It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.
Although, shouting in people’s faces has us talking about it more than ever.
I'd agree with that. Even Emma Thompson jetting back from LA for the weekend for her photo-op on the XR boat served that purpose, as much of that sort of celebrity activism can.
Here’s a question. Imagine Britain does not leave the EU on 31 October. Imagine further that you are Jeremy Corbyn. Do you want to have an election immediately and if so do you want a short or long campaign?
I think if you are Jeremy Corbyn you believe you are a brilliant campaigner who will close any gap with Boris Johnson during an election campaign and that the British people are crying out for socialism. You therefore want an election asap. If it were down to him, that is what would happen. But it isn’t. The more strategic minds of much smarter people, such as John McDonnell, may see things differently. Do not underestimate the importance of Karie Murphy’s humiliation yesterday. That was very clearly a McDonnell play.
That answers the first part of the question but not the second - a short or long campaign?
Long campaign I reckon. Last time Labour did steadily better as the campaign went on. Plus during the campaign period there are broadcast impartiality rules which means Labour gets more of a chance to make their case.
I agree. So why is all the betting money on a short campaign?
Same people doing their nuts on president Clinton.
Here’s a question. Imagine Britain does not leave the EU on 31 October. Imagine further that you are Jeremy Corbyn. Do you want to have an election immediately and if so do you want a short or long campaign?
I think if you are Jeremy Corbyn you believe you are a brilliant campaigner who will close any gap with Boris Johnson during an election campaign and that the British people are crying out for socialism. You therefore want an election asap. If it were down to him, that is what would happen. But it isn’t. The more strategic minds of much smarter people, such as John McDonnell, may see things differently. Do not underestimate the importance of Karie Murphy’s humiliation yesterday. That was very clearly a McDonnell play.
That answers the first part of the question but not the second - a short or long campaign?
Long campaign I reckon. Last time Labour did steadily better as the campaign went on. Plus during the campaign period there are broadcast impartiality rules which means Labour gets more of a chance to make their case.
I agree. So why is all the betting money on a short campaign?
Same people doing their nuts on president Clinton.
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.
Although, shouting in people’s faces has us talking about it more than ever.
It has us talking about what we could do. But the conversation has to be moved on to what we need to do, and because they are personally loathsome that isn't happening.
It will happen eventually, but probably rather later than it needs to.
Yes. Obviously if the protests hadn't happened we would be acting more quickly on this issue. Don't you realise how absurd that sounds?
I'm saying because the protests are happening we might act more slowly on it out of spite. And there's ample historical precedent for that. The actions of the Suffragettes, for example, hardened government opinion against giving women the vote and it took a war and the inclusion of the main opposition parties in a coalition to change things.
It's been more than thirty years since the Earth Summit in Rio. The promises to act made then have not been kept.
These protests have already encouraged politicians to promise to do more, so I think the evidence is contrary to your assertion.
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.
Although, shouting in people’s faces has us talking about it more than ever.
It has us talking about what we could do. But the conversation has to be moved on to what we need to do, and because they are personally loathsome that isn't happening.
It will happen eventually, but probably rather later than it needs to.
Yes. Obviously if the protests hadn't happened we would be acting more quickly on this issue. Don't you realise how absurd that sounds?
I'm saying because the protests are happening we might act more slowly on it out of spite. And there's ample historical precedent for that. The actions of the Suffragettes, for example, hardened government opinion against giving women the vote and it took a war and the inclusion of the main opposition parties in a coalition to change things.
It's been more than thirty years since the Earth Summit in Rio. The promises to act made then have not been kept.
These protests have already encouraged politicians to promise to do more, so I think the evidence is contrary to your assertion.
They have already encouraged those politicians with no power to do anything to promise to do more.
Name me one single actual physical change happening as a result of this that wouldn't have happened anyway.
I'm not sure that depoliticising climate change is the way forward. That way leads to political solutions being imposed without debate.
What we need is a political debate about the best methods to use. I think this debate mostly divides on the question of to what extent the government should intervene directly by spending money on potential solutions as opposed to creating market incentives for people to find their own solutions (eg by taxing carbon).
But maybe that's a debate we should have had 15 years ago. As I recall we instead wasted our time arguing over the latest bit of denialism.
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.
Although, shouting in people’s faces has us talking about it more than ever.
It has us talking about what we could do. But the conversation has to be moved on to what we need to do, and because they are personally loathsome that isn't happening.
It will happen eventually, but probably rather later than it needs to.
Yes. Obviously if the protests hadn't happened we would be acting more quickly on this issue. Don't you realise how absurd that sounds?
I'm saying because the protests are happening we might act more slowly on it out of spite. And there's ample historical precedent for that. The actions of the Suffragettes, for example, hardened government opinion against giving women the vote and it took a war and the inclusion of the main opposition parties in a coalition to change things.
It's been more than thirty years since the Earth Summit in Rio. The promises to act made then have not been kept.
These protests have already encouraged politicians to promise to do more, so I think the evidence is contrary to your assertion.
They have already encouraged those politicians with no power to do anything to promise to do more.
Name me one single actual physical change happening as a result of this that wouldn't have happened anyway.
I don't think this announcement would have happened had it not been for the climate strikes or the extinction rebellion protests.
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
And the hole in the ozone layer has now essentially closed as a result of that action.
They will need a lot more than that in the event of what is likely to be a very acrimonious Brexit. They will be asking the EU to pay an awfully large amount and with the coming very big recession they will struggle to get it.
The world as a whole is not fully understood, but many things are, eg. the heat retention properties of CO2.
And you think all the things in your list of non-deniables flow incontrovertibly from that, do you?
Don't get me wrong, I installed solar panels in 2013 because I thought it was a good thing to do (and after a drop in subsidies which made it pretty cost-ineffective), so any attempt by you to outgroup me is going to be uphill work. I just get bored of twerps with so little understanding of how science works that they think that apparent consensus, and truth, are the same thing, and who think that there is some kind of epistemic equivalence between denying historical fact and questioning and testing scientific models.
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.
We could pay for ecological preserves and reservations.
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.
Most have moved on to denying other things.
Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").
Others are accepting that climate change is happening and that it is detrimental, but are now denying that it has anything to do with human activity, so that they can now deny the fact that a change in human activity could possibly emeliorate the detriments, or even reverse the trend ("look, CO2 is plant food, the more of it, the better").
And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").
