before they moved on.
I think the LDs have probably lost a bit of support due to their support for Revoke without a referendum. Having said that, it may have improved their potential in target seats in areas like SW London and the Home Counties. The places where it's lost them support are most likely areas where they weren't going to win any seats.
I think it's aimed at the 65 or so seats which were 60+% Remain. If two thirds of the Remain voters in those seats are John McClean Remainers, then the LDs stand a good chance of producing upsets.
Interestingly, of course, quite a few of those seats are Labour. Could the surprise of the 2019 election be the LDs grabbing a few urban pro-EU seats from the Labour Party?
2000 of those 20MW all spinning at once would supply all the UK's electricity needs even at peak time.
If the wind is blowing. And if it isn't?
I think the wind is always blowing somewhere around the coast of the UK.
It doesn't have to be blowing somewhere, it has to be blowing where we have built these huge windmills.
I have been astonished at the rate that wind has become competitive and it appears that that trend can continue. If we can solve the storage problem it will be a major part of our future but we will always need a backup.
Natural gas is the best "stored energy". It's flexible. It has low capital costs, and low maintenance costs. It's massively more energy dense than batteries could ever be. It's extremely efficient. And it produces very little in the way of pollution.
Natural gas + wind + solar provides cheap, secure, clean electricity.
Coal and nuclear simply can't compete.
(The other thing worth noting is the next generation of solar roof tiles. If you have to replace your roof, and it's largely south facing, then in the next five years, it will be the right choice, even in the UK. They will become de rigeur for new housebuilds. And why not? It will dramatically reduce your annual energy bill for a small increase in the cost of construction.)
So why are we spending billions subsidising Hinckly Point exactly? Another very poor decision by May. By the time it came to be made it no longer made any sense at all.
Lorry driver in the immigrant case charged with 39 counts of manslaughter, plus several charges in relating to illegal immigration.
If guilty thow away the key
We don't know how much culpability he has. The fact that it has already come down from murder to culp hom suggests that he had no idea what was happening in the back of his truck.
R5Live read out that poor Vietnamese girls tweets whilst I was driving home yesterday. By an amazing coincidence I got something in my eye. Both of them.
Not at all - Revoke only happens IF the Liberal Democrats win a Parliamentary majority, that's all. Otherwise the Party line is to support a second referendum.
Mmm, but that's a subtle position which I don't think most people notice - for better or worse, people see them as a Revoke party. Arguably that's why they've slipped back a bit in the polls> People whose first choice is a referendum (and there are still a good many) find it only offered as a first choice by Labour. Which is somewhat ironical as we only came round to it gradually and the LibDems were there first before they moved on.
I think the LDs have probably lost a bit of support due to their support for Revoke without a referendum. Having said that, it may have improved their potential in target seats in areas like SW London and the Home Counties. The places where it's lost them support are most likely areas where they weren't going to win any seats.
As the general election gets real, and LibDems focus on their target seats and neglect non-target seats, it's reasonable to suppose that their share in targets seats will increase with the increased LD activity and Labour squeeze, and will decline in non-target seats with no LD activity.
As there are many more non-target seats than target seats, it's also reasonable to suppose that their overall reported share in polls will decline while their prospects for winning seats improves.
In any case Widdy is wrong in suggesting if he had simply defied the order he would have been shot, I don't think there's a documented case of German troops being shot for refusing to carry out Holocaust related orders (shot for lots of other stuff of course).
Lorry driver in the immigrant case charged with 39 counts of manslaughter, plus several charges in relating to illegal immigration.
If guilty thow away the key
We don't know how much culpability he has. The fact that it has already come down from murder to culp hom suggests that he had no idea what was happening in the back of his truck.
R5Live read out that poor Vietnamese girls tweets whilst I was driving home yesterday. By an amazing coincidence I got something in my eye. Both of them.
I posted to pause on the news of those heart breaking text and both my wife and shed tears.
I accept your comments about the manslaughter charge but as I said, if he is found guilty he has to have a life plus sentence
That referendum was ruled to be invalid, so I'm not sure the comparison is valid (although there are probably others...)
That’s not quite true, The Referendum resulted in a petition to the British Parliament (which had passed the Australian Constitution initially) that was rejected as it had no support from the Australian Government. Theoretically our Parliament could have amended one of its own Acts but it had agreed, under the Statute of Westminster, not to do so in respect of any part of Australia without the consent of the Australian Government.
I thought it was a requirement of the constitutional the time that the federal government gave consent?
Politically, but not strictly legally. The Australian Constitution was an act of the British Parliament and the British principle is that a Parliament cannot bind its successors, so that provision could have been overridden by a subsequent act giving effect to the Referendum. Australia did not adopt the Statute of Westminster until 1942. The Federal Govt having withheld consent, so the Western Australians addressed their request to London. But as a matter of politics and diplomacy it was absolutely unthinkable - so we kicked it back.
Lorry driver in the immigrant case charged with 39 counts of manslaughter, plus several charges in relating to illegal immigration.
If guilty thow away the key
We don't know how much culpability he has. The fact that it has already come down from murder to culp hom suggests that he had no idea what was happening in the back of his truck.
R5Live read out that poor Vietnamese girls tweets whilst I was driving home yesterday. By an amazing coincidence I got something in my eye. Both of them.
So sad for all of them. Generally I suspect there’s a long way to go yet. As someone who used to know the Grays area well, I don’t envy the reporters waiting around there.
"'Surly' Theresa May was terrible at campaigning and plunged her 2017 election team into chaos by ignoring warnings that her manifesto was 'worse than useless', claims aides
Former Prime Minister was a 'terrible campaigner', new biography has claimed Historian Sir Anthony Seldon's May at 10 portrays a leader 'riddled with anxiety' One of top aides was forced to become her 'minder' during campaign, he claims"
That referendum was ruled to be invalid, so I'm not sure the comparison is valid (although there are probably others...)
That’s not quite true, The Referendum resulted in a petition to the British Parliament (which had passed the Australian Constitution initially) that was rejected as it had no support from the Australian Government. Theoretically our Parliament could have amended one of its own Acts but it had agreed, under the Statute of Westminster, not to do so in respect of any part of Australia without the consent of the Australian Government.
I thought it was a requirement of the constitutional the time that the federal government gave consent?
Politically, but not strictly legally. The Australian Constitution was an act of the British Parliament and the British principle is that a Parliament cannot bind its successors, so that provision could have been overridden by a subsequent act giving effect to the Referendum. Australia did not adopt the Statute of Westminster until 1942. The Federal Govt having withheld consent, so the Western Australians addressed their request to London. But as a matter of politics and diplomacy it was absolutely unthinkable - so we kicked it back.
OK, so it was invalid unless the law had been changed? I guess you could argue that is true for almost anything!
That referendum was ruled to be invalid, so I'm not sure the comparison is valid (although there are probably others...)
That’s not quite true, The Referendum resulted in a petition to the British Parliament (which had passed the Australian Constitution initially) that was rejected as it had no support from the Australian Government. Theoretically our Parliament could have amended one of its own Acts but it had agreed, under the Statute of Westminster, not to do so in respect of any part of Australia without the consent of the Australian Government.
I thought it was a requirement of the constitutional the time that the federal government gave consent?
Politically, but not strictly legally. The Australian Constitution was an act of the British Parliament and the British principle is that a Parliament cannot bind its successors, so that provision could have been overridden by a subsequent act giving effect to the Referendum. Australia did not adopt the Statute of Westminster until 1942. The Federal Govt having withheld consent, so the Western Australians addressed their request to London. But as a matter of politics and diplomacy it was absolutely unthinkable - so we kicked it back.
OK, so it was invalid unless the law had been changed? I guess you could argue that is true for almost anything!
It was, more accurately, non-binding. Remind you of anything?
Lorry driver in the immigrant case charged with 39 counts of manslaughter, plus several charges in relating to illegal immigration.
If guilty thow away the key
We don't know how much culpability he has. The fact that it has already come down from murder to culp hom suggests that he had no idea what was happening in the back of his truck.
R5Live read out that poor Vietnamese girls tweets whilst I was driving home yesterday. By an amazing coincidence I got something in my eye. Both of them.
I posted to pause on the news of those heart breaking text and both my wife and shed tears.
I accept your comments about the manslaughter charge but as I said, if he is found guilty he has to have a life plus sentence
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it must have been kinda obvious that a refrigeration unit wouldn't have a lot of natural ventilation. Its all a bit strange and very sad.
In any case Widdy is wrong in suggesting if he had simply defied the order he would have been shot, I don't think there's a documented case of German troops being shot for refusing to carry out Holocaust related orders (shot for lots of other stuff of course).
Dare I suggest that most would want that theory tested rather thoroughly before defying mass murderers? Some things are just unconscionable no matter what and this is one but, well lets just say I am glad never to have had to make a choice remotely comparable.
That referendum was ruled to be invalid, so I'm not sure the comparison is valid (although there are probably others...)
That’s not quite true, The Referendum resulted in a petition to the British Parliament (which had passed the Australian Constitution initially) that was rejected as it had no support from the Australian Government. Theoretically our Parliament could have amended one of its own Acts but it had agreed, under the Statute of Westminster, not to do so in respect of any part of Australia without the consent of the Australian Government.
I thought it was a requirement of the constitutional the time that the federal government gave consent?
Politically, but not strictly legally. The Australian Constitution was an act of the British Parliament and the British principle is that a Parliament cannot bind its successors, so that provision could have been overridden by a subsequent act giving effect to the Referendum. Australia did not adopt the Statute of Westminster until 1942. The Federal Govt having withheld consent, so the Western Australians addressed their request to London. But as a matter of politics and diplomacy it was absolutely unthinkable - so we kicked it back.
OK, so it was invalid unless the law had been changed? I guess you could argue that is true for almost anything!
It was, more accurately, non-binding. Remind you of anything?
Actually, explicitly illegal. Only the federal government could make such a request.
Lorry driver in the immigrant case charged with 39 counts of manslaughter, plus several charges in relating to illegal immigration.
If guilty thow away the key
We don't know how much culpability he has. The fact that it has already come down from murder to culp hom suggests that he had no idea what was happening in the back of his truck.
The report I read suggested the last text received was sent two hours before the ship docked at Purfleet - in which case they may already have been dead well before they arrived. Rather embarrassing of the Essex police to have identified them as "all Chinese" when they may turn out to have been Vietnamese.
Lorry driver in the immigrant case charged with 39 counts of manslaughter, plus several charges in relating to illegal immigration.
If guilty thow away the key
We don't know how much culpability he has. The fact that it has already come down from murder to culp hom suggests that he had no idea what was happening in the back of his truck.
R5Live read out that poor Vietnamese girls tweets whilst I was driving home yesterday. By an amazing coincidence I got something in my eye. Both of them.
I posted to pause on the news of those heart breaking text and both my wife and shed tears.
I accept your comments about the manslaughter charge but as I said, if he is found guilty he has to have a life plus sentence
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it must have been kinda obvious that a refrigeration unit wouldn't have a lot of natural ventilation. Its all a bit strange and very sad.
Many years ago I was party to searching a refrigerated unit on a REALLY hot day at Tilbury Docks.
Lorry driver in the immigrant case charged with 39 counts of manslaughter, plus several charges in relating to illegal immigration.
If guilty thow away the key
We don't know how much culpability he has. The fact that it has already come down from murder to culp hom suggests that he had no idea what was happening in the back of his truck.
R5Live read out that poor Vietnamese girls tweets whilst I was driving home yesterday. By an amazing coincidence I got something in my eye. Both of them.
I posted to pause on the news of those heart breaking text and both my wife and shed tears.
I accept your comments about the manslaughter charge but as I said, if he is found guilty he has to have a life plus sentence
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it must have been kinda obvious that a refrigeration unit wouldn't have a lot of natural ventilation. Its all a bit strange and very sad.
It is distressingly so, but to be honest I have not an ounce of sympaty for him if proven that he was involved in people smuggling resulting in the death of 39 innocent people seeking a better life. People smuggling is a heinous crime in itself
Mr. NorthWales, was it smuggling, or trafficking, though? (The latter being exploitation of individuals, often linked to modern day slavery and the like).
Lorry driver in the immigrant case charged with 39 counts of manslaughter, plus several charges in relating to illegal immigration.
If guilty thow away the key
We don't know how much culpability he has. The fact that it has already come down from murder to culp hom suggests that he had no idea what was happening in the back of his truck.
The report I read suggested the last text received was sent two hours before the ship docked at Purfleet - in which case they may already have been dead well before they arrived. Rather embarrassing of the Essex police to have identified them as "all Chinese" when they may turn out to have been Vietnamese.