And then there are, of course, those who say that their own, tiny country is only contributing such a small amount of the climate changing emissions, that changing anything wouldn't make an impact anyway ("look, the Chinese are emitting so much more than us, because they have stolen all those wonderful jobs in industrial production").
These people then usually seize the opportunity to deny the fact that their own prosperous, developed countries owe the largest part of their prosperity and development to that human activity which has caused climate change in the first place and that we should therefor take the first step to do something against the consequences.
So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.
The definition is applied fairly narrowly to those who deny the scientific facts that climate change is occurring in the first place.
The rest is policy.
Just started Sapiens which as a populist history book is fine.
Can't move in the first quarter of the book without him describing historic and pre historic climate change.
Do we know how much is us now and how much them?
Sapiens is ok. Homo Deus is just him banging on about animal rights for most of the book.
Since elements of that bill have been discussed as long ago as 1998, I cannot agree. Moreover, since Extinction Rebellion themselves have dismissed it, I don't think you can claim it as a win for them.
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.
Most have moved on to denying other things.
Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").
l.
Is it so surprising that most people are resisting 'solutions' that will see them facing potentially huge and detrimental lifestyle changes whilst a privileged few carry on as before.
The correct way forward is investing in new technology, humans have always innovated their way into the future.
The problem is that most of the evangelical activists want us to take several steps backwards. But not them, obviously, they'll still fly around the world in private jets preaching - or taking a boat that requires six other people flying to make the trip happen.
Ah, the blame the messenger stage of denial...
Did you not notice the first sentence?
It would have a little more credibility if it didn't come from an aviation specialist, formula 1 fan working in a Petro-state.
Sure, science and reforestation are parts of the answer to climate change, but they are also excuses to do nothing used by people who want nothing to be done.
Who are these "people"?
You and me. How much are we changing? Really?
(Cue PBers explaining how they have only ever been to Skeggy on holiday and recently relagged their lofts.)
There's not a great deal we can do. Being really green costs money. Veganism is costing me a fortune! I don't have the space to grow my own fruit and veg. The waiting list for an allotment is longer than the list for one of Charles' clubs, so I have to buy it all in. We go for organic but that's hit and miss in the supermarkets. Packaging is a nightmare, with so much single use plastic, and even when something comes in a paper bag they stick a "helpful" single use plastic window in it! I can neither fit nor afford a heat source pump, can't afford solar, can no longer cycle to work, can't afford an electric vehicle and there ain't any public transport at the time I head off, so my old diesel van is the only option........but we haven't used an aeroplane for 3 years if that counts?
As usual, it’s and not or. Technology is going to play a big part of the response to the climate change crisis. And so is a big change of mindset about the externalities of our daily activities.
People don’t want a meaningful deterioration in their quality of life.
Electric power, smart tech grids and electric cars will get us a long way. Then we have the challenge of renewable central heating, producing beef (by far the worst) without emissions, using AI for more efficient recycling, and renewable fuels for aviation.
So yes, I do see it as largely technological but also feasible. The really hard bits are carbon capture and nuclear fusion.
Without wishing to defend Banks, Morgan really is an utter moron, isn't he? Apparently 1977 and 1992 were less than 23 years ago.
And isn't Dad's Army STILL on our TVs? They recently reshot some lost episodes. (I have no idea whether 'Allo 'Allo is still on some crap station somewhere. Most everything else is....)
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.
Most have moved on to denying other things.
Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").
Others are accepting that climate change is happening and that it is detrimental, but are now denying that it has anything to do with human activity, so that they can now deny the fact that a change in human activity could possibly emeliorate the detriments, or even reverse the trend ("look, CO2 is plant food, the more of it, the better").
And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").
And then there are, of course, those who say that their own, tiny country is only contributing such a small amount of the climate changing emissions, that changing anything wouldn't make an impact anyway ("look, the Chinese are emitting so much more than us, because they have stolen all those wonderful jobs in industrial production").
These people then usually seize the opportunity to deny the fact that their own prosperous, developed countries owe the largest part of their prosperity and development to that human activity which has caused climate change in the first place and that we should therefor take the first step to do something against the consequences.
So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.
The definition is applied fairly narrowly to those who deny the scientific facts that climate change is occurring in the first place.
The rest is policy.
Just started Sapiens which as a populist history book is fine.
Can't move in the first quarter of the book without him describing historic and pre historic climate change.
Do we know how much is us now and how much them?
Sapiens is ok. Homo Deus is just him banging on about animal rights for most of the book.
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
And the hole in the ozone layer has now essentially closed as a result of that action.
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
And the hole in the ozone layer has now essentially closed as a result of that action.
XR's position would have been 'end refrigeration or we'll all die', rather than 'develop and switch to less oxidising coolants'.
The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?
Without wishing to defend Banks, Morgan really is an utter moron, isn't he? Apparently 1977 and 1992 were less than 23 years ago.
And isn't Dad's Army STILL on our TVs? They recently reshot some lost episodes. (I have no idea whether 'Allo 'Allo is still on some crap station somewhere. Most everything else is....)
There is a channel on Sky called Forces TV. Late at night, when we've finished a box set, and just flicking through the channels before heading to bed it has programmes such as Shelly, Bless This House and Space 1999 on, all in 4.3 aspect ratio. I caught a minute of Bless This house a few nights ago- in black and white, with that weird sort of shadow outline you used to get. Aside from it being crap, it was virtually unwatchable on a 4K telly. No wonder we all had to wear glasses as kids.
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
Only a .
l.
Is it so surprising that most people are resisting 'solutions' that will see them facing potentially huge and detrimental lifestyle changes whilst a privileged few carry on as before.
The correct way forward is investing in new technology, humans have always innovated their way into the future.
The problem is that most of the evangelical activists want us to take several steps backwards. But not them, obviously, they'll still fly around the world in private jets preaching - or taking a boat that requires six other people flying to make the trip happen.
Ah, the blame the messenger stage of denial...
Did you not notice the first sentence?
It would have a little more credibility if it didn't come from an aviation specialist, formula 1 fan working in a Petro-state.
ne.
Who are these "people"?
You and me. How much are we changing? Really?
(Cue PBers explaining how they have only ever been to Skeggy on holiday and recently relagged their lofts.)