At least the girl who had sent the text had made a previous attempt to come here and been stopped. I suspect that it was a mixed bag collected from different sources. Whether they are all Vietnamese or a variety of nationalities remains to be seen. I don't think that the police have anything to be embarrassed about personally.
Mr. NorthWales, was it smuggling, or trafficking, though? (The latter being exploitation of individuals, often linked to modern day slavery and the like).
Actually I realised that after my post and thank you for commenting on it
2000 of those 20MW all spinning at once would supply all the UK's electricity needs even at peak time.
If the wind is blowing. And if it isn't?
I think the wind is always blowing somewhere around the coast of the UK.
It doesn't have to be blowing somewhere, it has to be blowing where we have built these huge windmills.
I have been astonished at the rate that wind has become competitive and it appears that that trend can continue. If we can solve the storage problem it will be a major part of our future but we will always need a backup.
Natural gas is the best "stored energy". It's flexible. It has low capital costs, and low maintenance costs. It's massively more energy dense than batteries could ever be. It's extremely efficient. And it produces very little in the way of pollution.
Natural gas + wind + solar provides cheap, secure, clean electricity.
Coal and nuclear simply can't compete.
(The other thing worth noting is the next generation of solar roof tiles. If you have to replace your roof, and it's largely south facing, then in the next five years, it will be the right choice, even in the UK. They will become de rigeur for new housebuilds. And why not? It will dramatically reduce your annual energy bill for a small increase in the cost of construction.)
But if it costs more to run a natural gas power station than to build renewables your scheme would cost the consumers more. Also burning gas does produce CO2.
"'Surly' Theresa May was terrible at campaigning and plunged her 2017 election team into chaos by ignoring warnings that her manifesto was 'worse than useless', claims aides
Former Prime Minister was a 'terrible campaigner', new biography has claimed Historian Sir Anthony Seldon's May at 10 portrays a leader 'riddled with anxiety' One of top aides was forced to become her 'minder' during campaign, he claims"
The staggering decline of Theresa May's reputation must be on a par with Tony Blair's. Remember when they were erecting giant monuments to her on the cliffs of Dover? Nowadays everyone thinks she was appalling. Were they wrong then or now?
Lorry driver in the immigrant case charged with 39 counts of manslaughter, plus several charges in relating to illegal immigration.
If guilty thow away the key
We don't know how much culpability he has. The fact that it has already come down from murder to culp hom suggests that he had no idea what was happening in the back of his truck.
The report I read suggested the last text received was sent two hours before the ship docked at Purfleet - in which case they may already have been dead well before they arrived. Rather embarrassing of the Essex police to have identified them as "all Chinese" when they may turn out to have been Vietnamese.
I don't think that the police have anything to be embarrassed about personally.
"All Asian" would have been safer - as it stands it reinforces "they all look just the same" which is unfortunate.
2000 of those 20MW all spinning at once would supply all the UK's electricity needs even at peak time.
If the wind is blowing. And if it isn't?
I think the wind is always blowing somewhere around the coast of the UK.
It doesn't have to be blowing somewhere, it has to be blowing where we have built these huge windmills.
I have been astonished at the rate that wind has become competitive and it appears that that trend can continue. If we can solve the storage problem it will be a major part of our future but we will always need a backup.
Natural gas is the best "stored energy". It's flexible. It has low capital costs, and low maintenance costs. It's massively more energy dense than batteries could ever be. It's extremely efficient. And it produces very little in the way of pollution.
Natural gas + wind + solar provides cheap, secure, clean electricity.
Coal and nuclear simply can't compete.
(The other thing worth noting is the next generation of solar roof tiles. If you have to replace your roof, and it's largely south facing, then in the next five years, it will be the right choice, even in the UK. They will become de rigeur for new housebuilds. And why not? It will dramatically reduce your annual energy bill for a small increase in the cost of construction.)
But if it costs more to run a natural gas power station than to build renewables your scheme would cost the consumers more. Also burning gas does produce CO2.
Natural gas is still the best of the bunch to use when renewables go down:
Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels
In any case Widdy is wrong in suggesting if he had simply defied the order he would have been shot, I don't think there's a documented case of German troops being shot for refusing to carry out Holocaust related orders (shot for lots of other stuff of course).
Dare I suggest that most would want that theory tested rather thoroughly before defying mass murderers? Some things are just unconscionable no matter what and this is one but, well lets just say I am glad never to have had to make a choice remotely comparable.
Oh, I agree, I'll never know if I'd have passed the test, but apparently 100+ Germans soldiers did. I know how I'd LIKE to have behaved..
Lorry driver in the immigrant case charged with 39 counts of manslaughter, plus several charges in relating to illegal immigration.
If guilty thow away the key
We don't know how much culpability he has. The fact that it has already come down from murder to culp hom suggests that he had no idea what was happening in the back of his truck.
The report I read suggested the last text received was sent two hours before the ship docked at Purfleet - in which case they may already have been dead well before they arrived. Rather embarrassing of the Essex police to have identified them as "all Chinese" when they may turn out to have been Vietnamese.
I don't think that the police have anything to be embarrassed about personally.
"All Asian" would have been safer - as it stands it reinforces "they all look just the same" which is unfortunate.
Given the list of unfortunate things here that really seems the least of it. Who knows what documents they found?
Lorry driver in the immigrant case charged with 39 counts of manslaughter, plus several charges in relating to illegal immigration.
If guilty thow away the key
We don't know how much culpability he has. The fact that it has already come down from murder to culp hom suggests that he had no idea what was happening in the back of his truck.
R5Live read out that poor Vietnamese girls tweets whilst I was driving home yesterday. By an amazing coincidence I got something in my eye. Both of them.
I posted to pause on the news of those heart breaking text and both my wife and shed tears.
I accept your comments about the manslaughter charge but as I said, if he is found guilty he has to have a life plus sentence
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it must have been kinda obvious that a refrigeration unit wouldn't have a lot of natural ventilation. Its all a bit strange and very sad.
Many years ago I was party to searching a refrigerated unit on a REALLY hot day at Tilbury Docks.
I once had a summer job where we worked processing berries in a refrigerated room at -20 for 40 minutes, then outside in the sunshine for 40 minutes and then back. How we didn't all catch pneumonia I will never know. Probably the worst job I've ever had.
Lorry driver in the immigrant case charged with 39 counts of manslaughter, plus several charges in relating to illegal immigration.