There's not a great deal we can do. Being really green costs money. Veganism is costing me a fortune! I don't have the space to grow my own fruit and veg. The waiting list for an allotment is longer than the list for one of Charles' clubs, so I have to buy it all in. We go for organic but that's hit and miss in the supermarkets. Packaging is a nightmare, with so much single use plastic, and even when something comes in a paper bag they stick a "helpful" single use plastic window in it! I can neither fit nor afford a heat source pump, can't afford solar, can no longer cycle to work, can't afford an electric vehicle and there ain't any public transport at the time I head off, so my old diesel van is the only option........but we haven't used an aeroplane for 3 years if that counts?
Veganism is an ideology.
You can switch your gas/electricity supplier to someone like Pure Planet, who use 100% renewable electricity and offset 100% of all their gas and happen to be quite affordable too.
Packaging is starting to change I think and low-cost electric vehicles are about 5-10 years away from being on the market.
Without wishing to defend Banks, Morgan really is an utter moron, isn't he? Apparently 1977 and 1992 were less than 23 years ago.
And isn't Dad's Army STILL on our TVs? They recently reshot some lost episodes. (I have no idea whether 'Allo 'Allo is still on some crap station somewhere. Most everything else is....)
The Goodies and Robin of Sherwood are two programs which have very rarely, if ever, been repeated.
The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?
That's easy. To get only 25 working days, Boris Johnson needs to get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons on a vote for an early election. Jeremy Corbyn can lengthen that by a fortnight just by ousting him via a vote of no confidence. Now, if the vote takes place on, say, 1 November, that means that the 14 days run out on 15 November. 25 working days then take us to 20 December. Is the government really going to insist on holding an election on the Friday before Christmas? To make absolutely sure of a still longer campaign, Jeremy Corbyn can schedule his vote of no confidence for, say, 6 November, thus making the seven week period expire on 28 December. Boris Johnson would be morally forced to defer the election until at least 4 January and in all probability he would choose 11 January, so that those away on holiday over Christmas would all vote.
If it's almost 50 now then it would have been between 70 to 80 and year ago. A third of the recalcitrants have already been eased out so it seems like it has been war gamed.
Alastair says: "I agree. So why is all the betting money on a short campaign?"
Question: if Corbyn tables a VONC and the government loses and a GE is the end result, who decides the actual date of the GE i.e. who determines whether it will be a long or short campaign? Boris, Corbyn, the speaker??
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.
Amazon burning this year only slightly unusual (More or Less, R4). Plus they are developing. Perhaps we should return the UK to a forested islands. Might solve the NI border issue.
Interesting, I suspected that might be the case. And this is part of the problem. It only generated media attention because the media doesn’t like Brazil’s president.
An old colleague of mine said that part of the problem with Global Warming is the name, as demonstrated by that piece on the permafrost. Human activity might be contributing to the change there, but there’s clearly something specific to that area that’s causing the temperature rise to be particularly large. Perhaps as the ice melts, there’s a positive feedback loop that sees less sunlight reflected back from where it came.
Without wishing to defend Banks, Morgan really is an utter moron, isn't he? Apparently 1977 and 1992 were less than 23 years ago.
And isn't Dad's Army STILL on our TVs? They recently reshot some lost episodes. (I have no idea whether 'Allo 'Allo is still on some crap station somewhere. Most everything else is....)
The Goodies and Robin of Sherwood are two programs which have very rarely, if ever, been repeated.
The Goodies was heavily repeated in Australia in prime time slots. When moved out there I was surprised how many could quote lines from the Goodies, as easily as Brits of my generation can quote Monty Python
Based on a 1950 letter to the Times by then then secretary to Queen. Reasons why the monarch can refuse a dissolution.
Sun reporting this morning that Cummings thinks this is way to go.
A sign of just how desperate Downing Street has got.
It is beyond belief that the Cabinet hasn't demanded Cummings sacking by now.
You forget the polls.
Sack Cummings and you get the same dolts that led the Cons to 9% in the EU elections.
He’s not here for a long time - he’s here for a good time.
SNP + Cons have enough to pass a one line bill for a GE.
The current prorogation resets the clock on the Lords delaying powers and the SNP has no peers.
I doubt the Lords would vote down a one line bill from the Commons for an election.
No I don't either. But if Labour and/or Lib Dems oppose it they could slow it down considerably. In this case defeating its purpose. They could also treat it as a Christmas Tree Bill. What would the SNP in the Commons do if it came back with votes at 16 attached ? Or putting people with Settled Status on the same footing as qualifying Commonwealth citizens ? Etc etc.
The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?
That's easy. To get only 25 working days, Boris Johnson needs to get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons on a vote for an early election. Jeremy Corbyn can lengthen that by a fortnight just by ousting him via a vote of no confidence. Now, if the vote takes place on, say, 1 November, that means that the 14 days run out on 15 November. 25 working days then take us to 20 December. Is the government really going to insist on holding an election on the Friday before Christmas? To make absolutely sure of a still longer campaign, Jeremy Corbyn can schedule his vote of no confidence for, say, 6 November, thus making the seven week period expire on 28 December. Boris Johnson would be morally forced to defer the election until at least 4 January and in all probability he would choose 11 January, so that those away on holiday over Christmas would all vote.
That’s going to make some family Christmas dinners fun!
Alastair says: "I agree. So why is all the betting money on a short campaign?"
Question: if Corbyn tables a VONC and the government loses and a GE is the end result, who decides the actual date of the GE i.e. who determines whether it will be a long or short campaign? Boris, Corbyn, the speaker??
Alastair says: "I agree. So why is all the betting money on a short campaign?"
Question: if Corbyn tables a VONC and the government loses and a GE is the end result, who decides the actual date of the GE i.e. who determines whether it will be a long or short campaign? Boris, Corbyn, the speaker??
There must be 25 working days in a general election campaign as a matter of statute. The actual date after that is a matter of royal prerogative (ie Boris Johnson), as @Yellow_Submarine notes.
If you were the EU, would you negotiate a new deal?
Everything is going to plan. A No-deal has been made illegal so that only leaves the EU/May deal on offer and that's the worst case scenario.
With the MPs on-side, an extension can only produce a new referendum or a revocation. And more time for the electorate to get fed up with the whole thing.
MPs will only honour referenda results they agree with.
The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?
That's easy. To get only 25 working days, Boris Johnson needs to get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons on a vote for an early election. Jeremy Corbyn can lengthen that by a fortnight just by ousting him via a vote of no confidence. Now, if the vote takes place on, say, 1 November, that means that the 14 days run out on 15 November. 25 working days then take us to 20 December. Is the government really going to insist on holding an election on the Friday before Christmas? To make absolutely sure of a still longer campaign, Jeremy Corbyn can schedule his vote of no confidence for, say, 6 November, thus making the seven week period expire on 28 December. Boris Johnson would be morally forced to defer the election until at least 4 January and in all probability he would choose 11 January, so that those away on holiday over Christmas would all vote.