If guilty thow away the key
We don't know how much culpability he has. The fact that it has already come down from murder to culp hom suggests that he had no idea what was happening in the back of his truck.
R5Live read out that poor Vietnamese girls tweets whilst I was driving home yesterday. By an amazing coincidence I got something in my eye. Both of them.
I posted to pause on the news of those heart breaking text and both my wife and shed tears.
I accept your comments about the manslaughter charge but as I said, if he is found guilty he has to have a life plus sentence
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it must have been kinda obvious that a refrigeration unit wouldn't have a lot of natural ventilation. Its all a bit strange and very sad.
It is distressingly so, but to be honest I have not an ounce of sympaty for him if proven that he was involved in people smuggling resulting in the death of 39 innocent people seeking a better life. People smuggling is a heinous crime in itself
In any case Widdy is wrong in suggesting if he had simply defied the order he would have been shot, I don't think there's a documented case of German troops being shot for refusing to carry out Holocaust related orders (shot for lots of other stuff of course).
Dare I suggest that most would want that theory tested rather thoroughly before defying mass murderers? Some things are just unconscionable no matter what and this is one but, well lets just say I am glad never to have had to make a choice remotely comparable.
Oh, I agree, I'll never know if I'd have passed the test, but apparently 100+ Germans soldiers did. I know how I'd LIKE to have behaved..
The Milgram Experiment saw a majority of people following orders with no threat of punishment
"'Surly' Theresa May was terrible at campaigning and plunged her 2017 election team into chaos by ignoring warnings that her manifesto was 'worse than useless', claims aides
Former Prime Minister was a 'terrible campaigner', new biography has claimed Historian Sir Anthony Seldon's May at 10 portrays a leader 'riddled with anxiety' One of top aides was forced to become her 'minder' during campaign, he claims"
The staggering decline of Theresa May's reputation must be on a par with Tony Blair's. Remember when they were erecting giant monuments to her on the cliffs of Dover? Nowadays everyone thinks she was appalling. Were they wrong then or now?
The decline of Blair's reputation is more surprising, because Blair had some major successes in office (minimum wage, investment in public services, falling crime rate, punching above our weight in the world etc). I know many here would say it was NOT a successful administration over the ten years, and they might be right, but you can make a robust argument either way on it. He was also undeniably a successful politician - fought three, won three, and none of them close.
May's decline isn't at all surprising. She had one major objective - orderly departure from the EU - and she very obviously failed. She never had the chance to pursue any other agenda worthy of the name. As a politician, she blew through a massive poll lead with an utterly incompetent campaugn to come close to lose the majority she inherited against a deeply disunited opposition.
The case for May, put at its highest, is that she's basically a good person let down by sh1ts. But that's an appeal for personal sympathy and not for an intact political reputation. It doesn't matter if it was a difficult gig - she failed miserably, and that's the legacy.
That referendum was ruled to be invalid, so I'm not sure the comparison is valid (although there are probably others...)
That’s not quite true, The Referendum resulted in a petition to the British Parliament (which had passed the Australian Constitution initially) that was rejected as it had no support from the Australian Government. Theoretically our Parliament could have amended one of its own Acts but it had agreed, under the Statute of Westminster, not to do so in respect of any part of Australia without the consent of the Australian Government.
I thought it was a requirement of the constitutional the time that the federal government gave consent?
Politically, but not strictly legally. The Australian Constitution was an act of the British Parliament and the British principle is that a Parliament cannot bind its successors, so that provision could have been overridden by a subsequent act giving effect to the Referendum. Australia did not adopt the Statute of Westminster until 1942. The Federal Govt having withheld consent, so the Western Australians addressed their request to London. But as a matter of politics and diplomacy it was absolutely unthinkable - so we kicked it back.
OK, so it was invalid unless the law had been changed? I guess you could argue that is true for almost anything!
It was, more accurately, non-binding. Remind you of anything?
Actually, explicitly illegal. Only the federal government could make such a request.
Not really. While the Australian Constitution allows for an increase in the number of member states of the federation, it makes no provision for existing states to secede from the union. There was nothing stopping the WA Govt making a request directly to London to amend an act of the British Parliament (ie the Australian Constitution).. The Australian Government had not yet passed the Statute of Westminster and Australians were, legally British Subjects, only as late as 1949 was the concept of Australian citizenship created. So Western Australian citizens continued to be British subjects and there was therefore no reason why it was illegal for them to petition the Imperial Parliament. They had their request properly rejected but there was nothing illegal about their action.
In any case Widdy is wrong in suggesting if he had simply defied the order he would have been shot, I don't think there's a documented case of German troops being shot for refusing to carry out Holocaust related orders (shot for lots of other stuff of course).
Dare I suggest that most would want that theory tested rather thoroughly before defying mass murderers? Some things are just unconscionable no matter what and this is one but, well lets just say I am glad never to have had to make a choice remotely comparable.
Oh, I agree, I'll never know if I'd have passed the test, but apparently 100+ Germans soldiers did. I know how I'd LIKE to have behaved..
"'Surly' Theresa May was terrible at campaigning and plunged her 2017 election team into chaos by ignoring warnings that her manifesto was 'worse than useless', claims aides
Former Prime Minister was a 'terrible campaigner', new biography has claimed Historian Sir Anthony Seldon's May at 10 portrays a leader 'riddled with anxiety' One of top aides was forced to become her 'minder' during campaign, he claims"
The staggering decline of Theresa May's reputation must be on a par with Tony Blair's. Remember when they were erecting giant monuments to her on the cliffs of Dover? Nowadays everyone thinks she was appalling. Were they wrong then or now?
The decline of Blair's reputation is more surprising, because Blair had some major successes in office (minimum wage, investment in public services, falling crime rate, punching above our weight in the world etc). I know many here would say it was NOT a successful administration over the ten years, and they might be right, but you can make a robust argument either way on it. He was also undeniably a successful politician - fought three, won three, and none of them close.
May's decline isn't at all surprising. She had one major objective - orderly departure from the EU - and she very obviously failed. She never had the chance to pursue any other agenda worthy of the name. As a politician, she blew through a massive poll lead with an utterly incompetent campaugn to come close to lose the majority she inherited against a deeply disunited opposition.
The case for May, put at its highest, is that she's basically a good person let down by sh1ts. But that's an appeal for personal sympathy and not for an intact political reputation. It doesn't matter if it was a difficult gig - she failed miserably, and that's the legacy.