F1: hmm. Whilst the odds are longer for the lower half of the field than the top to 'win' first practice those dastardly Ladbrokes types have noticed there's a typhoon in the weather forecast, so the odds are significantly shorter than usual.
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.
Amazon burning this year only slightly unusual (More or Less, R4). Plus they are developing. Perhaps we should return the UK to a forested islands. Might solve the NI border issue.
Interesting, I suspected that might be the case. And this is part of the problem. It only generated media attention because the media doesn’t like Brazil’s president.
An old colleague of mine said that part of the problem with Global Warming is the name, as demonstrated by that piece on the permafrost. Human activity might be contributing to the change there, but there’s clearly something specific to that area that’s causing the temperature rise to be particularly large. Perhaps as the ice melts, there’s a positive feedback loop that sees less sunlight reflected back from where it came.
Yep, no-one was talking about the simultaneous African wildfires, because there wasn't a disliked (to American liberals) politician to go after.
The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?
That's easy. To get only 25 working days, Boris Johnson needs to get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons on a vote for an early election. Jeremy Corbyn can lengthen that by a fortnight just by ousting him via a vote of no confidence. Now, if the vote takes place on, say, 1 November, that means that the 14 days run out on 15 November. 25 working days then take us to 20 December. Is the government really going to insist on holding an election on the Friday before Christmas? To make absolutely sure of a still longer campaign, Jeremy Corbyn can schedule his vote of no confidence for, say, 6 November, thus making the seven week period expire on 28 December. Boris Johnson would be morally forced to defer the election until at least 4 January and in all probability he would choose 11 January, so that those away on holiday over Christmas would all vote.
4 and 11 January are Saturdays.
2 January and 9 January would be Thursdays.
Thanks - that will teach me to look at the calendar too quickly. So, yes, I think Jeremy Corbyn can effectively get himself a 9 week campaign if he is so inclined.
Yes the PM will control the date of the election if gov loses a VONC. This is one reason why I don`t think that Corbyn will table a VONC this year - and possiby never (and is why I`ve backed GE for 2022 at long odds).
Yellow Submarines Option D (8:18am) "become PM and set the date himself" is a key reason why Corbyn will not agree to anyone but himself heading a GNU. I think it still possible that a GNU with Corbyn as PM is a possibility only because he can then determine the GE date.
modern F1 car engines for example are massively fuel-efficient,
They really aren't - they do about 40-50l/100km which is risible. They exist in their current form only to give hybrid technology a veneer of motosports credibility for the manufacturers.
If F1 were really interested in efficiency they would have a completely different set of aero regulations, tyres and less focus on mechanical grip.
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.
Although, shouting in people’s faces has us talking about it more than ever.
It has us talking about what we could do. But the conversation has to be moved on to what we need to do, and because they are personally loathsome that isn't happening.
It will happen eventually, but probably rather later than it needs to.
Yes. Obviously if the protests hadn't happened we would be acting more quickly on this issue. Don't you realise how absurd that sounds?
I'm saying because the protests are happening we might act more slowly on it out of spite. And there's ample historical precedent for that. The actions of the Suffragettes, for example, hardened government opinion against giving women the vote and it took a war and the inclusion of the main opposition parties in a coalition to change things.
It's been more than
These protests have already encouraged politicians to promise to do more, so I think the evidence is contrary to your assertion.
They have already encouraged those politicians with no power to do anything to promise to do more.
Name me one single actual physical change happening as a result of this that wouldn't have happened anyway.
I don't think this announcement would have happened had it not been for the climate strikes or the extinction rebellion protests.
Sounds like 20 years after making a fantasy with a subversive edge, Verhoeven has decided it was a satire.
THINGS I HATE ABOUT THE 21ST CENTURY, PART 761 ================================= * People who don't realise that Tim Burton's "Sleepy Hollow" is a love-letter to Hammer films[1] * People who don't get that "Starship Troopers" is a obvious Nazi allegory, despite the fact that Verhoeven said so at the time, dressed Doogie Howser in a black leather cap and overcoat, ripped off Leni Riefenstahl, and considered getting the actors to make Nazi salutes.
[1] Seriously. There's a whole Nostalgia Critic video where he's honestly surprised.
I'm not for a moment denying that Starship Troopers is consciously infused with Nazi imagery, just suggesting that Verhoeven was getting off on it. Nazism didn't get where it is today without people getting off on torch lit parades, black leather and sharp uniforms*. Reframing it currently as a dreadful warning from past or future history is a tad dishonest.
*If anyone feels the need to plop out the thousand-time-made revelation that Hugo Boss made many of the Hitlerite uniforms, please desist because otherwise I would have to have you taken out and given a punishment beating.
If you were the EU, would you negotiate a new deal?
Everything is going to plan. A No-deal has been made illegal so that only leaves the EU/May deal on offer and that's the worst case scenario.
With the MPs on-side, an extension can only produce a new referendum or a revocation. And more time for the electorate to get fed up with the whole thing.
MPs will only honour referenda results they agree with.
No-deal does not "honour" the referendum; it is Leave in extremis, and does not reflect the very marginal nature of the result. "Honouring" the result would have been to agree TMay's deal. The ERG and the DUP ensured that did not happen.
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.
Amazon burning this year only slightly unusual (More or Less, R4). Plus they are developing. Perhaps we should return the UK to a forested islands. Might solve the NI border issue.
Interesting, I suspected that might be the case. And this is part of the problem. It only generated media attention because the media doesn’t like Brazil’s president.
An old colleague of mine said that part of the problem with Global Warming is the name, as demonstrated by that piece on the permafrost. Human activity might be contributing to the change there, but there’s clearly something specific to that area that’s causing the temperature rise to be particularly large. Perhaps as the ice melts, there’s a positive feedback loop that sees less sunlight reflected back from where it came.
The second is revealing - the area of Brazilian Amazon burnt in 2019 looks like it could be less than it was in 2017 or 2015 and less than half of what was burnt in 2004, 2005 and 2007.
Theresa May's Deal will not get through as the ERG will oppose the GB backstop and the DUP will oppose the Northern Ireland backstop and barely any Labour no opposition MPs will vote for it either. The proposed Boris plan has more chance of getting through the current Commons as the ERG and DUP will vote for it, the only problem being the EU will not accept it.
Only 280 MPs voted for EUref2 in the indicative votes too
Yes the PM will control the date of the election if gov loses a VONC. This is one reason why I don`t think that Corbyn will table a VONC this year - and possiby never (and is why I`ve backed GE for 2022 at long odds).
Yellow Submarines Option D (8:18am) "become PM and set the date himself" is a key reason why Corbyn will not agree to anyone but himself heading a GNU. I think it still possible that a GNU with Corbyn as PM is a possibility only because he can then determine the GE date.
The LDs and Tory rebels will never back Corbyn as PM
The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?
That's easy. To get only 25 working days, Boris Johnson needs to get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons on a vote for an early election. Jeremy Corbyn can lengthen that by a fortnight just by ousting him via a vote of no confidence. Now, if the vote takes place on, say, 1 November, that means that the 14 days run out on 15 November. 25 working days then take us to 20 December. Is the government really going to insist on holding an election on the Friday before Christmas? To make absolutely sure of a still longer campaign, Jeremy Corbyn can schedule his vote of no confidence for, say, 6 November, thus making the seven week period expire on 28 December. Boris Johnson would be morally forced to defer the election until at least 4 January and in all probability he would choose 11 January, so that those away on holiday over Christmas would all vote.
That’s going to make some family Christmas dinners fun!
I know that we all think very little of our politicians, but does anyone seriously think that an election campaign running over Christmas is going to somehow endear them to us any more?
If not a 5th December election, it's going to be a campaign starting early Jan, for an election on 13th or 20th Feb.
If the EU deadline extension is until 31st Jan, then it's going to have to be 5th Dec for the election, called no later than 31st October.
It has been, any Tory MP who refuses to back the manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal will be deselected and replaced by a candidate who will
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.
Amazon burning this year only slightly unusual (More or Less, R4). Plus they are developing. Perhaps we should return the UK to a forested islands. Might solve the NI border issue.
Interesting, I suspected that might be the case. And this is part of the problem. It only generated media attention because the media doesn’t like Brazil’s president.
An old colleague of mine said that part of the problem with Global Warming is the name, as demonstrated by that piece on the permafrost. Human activity might be contributing to the change there, but there’s clearly something specific to that area that’s causing the temperature rise to be particularly large. Perhaps as the ice melts, there’s a positive feedback loop that sees less sunlight reflected back from where it came.
Yep, no-one was talking about the simultaneous African wildfires, because there wasn't a disliked (to American liberals) politician to go after.
Over a period of two days last week Angola had roughly three times more fires than Brazil, according to data Bloomberg news agency obtained from Weather Source.
The data said there were 6,902 fires in Angola and 3,395 fires in neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo, compared with just 2,127 fires in Brazil.
The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?
That's easy. To get only 25 working days, Boris Johnson needs to get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons on a vote for an early election. Jeremy Corbyn can lengthen that by a fortnight just by ousting him via a vote of no confidence. Now, if the vote takes place on, say, 1 November, that means that the 14 days run out on 15 November. 25 working days then take us to 20 December. Is the government really going to insist on holding an election on the Friday before Christmas? To make absolutely sure of a still longer campaign, Jeremy Corbyn can schedule his vote of no confidence for, say, 6 November, thus making the seven week period expire on 28 December. Boris Johnson would be morally forced to defer the election until at least 4 January and in all probability he would choose 11 January, so that those away on holiday over Christmas would all vote.
That’s going to make some family Christmas dinners fun!
I know that we all think very little of our politicians, but does anyone seriously think that an election campaign running over Christmas is going to somehow endear them to us any more?
If not a 5th December election, it's going to be a campaign starting early Jan, for an election on 13th or 20th Feb.
If the EU deadline extension is until 31st Jan, then it's going to have to be 5th Dec for the election, called no later than 31st October.
Do you think that the EU is going to be particularly inclined to set timetables that suit Boris Johnson?
Based on a 1950 letter to the Times by then then secretary to Queen. Reasons why the monarch can refuse a dissolution.
Sun reporting this morning that Cummings thinks this is way to go.
A sign of just how desperate Downing Street has got.
It is beyond belief that the Cabinet hasn't demanded Cummings sacking by now.
Cummings operates with Boris' blessing. Getting angry at him is as much displacement activity as anything parliament has done to avoid making a decision.
It has been, any Tory MP who refuses to back the manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal will be deselected and replaced by a candidate who will
You would like that wouldn't you? Fascist, small tent ideology coming to a political party near you!
Based on a 1950 letter to the Times by then then secretary to Queen. Reasons why the monarch can refuse a dissolution.
Sun reporting this morning that Cummings thinks this is way to go.
A sign of just how desperate Downing Street has got.
It is beyond belief that the Cabinet hasn't demanded Cummings sacking by now.
Cummings operates with Boris' blessing. Getting angry at him is as much displacement activity as anything parliament has done to avoid making a decision.
Yes the PM will control the date of the election if gov loses a VONC. This is one reason why I don`t think that Corbyn will table a VONC this year - and possiby never (and is why I`ve backed GE for 2022 at long odds).
Yellow Submarines Option D (8:18am) "become PM and set the date himself" is a key reason why Corbyn will not agree to anyone but himself heading a GNU. I think it still possible that a GNU with Corbyn as PM is a possibility only because he can then determine the GE date.
The LDs and Tory rebels will never back Corbyn as PM
Agreed. Why would Ms. Swinson, seeing they have a unique opportunity to replace Labour, do that? As for the Conservative rebels, Labour would not give them a free run in a GE. We have to remember that their careers trump all.
modern F1 car engines for example are massively fuel-efficient,
They really aren't - they do about 40-50l/100km which is risible. They exist in their current form only to give hybrid technology a veneer of motosports credibility for the manufacturers.
If F1 were really interested in efficiency they would have a completely different set of aero regulations, tyres and less focus on mechanical grip.
The F1 Mercedes is now more than 50% efficient at turning fuel into power. The previous generation of F1 cars were somewhere around 30% and road cars are considerably less efficient. Current F1 cars use 105kg of fuel (about 130l) for a c.300km race. Around 7mpg which is context is quite amazing. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/131772/mercedes-engine-hits-remarkable-dyno-target
F1's problem is that they're not shouting about this from the rooftops, it's an astonishing leap forward in engine technology.