Two of Blair's decisions led to the chaos of the Middle East and Brexit. If a plane crashes, people remember that flight, even if it is it's first accident in 10,000 journeys
2000 of those 20MW all spinning at once would supply all the UK's electricity needs even at peak time.
If the wind is blowing. And if it isn't?
I think the wind is always blowing somewhere around the coast of the UK.
It doesn't have to be blowing somewhere, it has to be blowing where we have built these huge windmills.
I have been astonished at the rate that wind has become competitive and it appears that that trend can continue. If we can solve the storage problem it will be a major part of our future but we will always need a backup.
Natural gas is the best "stored energy". It's flexible. It has low capital costs, and low maintenance costs. It's massively more energy dense than batteries could ever be. It's extremely efficient. And it produces very little in the way of pollution.
Natural gas + wind + solar provides cheap, secure, clean electricity.
Coal and nuclear simply can't compete.
(The other thing worth noting is the next generation of solar roof tiles. If you have to replace your roof, and it's largely south facing, then in the next five years, it will be the right choice, even in the UK. They will become de rigeur for new housebuilds. And why not? It will dramatically reduce your annual energy bill for a small increase in the cost of construction.)
But if it costs more to run a natural gas power station than to build renewables your scheme would cost the consumers more. Also burning gas does produce CO2.
Natural gas is still the best of the bunch to use when renewables go down:
Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels
For power generation we tend to use kg/kWh - using natural gas you have to define the technology, CCGT or OCGT.
We need decarbonised despatchable power. Natural gas plus CCS - either post-combustion on a conventional CCGT or pre-combustion with hydrogen as an energy storage vector is likely to be the way we do it in the UK.
Lorry driver in the immigrant case charged with 39 counts of manslaughter, plus several charges in relating to illegal immigration.
If guilty thow away the key
We don't know how much culpability he has. The fact that it has already come down from murder to culp hom suggests that he had no idea what was happening in the back of his truck.
The report I read suggested the last text received was sent two hours before the ship docked at Purfleet - in which case they may already have been dead well before they arrived. Rather embarrassing of the Essex police to have identified them as "all Chinese" when they may turn out to have been Vietnamese.
I don't think that the police have anything to be embarrassed about personally.
"All Asian" would have been safer - as it stands it reinforces "they all look just the same" which is unfortunate.
Given the list of unfortunate things here that really seems the least of it. Who knows what documents they found?
One news item said some of them (the Vietnamese) were carrying fake Chinese passporrts, so fair enough.
2000 of those 20MW all spinning at once would supply all the UK's electricity needs even at peak time.
If the wind is blowing. And if it isn't?
I think the wind is always blowing somewhere around the coast of the UK.
It doesn't have to be blowing somewhere, it has to be blowing where we have built these huge windmills.
I have been astonished at the rate that wind has become competitive and it appears that that trend can continue. If we can solve the storage problem it will be a major part of our future but we will always need a backup.
Natural gas is the best "stored energy". It's flexible. It has low capital costs, and low maintenance costs. It's massively more energy dense than batteries could ever be. It's extremely efficient. And it produces very little in the way of pollution.
Natural gas + wind + solar provides cheap, secure, clean electricity.
Coal and nuclear simply can't compete.
(The other thing worth noting is the next generation of solar roof tiles. If you have to replace your roof, and it's largely south facing, then in the next five years, it will be the right choice, even in the UK. They will become de rigeur for new housebuilds. And why not? It will dramatically reduce your annual energy bill for a small increase in the cost of construction.)
But if it costs more to run a natural gas power station than to build renewables your scheme would cost the consumers more. Also burning gas does produce CO2.
Natural gas is still the best of the bunch to use when renewables go down:
Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels
Well, it's better than coal certainly, but any of the storage methods mentions so far pumped water storage, liquefied air, melted salt, gravitational storage would be worth evaluating and would probably be better. Gas will be needed in the interim during switchover but is already more expensive in many places than renewables.
"'Surly' Theresa May was terrible at campaigning and plunged her 2017 election team into chaos by ignoring warnings that her manifesto was 'worse than useless', claims aides
Former Prime Minister was a 'terrible campaigner', new biography has claimed Historian Sir Anthony Seldon's May at 10 portrays a leader 'riddled with anxiety' One of top aides was forced to become her 'minder' during campaign, he claims"
The staggering decline of Theresa May's reputation must be on a par with Tony Blair's. Remember when they were erecting giant monuments to her on the cliffs of Dover? Nowadays everyone thinks she was appalling. Were they wrong then or now?
They were wrong then. Some of us pointed out on this very pb during the contest that Theresa May's record did not amount to much, but we were drowned out by pb Tories. She'd survived longer than most Home Secretaries but that was not on her merits but because David Cameron was averse to reshuffles. May had failed to control non-EU immigration, yet had created a hostile atmosphere and the Windrush scandal; she'd also attacked the Police Federation over failings that were well above their paygrade. She presided over the "Border Farce"; she cut 20,000 coppers and denied the link to rising crime.
One of the strengths of pb is that many participants do have skin in the game, especially on the blue team, but sometimes they do rather swallow their parties' spin lines. This was one of those times.
If we could turn the clock back to 2016, most of the Cabinet would have stood for the leadership if only they'd have known Michael Gove would knock out the perceived certainty Boris Johnson. As it was, Theresa May just needed to keep breathing while Tory spinners went to war against Andrea Leadsom; remember the hysteria whipped up over Leadsom's "as a mother"?
"'Surly' Theresa May was terrible at campaigning and plunged her 2017 election team into chaos by ignoring warnings that her manifesto was 'worse than useless', claims aides
Former Prime Minister was a 'terrible campaigner', new biography has claimed Historian Sir Anthony Seldon's May at 10 portrays a leader 'riddled with anxiety' One of top aides was forced to become her 'minder' during campaign, he claims"
The staggering decline of Theresa May's reputation must be on a par with Tony Blair's. Remember when they were erecting giant monuments to her on the cliffs of Dover? Nowadays everyone thinks she was appalling. Were they wrong then or now?
They were wrong then. Some of us pointed out on this very pb during the contest that Theresa May's record did not amount to much, but we were drowned out by pb Tories. She'd survived longer than most Home Secretaries but that was not on her merits but because David Cameron was averse to reshuffles. May had failed to control non-EU immigration, yet had created a hostile atmosphere and the Windrush scandal; she'd also attacked the Police Federation over failings that were well above their paygrade. She presided over the "Border Farce"; she cut 20,000 coppers and denied the link to rising crime.