"... does not reflect the very marginal nature of the result."
Illogical.
The winner of a general election is the one with a majority. If Jezza wins, he won't include some of the Tory or LD manifesto to reach out to the losing side.
The referendum is designed to produce a yes/no verdict. If you want to be sympathetic to the losers, you could suggest a run-off between two sorts of Leave. Not as will happen, a run-off between two sorts of Remain.
Can we assume that PBers will be minimising their flying and cruises from now on ?
Likewise with purchasing of imported fresh food.
Perhaps we should all pledge never again to buy imported lettuce
Your lettuce example is one reason why I think there should be a carbon tax to produce a price signal.
It seems obvious that not importing lettuce by driving it a couple of thousand miles on a diesel truck would be helpful, but as a consumer I will not know when the distributor has switched to an electric truck, charged with solar power. If I do not know the growing season for lettuces I do not know whether a British lettuce has been grown in a gas-heated greenhouse, or indeed a greenhouse not heated, or heated using a wind powered heat pump. Does heating a greenhouse generate more carbon than truck transport? Is this calculation different for tomatoes than lettuces?
I don't know, and the answer might well be different depending on the detail of the implementation. It could be impossible for me to know. One cannot expect individuals to make all of these judgements. With CFCs it was much easier - aerosol cans began to be available that were CFC-free. The task for the consumer who wanted to act was simple.
A carbon tax applied equally to all sources of carbon will create a price signal that is obvious to see. It will encourage companies to take action.
It has been, any Tory MP who refuses to back the manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal will be deselected and replaced by a candidate who will
You would like that wouldn't you? Fascist, small tent ideology coming to a political party near you!
No, simple maths. If the Tories win a majority with a manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal and 50 Tory candidates refuse to respect that commitment it cannot be implemented. Hence deselections will have to occur if any candidates refuse to respect Brexit Deal or No Deal.
As someone who refuses to respect the winning Leave vote come what may you are hardly in a position to lecture about democracy
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.
To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.
I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.
What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.
Amazon burning this year only slightly unusual (More or Less, R4). Plus they are developing. Perhaps we should return the UK to a forested islands. Might solve the NI border issue.
Interesting, I suspected that might be the case. And this is part of the problem. It only generated media attention because the media doesn’t like Brazil’s president.
An old colleague of mine said that part of the problem with Global Warming is the name, as demonstrated by that piece on the permafrost. Human activity might be contributing to the change there, but there’s clearly something specific to that area that’s causing the temperature rise to be particularly large. Perhaps as the ice melts, there’s a positive feedback loop that sees less sunlight reflected back from where it came.
Yep, no-one was talking about the simultaneous African wildfires, because there wasn't a disliked (to American liberals) politician to go after.
Quite a lot of people were talking about it (as evidenced by the BBC having that article up). It's all the same globe, and dismissing particular because they disproportionate attention (or inattention) is foolish.
Yes the PM will control the date of the election if gov loses a VONC. This is one reason why I don`t think that Corbyn will table a VONC this year - and possiby never (and is why I`ve backed GE for 2022 at long odds).
Yellow Submarines Option D (8:18am) "become PM and set the date himself" is a key reason why Corbyn will not agree to anyone but himself heading a GNU. I think it still possible that a GNU with Corbyn as PM is a possibility only because he can then determine the GE date.
The LDs and Tory rebels will never back Corbyn as PM
Agreed. Why would Ms. Swinson, seeing they have a unique opportunity to replace Labour, do that? As for the Conservative rebels, Labour would not give them a free run in a GE. We have to remember that their careers trump all.
Exactly, Swinson wants the LDs to overtake Corbyn Labour not prop up Corbyn Labour and while Tory rebels may defect to or do deals with the LDs they will not with Corbyn Labour
Can we assume that PBers will be minimising their flying and cruises from now on ?
Likewise with purchasing of imported fresh food.
Perhaps we should all pledge never again to buy imported lettuce
Your lettuce example is one reason why I think there should be a carbon tax to produce a price signal.
It seems obvious that not importing lettuce by driving it a couple of thousand miles on a diesel truck would be helpful, but as a consumer I will not know when the distributor has switched to an electric truck, charged with solar power. If I do not know the growing season for lettuces I do not know whether a British lettuce has been grown in a gas-heated greenhouse, or indeed a greenhouse not heated, or heated using a wind powered heat pump. Does heating a greenhouse generate more carbon than truck transport? Is this calculation different for tomatoes than lettuces?
I don't know, and the answer might well be different depending on the detail of the implementation. It could be impossible for me to know. One cannot expect individuals to make all of these judgements. With CFCs it was much easier - aerosol cans began to be available that were CFC-free. The task for the consumer who wanted to act was simple.
A carbon tax applied equally to all sources of carbon will create a price signal that is obvious to see. It will encourage companies to take action.
Likewise, not growing apples in England, shipping them to Spain for polishing, shipping them back, and declaring them to be "local".
(Cue PBers explaining how they have only ever been to Skeggy on holiday and recently relagged their lofts.)
There's not a great deal we can do. Being really green costs money. Veganism is costing me a fortune! I don't have the space to grow my own fruit and veg. The waiting list for an allotment is longer than the list for one of Charles' clubs, so I have to buy it all in. We go for organic but that's hit and miss in the supermarkets. Packaging is a nightmare, with so much single use plastic, and even when something comes in a paper bag they stick a "helpful" single use plastic window in it! I can neither fit nor afford a heat source pump, can't afford solar, can no longer cycle to work, can't afford an electric vehicle and there ain't any public transport at the time I head off, so my old diesel van is the only option........but we haven't used an aeroplane for 3 years if that counts?
Veganism is an ideology.
You can switch your gas/electricity supplier to someone like Pure Planet, who use 100% renewable electricity and offset 100% of all their gas and happen to be quite affordable too.
Packaging is starting to change I think and low-cost electric vehicles are about 5-10 years away from being on the market.
It has been, any Tory MP who refuses to back the manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal will be deselected and replaced by a candidate who will
You would like that wouldn't you? Fascist, small tent ideology coming to a political party near you!
No, simple maths. If the Tories win a majority with a manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal and 50 Tory candidates refuse to respect that commitment it cannot be implemented. Hence deselections will have to occur if any candidates refuse to respect Brexit Deal or No Deal...
Your argument boils down to that when given a clash between an imbecilic policy, and MPs who refuse to accept it as a manifesto commitment, you get rid of the MPs (something which in itself requires a degree of handwaving).