One of the strengths of pb is that many participants do have skin in the game, especially on the blue team, but sometimes they do rather swallow their parties' spin lines. This was one of those times.
If we could turn the clock back to 2016, most of the Cabinet would have stood for the leadership if only they'd have known Michael Gove would knock out the perceived certainty Boris Johnson. As it was, Theresa May just needed to keep breathing while Tory spinners went to war against Andrea Leadsom; remember the hysteria whipped up over Leadsom's "as a mother"?
It won't be long before the same is said of Boris. The subfascist wing of Brexit has turned against him, as has the DUP. He's lost the liberal wing of the party. I can easily see a scenario where ScotTories move into open revolt against him. His power base is divided over election or press on with his substandard deal. And there are question circling around is "tech lessons" and possible corrupt use of public funds. No wonder he wants an election. The person best placed to prolong his tenure is Corbyn.
"'Surly' Theresa May was terrible at campaigning and plunged her 2017 election team into chaos by ignoring warnings that her manifesto was 'worse than useless', claims aides
Former Prime Minister was a 'terrible campaigner', new biography has claimed Historian Sir Anthony Seldon's May at 10 portrays a leader 'riddled with anxiety' One of top aides was forced to become her 'minder' during campaign, he claims"
The staggering decline of Theresa May's reputation must be on a par with Tony Blair's. Remember when they were erecting giant monuments to her on the cliffs of Dover? Nowadays everyone thinks she was appalling. Were they wrong then or now?
They were wrong then. Some of us pointed out on this very pb during the contest that Theresa May's record did not amount to much, but we were drowned out by pb Tories. She'd survived longer than most Home Secretaries but that was not on her merits but because David Cameron was averse to reshuffles. May had failed to control non-EU immigration, yet had created a hostile atmosphere and the Windrush scandal; she'd also attacked the Police Federation over failings that were well above their paygrade. She presided over the "Border Farce"; she cut 20,000 coppers and denied the link to rising crime.
One of the strengths of pb is that many participants do have skin in the game, especially on the blue team, but sometimes they do rather swallow their parties' spin lines. This was one of those times.
If we could turn the clock back to 2016, most of the Cabinet would have stood for the leadership if only they'd have known Michael Gove would knock out the perceived certainty Boris Johnson. As it was, Theresa May just needed to keep breathing while Tory spinners went to war against Andrea Leadsom; remember the hysteria whipped up over Leadsom's "as a mother"?
The alternative to May in 2010 was Clegg, and he wasn’t sharp enough to seize the opportunity
"'Surly' Theresa May was terrible at campaigning and plunged her 2017 election team into chaos by ignoring warnings that her manifesto was 'worse than useless', claims aides
Former Prime Minister was a 'terrible campaigner', new biography has claimed Historian Sir Anthony Seldon's May at 10 portrays a leader 'riddled with anxiety' One of top aides was forced to become her 'minder' during campaign, he claims"
The staggering decline of Theresa May's reputation must be on a par with Tony Blair's. Remember when they were erecting giant monuments to her on the cliffs of Dover? Nowadays everyone thinks she was appalling. Were they wrong then or now?
The decline of Blair's reputation is more surprising, because Blair had some major successes in office (minimum wage, investment in public services, falling crime rate, punching above our weight in the world etc). I know many here would say it was NOT a successful administration over the ten years, and they might be right, but you can make a robust argument either way on it. He was also undeniably a successful politician - fought three, won three, and none of them close.
May's decline isn't at all surprising. She had one major objective - orderly departure from the EU - and she very obviously failed. She never had the chance to pursue any other agenda worthy of the name. As a politician, she blew through a massive poll lead with an utterly incompetent campaugn to come close to lose the majority she inherited against a deeply disunited opposition.
The case for May, put at its highest, is that she's basically a good person let down by sh1ts. But that's an appeal for personal sympathy and not for an intact political reputation. It doesn't matter if it was a difficult gig - she failed miserably, and that's the legacy.
Two of Blair's decisions led to the chaos of the Middle East and Brexit. If a plane crashes, people remember that flight, even if it is it's first accident in 10,000 journeys
I'm not a Blair fan. But the Middle East has been involved in chaos since long before Blair arrived, and will remain so long after. And Europe was barely an issue on the public's radar when Blair left Number 10.
Oh, he made important mistakes for sure. But it's just hyperbole to describe him as crashing the plane. And I don't think most people who are polled now do that - they have a more general sense that he was a bad PM, and can maybe name something they don't like about him. But do they have a narrative about why they look back on 1997-2007 as a bad time when we were governed poorly? Not really.
"'Surly' Theresa May was terrible at campaigning and plunged her 2017 election team into chaos by ignoring warnings that her manifesto was 'worse than useless', claims aides
Former Prime Minister was a 'terrible campaigner', new biography has claimed Historian Sir Anthony Seldon's May at 10 portrays a leader 'riddled with anxiety' One of top aides was forced to become her 'minder' during campaign, he claims"
The staggering decline of Theresa May's reputation must be on a par with Tony Blair's. Remember when they were erecting giant monuments to her on the cliffs of Dover? Nowadays everyone thinks she was appalling. Were they wrong then or now?
They were wrong then. Some of us pointed out on this very pb during the contest that Theresa May's record did not amount to much, but we were drowned out by pb Tories. She'd survived longer than most Home Secretaries but that was not on her merits but because David Cameron was averse to reshuffles. May had failed to control non-EU immigration, yet had created a hostile atmosphere and the Windrush scandal; she'd also attacked the Police Federation over failings that were well above their paygrade. She presided over the "Border Farce"; she cut 20,000 coppers and denied the link to rising crime.
One of the strengths of pb is that many participants do have skin in the game, especially on the blue team, but sometimes they do rather swallow their parties' spin lines. This was one of those times.
If we could turn the clock back to 2016, most of the Cabinet would have stood for the leadership if only they'd have known Michael Gove would knock out the perceived certainty Boris Johnson. As it was, Theresa May just needed to keep breathing while Tory spinners went to war against Andrea Leadsom; remember the hysteria whipped up over Leadsom's "as a mother"?
The alternative to May in 2010 was Clegg, and he wasn’t sharp enough to seize the opportunity </
For power generation we tend to use kg/kWh - using natural gas you have to define the technology, CCGT or OCGT.