There is an alternative, and less destructive means of solving that clash.
modern F1 car engines for example are massively fuel-efficient,
They really aren't - they do about 40-50l/100km which is risible. They exist in their current form only to give hybrid technology a veneer of motosports credibility for the manufacturers.
If F1 were really interested in efficiency they would have a completely different set of aero regulations, tyres and less focus on mechanical grip.
The F1 Mercedes is now more than 50% efficient at turning fuel into power. The previous generation of F1 cars were somewhere around 30% and road cars are considerably less efficient. Current F1 cars use 105kg of fuel (about 130l) for a c.300km race. Around 7mpg which is context is quite amazing. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/131772/mercedes-engine-hits-remarkable-dyno-target
F1's problem is that they're not shouting about this from the rooftops, it's an astonishing leap forward in engine technology.
It has been, any Tory MP who refuses to back the manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal will be deselected and replaced by a candidate who will
You would like that wouldn't you? Fascist, small tent ideology coming to a political party near you!
No, simple maths. If the Tories win a majority with a manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal and 50 Tory candidates refuse to respect that commitment it cannot be implemented. Hence deselections will have to occur if any candidates refuse to respect Brexit Deal or No Deal.
As someone who refuses to respect the winning Leave vote come what may you are hardly in a position to lecture about democracy
Well my views on Brexit, unlike yours may I say, have never been hypocritical. Brexit is a bad idea period. As for "respecting" the vote, no-deal certainly does not do that as it was a very marginal win on a very dodgy prospectus. The only mandate for the stupidity of no-deal needs to be won by a fresh referendum, which ,as you know, would be lost, so will not be offered by Bozo.
So, as a dedicated fanboy of Bozo, you will fall in behind the mendacious approach of pretending that all people who might be scared into voting Tory are backing no-deal. Your idea of "democracy", I am sorry to say has the all the depth of understanding of the simpleton.
It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.
Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.
Most have moved on to denying other things.
Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").
l.
Is it so surprising that most people are resisting 'solutions' that will see them facing potentially huge and detrimental lifestyle changes whilst a privileged few carry on as before.
The correct way forward is investing in new technology, humans have always innovated their way into the future.
The problem is that most of the evangelical activists weaching - or taking a boat that requires six other people flying to make the trip happen.
Ah, the blame the messenger stage of denial...
Did you not notice the first sentence?
It would have a little more credibility if it didn't come from an aviation specialist, formula 1 fan working in a Petro-state.
Sure, science and reforestation are parts of the answer to climate change, but they are also excuses to do nothing used by people who want nothing to be done.
Who are these "people"?
You and me. How much are we changing? Really?
(Cue PBers explaining how they have only ever been to Skeggy on holiday and recently relagged their lofts.)
There's not a great deal we can do. Being really green costs money. Veganism is costing me a fortune! I don't have the space to grow my own fruit and veg. The waiting list for an allotment is longer than the list for one of Charles' clubs, so I have to buy it all in. We go for organic but that's hit and miss in the supermarkets. Packaging is a nightmare, with so much single use plastic, and even when something comes in a paper bag they stick a "helpful" single use plastic window in it! I can neither fit nor afford a heat source pump, can't afford solar, can no longer cycle to work, can't afford an electric vehicle and there ain't any public transport at the time I head off, so my old diesel van is the only option........but we haven't used an aeroplane for 3 years if that counts?
Enviable awareness and understanding if I may say.
"... does not reflect the very marginal nature of the result."
Illogical.
The winner of a general election is the one with a majority. If Jezza wins, he won't include some of the Tory or LD manifesto to reach out to the losing side.
The referendum is designed to produce a yes/no verdict. If you want to be sympathetic to the losers, you could suggest a run-off between two sorts of Leave. Not as will happen, a run-off between two sorts of Remain.
Rubbish, leaving with Mrs Mays deal is still Leaving. It's not a sort of Remain.
Can we assume that PBers will be minimising their flying and cruises from now on ?
Likewise with purchasing of imported fresh food.
Perhaps we should all pledge never again to buy imported lettuce
Your lettuce example is one reason why I think there should be a carbon tax to produce a price signal.
It seems obvious that not importing lettuce by driving it a couple of thousand miles on a diesel truck would be helpful, but as a consumer I will not know when the distributor has switched to an electric truck, charged with solar power. If I do not know the growing season for lettuces I do not know whether a British lettuce has been grown in a gas-heated greenhouse, or indeed a greenhouse not heated, or heated using a wind powered heat pump. Does heating a greenhouse generate more carbon than truck transport? Is this calculation different for tomatoes than lettuces?
I don't know, and the answer might well be different depending on the detail of the implementation. It could be impossible for me to know. One cannot expect individuals to make all of these judgements. With CFCs it was much easier - aerosol cans began to be available that were CFC-free. The task for the consumer who wanted to act was simple.
A carbon tax applied equally to all sources of carbon will create a price signal that is obvious to see. It will encourage companies to take action.
Likewise, not growing apples in England, shipping them to Spain for polishing, shipping them back, and declaring them to be "local".
The bar I sit in for sundown drinks faces a large field which normally grows celery at this time of year 90% of their produce is bagged locally in telco branded packaging and shipped to the UK. They have just stopped planting for the last week and activity has stopped. Not sure if it is coincidental but will watch closely what happens next.
Comments
These protests have already encouraged politicians to promise to do more, so I think the evidence is contrary to your assertion.
Name me one single actual physical change happening as a result of this that wouldn't have happened anyway.
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-mps-must-stop-playing-politics-with-no-deal-11831103
What we need is a political debate about the best methods to use. I think this debate mostly divides on the question of to what extent the government should intervene directly by spending money on potential solutions as opposed to creating market incentives for people to find their own solutions (eg by taxing carbon).
But maybe that's a debate we should have had 15 years ago. As I recall we instead wasted our time arguing over the latest bit of denialism.
Allegedly as soon as the Benn Act was passed the EU negotiating position hardened .
There were no negotiations at the time of that passing and its only when it did pass that Bozo even looked remotely bothered in getting a deal.
Sack Cummings and you get the same dolts that led the Cons to 9% in the EU elections.
He’s not here for a long time - he’s here for a good time.