We need decarbonised despatchable power. Natural gas plus CCS - either post-combustion on a conventional CCGT or pre-combustion with hydrogen as an energy storage vector is likely to be the way we do it in the UK.
When talking gas emissions and efficieny, pretty much everyone is talking about CCGTs, I would have thought.
I used to know the numbers off by heart, but by guess would be that 0.1% of MWh produced on the UK electricity network are from OCGTs. It's only the peakiest of the peak that is supplied by them.
(For the record, OCGT - open cycle gas turbines - have much lower efficiency than modern CCGTs, but cost almost nothing to buy or operate. They therefore tend to sit around the edges of the grid producing power if, and only if, the electricity price spikes.)
But if it costs more to run a natural gas power station than to build renewables your scheme would cost the consumers more. Also burning gas does produce CO2.
Natural gas is still the best of the bunch to use when renewables go down:
Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels
For power generation we tend to use kg/kWh - using natural gas you have to define the technology, CCGT or OCGT.
We need decarbonised despatchable power. Natural gas plus CCS - either post-combustion on a conventional CCGT or pre-combustion with hydrogen as an energy storage vector is likely to be the way we do it in the UK.
CCS with current technology is basically a waste of time and energy. It in no way justifies keeping coal plants open, and isn’t worth adding (either from an economic or CO2 reduction standpoint) to the CCGT plants which will be needed in the short to medium term.
At a later point, when there is a surplus of renewables at very low to zero marginal cost, and when the technologies have matured, it will make a great deal of sense to produce artificial hydrocarbons from CO2 feedstock for both energy storage and chemical industry precursors but that’s one to two decades away. And of course by then, the other storage technologies will have improved considerably, too.
What’s worse for Corbyn , the Tories going into an election after Brexit of before.
Difficult decision .
Before by a big margin in my book. I don’t think the failure to leave by 31st will hurt Boris as his opponents hoped. Instead it is likely to motivate those who want to get Brexit done to turn up and vote for him.
Afterwards there’s a conceivable route back for Labour - see 1945. “By golly, we’re glad that Brexit thing is sorted*, well done Boris - but now we want to think about schools and housing and hospitals.”
* I know it will be far from sorted, but I think there’ll be a lull of at least a year (as trade negotiations continue) when people will want to talk about anything but the dratted thing.
Interesting to see if there’s any more polls this weekend, they might set the mood of MPs for big decisions on Monday and Tuesday next week.
I wonder if Emmanuel or his advisors look at the polls. They should have a view about the likely outcome of a UK election when considering the length of the extension.
Not until you fulfil the instruction of the first referendum. Until then you are just making excuses and ignoring the democratic process.
Okay, Richard, I'll play. Just how much should Conservatives want the result of the referendum to be respected?
If I could, I would get the opposition together and go to the PM and say this:
"We are prepared to support the WA and allow the UK to move into transition as part of leaving the EU but we are not prepared to allow this to happen under a Conservative Government.
If your Government were to resign and your Party to withdraw from Government and not contest the next General Election, we will undertake not to make any attempt to rejoin the EU. Indeed, we will endeavour to negotiate a favourable trade deal with the EU and once accomplished begin the process of negotiating open trade deals with all our global trading partners".
That would be honouring and respecting the result of the 2016 referendum, wouldn't it?
The big error in your reply is thinking I am a Conservative member, supporter or voter. The very best outcome of all of this for me is us outside the EU and both Johnson and Corbyn disgraced and hounded from office.
If I were a Tory I would still say that I would embrace your suggestion wholeheartedly.
The sort of polling that explains why Johnson is desperate to have an election this year and why Corbyn is unlikely to call one.
As the Labour Party finds ever more feeble reasons to prevent one, that gap is just going to increase.
Labour's life force is draining.
I said this at the time they blocked the first attempt: it’s not a good look to say you don’t want people to have a say in how the country is run. Yes, people do get annoyed about having to go and vote, especially in an early election, but standing there and actively preventing them from doing so doesn’t particularly enamour them to you either - it makes you look like you (quite rightly IMHO) are afraid of what they’ll say.
The sort of polling that explains why Johnson is desperate to have an election this year and why Corbyn is unlikely to call one.
As the Labour Party finds ever more feeble reasons to prevent one, that gap is just going to increase.
Labour's life force is draining.
I said this at the time they blocked the first attempt: it’s not a good look to say you don’t want people to have a say in how the country is run. Yes, people do get annoyed about having to go and vote, especially in an early election, but standing there and actively preventing them from doing so doesn’t particularly enamour them to you either - it makes you look like you (quite rightly IMHO) are afraid of what they’ll say.
It's even worse: an election is Labour policy. They have been calling for it for three years.
The sort of polling that explains why Johnson is desperate to have an election this year and why Corbyn is unlikely to call one.
As the Labour Party finds ever more feeble reasons to prevent one, that gap is just going to increase.
Labour's life force is draining.
I said this at the time they blocked the first attempt: it’s not a good look to say you don’t want people to have a say in how the country is run. Yes, people do get annoyed about having to go and vote, especially in an early election, but standing there and actively preventing them from doing so doesn’t particularly enamour them to you either - it makes you look like you (quite rightly IMHO) are afraid of what they’ll say.
So what you're saying is the best hope for those of us who aren't Conservatives is to take our lumps (and the inevitable gloating) and watch Johnson win a huge majority and then wait for him to screw things up over the next decade and perhaps we might have a chance in 2029?
The sort of polling that explains why Johnson is desperate to have an election this year and why Corbyn is unlikely to call one.
As the Labour Party finds ever more feeble reasons to prevent one, that gap is just going to increase.
Labour's life force is draining.
I said this at the time they blocked the first attempt: it’s not a good look to say you don’t want people to have a say in how the country is run. Yes, people do get annoyed about having to go and vote, especially in an early election, but standing there and actively preventing them from doing so doesn’t particularly enamour them to you either - it makes you look like you (quite rightly IMHO) are afraid of what they’ll say.
Especially when you are the opposition.
The government can rightly say it is getting on with the job, the opposition has nowhere to hide.
Comments
I really do want someone to provide a source to disprove this
I am content for a referendum post a remain HOC but the wording needs clarification before those who think it will be deal v remain are seriously let down
And many on here do not accept this, and I am willing to accept it is not the case when it has been proven beyond doubt
And before someone asks me for my sources they have been independent experts on the media over the last few weeks. And as an aside Dominic Grieve of all people and an ex Attorney General said it on the media in the last two weeks
Natural gas + wind + solar provides cheap, secure, clean electricity.