SNP + Cons have enough to pass a one line bill for a GE.
https://www.ft.com/content/26e8d1e0-dbb3-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17
Don't get me wrong, I installed solar panels in 2013 because I thought it was a good thing to do (and after a drop in subsidies which made it pretty cost-ineffective), so any attempt by you to outgroup me is going to be uphill work. I just get bored of twerps with so little understanding of how science works that they think that apparent consensus, and truth, are the same thing, and who think that there is some kind of epistemic equivalence between denying historical fact and questioning and testing scientific models.
Have a good morning.
https://www.dw.com/en/german-government-accused-of-watering-down-climate-bill/a-50719441
I can neither fit nor afford a heat source pump, can't afford solar, can no longer cycle to work, can't afford an electric vehicle and there ain't any public transport at the time I head off, so my old diesel van is the only option........but we haven't used an aeroplane for 3 years if that counts?
Electric power, smart tech grids and electric cars will get us a long way. Then we have the challenge of renewable central heating, producing beef (by far the worst) without emissions, using AI for more efficient recycling, and renewable fuels for aviation.
So yes, I do see it as largely technological but also feasible. The really hard bits are carbon capture and nuclear fusion.
Boris spoke to Berlin and Paris and had the famous "30 days to get a deal" press conference BEFORE the Benn Act was passed.
Had Parliament waited 30 days before acting then they could have been justifiable. They didn't.
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1181825475716337664
Likewise with purchasing of imported fresh food.
Perhaps we should all pledge never again to buy imported lettuce
You can switch your gas/electricity supplier to someone like Pure Planet, who use 100% renewable electricity and offset 100% of all their gas and happen to be quite affordable too.
Packaging is starting to change I think and low-cost electric vehicles are about 5-10 years away from being on the market.
If you go to those countries the amount of litter and the state of their beaches, kerbsides and streetscapes are absolutely shocking.
Gives you a newfound respect for planning laws and Keep Britain Tidy.
Question: if Corbyn tables a VONC and the government loses and a GE is the end result, who decides the actual date of the GE i.e. who determines whether it will be a long or short campaign? Boris, Corbyn, the speaker??
An old colleague of mine said that part of the problem with Global Warming is the name, as demonstrated by that piece on the permafrost. Human activity might be contributing to the change there, but there’s clearly something specific to that area that’s causing the temperature rise to be particularly large. Perhaps as the ice melts, there’s a positive feedback loop that sees less sunlight reflected back from where it came.
before we get too smug about it. ("Let's not start sucking each other's d*cks just yet" - Winston Wolfe).
Everything is going to plan. A No-deal has been made illegal so that only leaves the EU/May deal on offer and that's the worst case scenario.
With the MPs on-side, an extension can only produce a new referendum or a revocation. And more time for the electorate to get fed up with the whole thing.
MPs will only honour referenda results they agree with.
2 January and 9 January would be Thursdays.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49471644
Yellow Submarines Option D (8:18am) "become PM and set the date himself" is a key reason why Corbyn will not agree to anyone but himself heading a GNU. I think it still possible that a GNU with Corbyn as PM is a possibility only because he can then determine the GE date.
If F1 were really interested in efficiency they would have a completely different set of aero regulations, tyres and less focus on mechanical grip.
https://twitter.com/chilledasad100/status/1180747159886585857?s=19
I'm not for a moment denying that Starship Troopers is consciously infused with Nazi imagery, just suggesting that Verhoeven was getting off on it. Nazism didn't get where it is today without people getting off on torch lit parades, black leather and sharp uniforms*. Reframing it currently as a dreadful warning from past or future history is a tad dishonest.
*If anyone feels the need to plop out the thousand-time-made revelation that Hugo Boss made many of the Hitlerite uniforms, please desist because otherwise I would have to have you taken out and given a punishment beating.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-49515462
The second is revealing - the area of Brazilian Amazon burnt in 2019 looks like it could be less than it was in 2017 or 2015 and less than half of what was burnt in 2004, 2005 and 2007.
Only 280 MPs voted for EUref2 in the indicative votes too
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1181830124985081862
If not a 5th December election, it's going to be a campaign starting early Jan, for an election on 13th or 20th Feb.
If the EU deadline extension is until 31st Jan, then it's going to have to be 5th Dec for the election, called no later than 31st October.
The data said there were 6,902 fires in Angola and 3,395 fires in neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo, compared with just 2,127 fires in Brazil.
Current F1 cars use 105kg of fuel (about 130l) for a c.300km race. Around 7mpg which is context is quite amazing.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/131772/mercedes-engine-hits-remarkable-dyno-target
F1's problem is that they're not shouting about this from the rooftops, it's an astonishing leap forward in engine technology.
It's filtering down into road cars, such that the new AMG-A35 has a 300bhp, 2 litre petrol engine yet does 38.7mpg.
https://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-features/bmw-m135i-vs--mercedes-amg-a35/41069
"... does not reflect the very marginal nature of the result."
Illogical.
The winner of a general election is the one with a majority. If Jezza wins, he won't include some of the Tory or LD manifesto to reach out to the losing side.
The referendum is designed to produce a yes/no verdict. If you want to be sympathetic to the losers, you could suggest a run-off between two sorts of Leave. Not as will happen, a run-off between two sorts of Remain.
It seems obvious that not importing lettuce by driving it a couple of thousand miles on a diesel truck would be helpful, but as a consumer I will not know when the distributor has switched to an electric truck, charged with solar power. If I do not know the growing season for lettuces I do not know whether a British lettuce has been grown in a gas-heated greenhouse, or indeed a greenhouse not heated, or heated using a wind powered heat pump. Does heating a greenhouse generate more carbon than truck transport? Is this calculation different for tomatoes than lettuces?
I don't know, and the answer might well be different depending on the detail of the implementation. It could be impossible for me to know. One cannot expect individuals to make all of these judgements. With CFCs it was much easier - aerosol cans began to be available that were CFC-free. The task for the consumer who wanted to act was simple.
A carbon tax applied equally to all sources of carbon will create a price signal that is obvious to see. It will encourage companies to take action.
As someone who refuses to respect the winning Leave vote come what may you are hardly in a position to lecture about democracy
It's all the same globe, and dismissing particular because they disproportionate attention (or inattention) is foolish.
There is an alternative, and less destructive means of solving that clash.
https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-3/2018/mpg/
So, as a dedicated fanboy of Bozo, you will fall in behind the mendacious approach of pretending that all people who might be scared into voting Tory are backing no-deal. Your idea of "democracy", I am sorry to say has the all the depth of understanding of the simpleton.