Coal and nuclear simply can't compete.
(The other thing worth noting is the next generation of solar roof tiles. If you have to replace your roof, and it's largely south facing, then in the next five years, it will be the right choice, even in the UK. They will become de rigeur for new housebuilds. And why not? It will dramatically reduce your annual energy bill for a small increase in the cost of construction.)
Interestingly, of course, quite a few of those seats are Labour. Could the surprise of the 2019 election be the LDs grabbing a few urban pro-EU seats from the Labour Party?
R5Live read out that poor Vietnamese girls tweets whilst I was driving home yesterday. By an amazing coincidence I got something in my eye. Both of them.
As there are many more non-target seats than target seats, it's also reasonable to suppose that their overall reported share in polls will decline while their prospects for winning seats improves.
This effect could have already started.
https://twitter.com/RachelRileyRR/status/1188120995049197571?s=20
In any case Widdy is wrong in suggesting if he had simply defied the order he would have been shot, I don't think there's a documented case of German troops being shot for refusing to carry out Holocaust related orders (shot for lots of other stuff of course).
I accept your comments about the manslaughter charge but as I said, if he is found guilty he has to have a life plus sentence
Probably won't bet on qualifying but interested to see Vettel's odds.
Former Prime Minister was a 'terrible campaigner', new biography has claimed
Historian Sir Anthony Seldon's May at 10 portrays a leader 'riddled with anxiety'
One of top aides was forced to become her 'minder' during campaign, he claims"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7615571/Theresa-leader-riddled-anxiety-new-biography-claims.html
I expect it was people trafficking
Also burning gas does produce CO2.
Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels
Coal (anthracite) 228.6
Coal (bituminous) 205.7
Coal (lignite) 215.4
Coal (subbituminous) 214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil 161.3
Gasoline (without ethanol)
157.2
Propane 139.0
Natural gas 117.0
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2019/10/mexico-pre-qualifying-2019.html
Ferrari front row, I think.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
Though they say they knew the person wasn't really getting shocked. Well they would wouldn't they?!
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/12/12/interviews-with-milgram-participants-provide-little-support-for-the-contemporary-theory-of-engaged-followership/
May's decline isn't at all surprising. She had one major objective - orderly departure from the EU - and she very obviously failed. She never had the chance to pursue any other agenda worthy of the name. As a politician, she blew through a massive poll lead with an utterly incompetent campaugn to come close to lose the majority she inherited against a deeply disunited opposition.
The case for May, put at its highest, is that she's basically a good person let down by sh1ts. But that's an appeal for personal sympathy and not for an intact political reputation. It doesn't matter if it was a difficult gig - she failed miserably, and that's the legacy.
We need decarbonised despatchable power. Natural gas plus CCS - either post-combustion on a conventional CCGT or pre-combustion with hydrogen as an energy storage vector is likely to be the way we do it in the UK.
One of the strengths of pb is that many participants do have skin in the game, especially on the blue team, but sometimes they do rather swallow their parties' spin lines. This was one of those times.
If we could turn the clock back to 2016, most of the Cabinet would have stood for the leadership if only they'd have known Michael Gove would knock out the perceived certainty Boris Johnson. As it was, Theresa May just needed to keep breathing while Tory spinners went to war against Andrea Leadsom; remember the hysteria whipped up over Leadsom's "as a mother"?
Con 40 +3
Lab 24
LD 15 -1
BXP 10 -2
No wonder he wants an election. The person best placed to prolong his tenure is Corbyn.
Oh, he made important mistakes for sure. But it's just hyperbole to describe him as crashing the plane. And I don't think most people who are polled now do that - they have a more general sense that he was a bad PM, and can maybe name something they don't like about him. But do they have a narrative about why they look back on 1997-2007 as a bad time when we were governed poorly? Not really.
to add: 200 majority (!) according to Electoral calculus.
And, from that,
Leave - 50
Bollocks to Brexit - 15
Who the f knows? - 24
Hard to know what effect not leaving on the 31 October might make , hypothetical polls aren’t good for really getting an accurate picture .
Difficult decision .
I used to know the numbers off by heart, but by guess would be that 0.1% of MWh produced on the UK electricity network are from OCGTs. It's only the peakiest of the peak that is supplied by them.
(For the record, OCGT - open cycle gas turbines - have much lower efficiency than modern CCGTs, but cost almost nothing to buy or operate. They therefore tend to sit around the edges of the grid producing power if, and only if, the electricity price spikes.)
At a later point, when there is a surplus of renewables at very low to zero marginal cost, and when the technologies have matured, it will make a great deal of sense to produce artificial hydrocarbons from CO2 feedstock for both energy storage and chemical industry precursors but that’s one to two decades away.
And of course by then, the other storage technologies will have improved considerably, too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Interesting to see if there’s any more polls this weekend, they might set the mood of MPs for big decisions on Monday and Tuesday next week.
Afterwards there’s a conceivable route back for Labour - see 1945. “By golly, we’re glad that Brexit thing is sorted*, well done Boris - but now we want to think about schools and housing and hospitals.”
* I know it will be far from sorted, but I think there’ll be a lull of at least a year (as trade negotiations continue) when people will want to talk about anything but the dratted thing.
I called it. Said since the first time Labour flunked the election challenge we'd see Tories on 40% by end of October.
If this keeps going on Con could reach 50% by Spring.
If the Lib Dems and SNP back an election but Labour flunk it then when the election does come around eventually Labour will be a third party.
Labour's life force is draining.
If I were a Tory I would still say that I would embrace your suggestion wholeheartedly.
With Corbyn in charge couldn't be happening to a nicer antisemite.
"The question for Labour: why are you sticking with Jeremy Corbyn?"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/25/labour-jeremy-corbyn-party-leader-brexit-boris-johnson
Scales falling from eyes.
Just put this into Electoral Calculus
Con 40
Lab 15
LD 25
BXP 10
Green 2
Came out with a Conservative Majority of 314, although SNP were down to 32 so I don't think that's entirely accurate.
Seats
Con 482
Lab 71
LD 43
Now? Not just yet.
When then? We'll get back to you....
Seriously?
The government can rightly say it is getting on with the job, the opposition has nowhere to hide.
But I think time works against Johnson.
Because people will get to know him a little better.