I take your point. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured underground over 300m years ago when C02 levels were at 800ppm (3 x pre-industrial levels). It's releasing that fossil fuel carbon that has driven CO2 levels up from 280ppm to 410ppm, not burning biomass.
When it was stored as carbon is irrelevant. The result is the same. The fact that new biomass crops are grown in its place and draw carbon from the atmosphere once again is more relevant, but it is entirely possible that burning oil and planting a forest would result in less CO2 than burning sugar cane and replanting sugar cane.
I doubt it.
Growing a field of sugar cane takes X kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning it puts X kg of CO2 back into the atmosphere = net zero.
Burning fossil fuels quickly releases the carbon trapped by forests over potentially millions of years. Planting a new forest is not going to recapture the carbon stored from millions of years of decaying pre-historic forests.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Electricity from biomass is no cheaper than renewables, and extremely unlikely to fall in price in the same way that they will over the next decade. It would make considerably more sense to plant more forests and not cut them down.
In the very short term - the next decade - it would make sense to replace coal with natural gas. Virtually no one burns oil for electricity, other than emergency generators.
Fun fact, the island of St Lucia gets all its power from burning imported oil.
Fun fact, only one British league football team is mentioned in the New Testament.
On what possible basis does Farage get an invite to any debates? He represents a private company, not a party, which has zero MPs, is almost certain to win zero seats, has never even stood for Parliament before and is not a candidate himself.
Mike is understandably disappointed that we are not going to get an "I agree with Jo" moment but the fact is last time out the Lib Dems got 12 seats and 7.4% of the vote. The Lib Dems have to earn back the right to be a major party again. Personally, I think that they will will roughly double the seats they won the last time but Nicola has a much better claim to take part in a debate that is about who the next PM is going to be. She will not be a candidate but she will have a bigger say than the Lib Dems.
Boris can spike Farage with Brexiteers in an instant. He just has to put his quote that he backed the 3-month extension with the EU in top-size font across every Tory leaflet and poster in every target seat in the land.
I take your point. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured underground over 300m years ago when C02 levels were at 800ppm (3 x pre-industrial levels). It's releasing that fossil fuel carbon that has driven CO2 levels up from 280ppm to 410ppm, not burning biomass.
When it was stored as carbon is irrelevant. The result is the same. The fact that new biomass crops are grown in its place and draw carbon from the atmosphere once again is more relevant, but it is entirely possible that burning oil and planting a forest would result in less CO2 than burning sugar cane and replanting sugar cane.
I doubt it.
Growing a field of sugar cane takes X kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning it puts X kg of CO2 back into the atmosphere = net zero.
Burning fossil fuels quickly releases the carbon trapped by forests over potentially millions of years. Planting a new forest is not going to recapture the carbon stored from millions of years of decaying pre-historic forests.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Eh?
If I grow a tree and then burn it, the net carbon released is zero. If I did a lump of coal out the ground and burn it, the net carbon released is something.
Strictly speaking, both are zero carbon (in the sense that all carbon on the planet and in the atmosphere is always in balance) it's just the tree does it over a 30-80 year timescale, and the coal over a 10-30 million year one.
Okaay, true but irrelevant. It's the amount of CO2 it the atmosphere that counts.
Since we had both of those before 2008 when Gordon Brown was splurging money around as if it came from reservoirs, that point won’t stand.
(The real scandal of food banks is not how they’ve grown, it’s how bloody difficult it was to set them up until the crash. The few that were available were grossly overstretched.)
The problem was we didn’t have enough food banks and now that problem has been solved? How pleased the poor must be we’ve reached such a sunlit upland.
In the cesspit of PB right wing commentary that turd floats right to the top.
So is Labour policy to close all these "Tory" foodbanks?
I think what we will see in practice is a refocusing of public spending onto more consumption driven aspects with some services etc cut deep into the bone. But Tory attacks on Labour's spending will be deeply hypocritical. If Boris gets a majority I hope he thinks hard about who his Chancellor should be. Javid has not impressed.
Johnson will do what’s best for Johnson. Right now a commitment to high public spending is part of the plan because it will help to secure votes from former Labour supporters. The Tory party as a whole will not allow him to keep on spending, though.
Who knows? In an era of possibly negative interest rates there is much less incentive to live within our means however much traditionalists like me don't like it.
The party of Raab, Patel and Rees-Mogg will not allow high public spending for very long because at some point in the not too distant future it will mean higher taxes.
They can just blame the next Labour government for that.
We may not see another Labour government. The party is a Long Bailey or Pidcock away from permanent irrelevance.
Lets wait to see if Corbyn can stage a second recovery before writing them off I think.
My view is that Labour voters are as tribal as hell (even extremely intelligent ones like Jonathan and Southam) and will still vote Labour *despite* Corbyn.
What animates them is a visceral hatred of the Tories and, if it looks like doing so will stop them getting a majority, which it will of course, they will do so with whatever rationalisation suits the moment.
Since the tories have moved further and further down the populist route, you could say that conservative voters are just as "tribal" as Labour voters.
The way to stop what you call "tribal voting" is to get rid of FPTP.
I take your point. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured underground over 300m years ago when C02 levels were at 800ppm (3 x pre-industrial levels). It's releasing that fossil fuel carbon that has driven CO2 levels up from 280ppm to 410ppm, not burning biomass.
When it was stored as carbon is irrelevant. The result is the same. The fact that new biomass crops are grown in its place and draw carbon from the atmosphere once again is more relevant, but it is entirely possible that burning oil and planting a forest would result in less CO2 than burning sugar cane and replanting sugar cane.
I doubt it.
Growing a field of sugar cane takes X kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning it puts X kg of CO2 back into the atmosphere = net zero.
Burning fossil fuels quickly releases the carbon trapped by forests over potentially millions of years. Planting a new forest is not going to recapture the carbon stored from millions of years of decaying pre-historic forests.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Electricity from biomass is no cheaper than renewables, and extremely unlikely to fall in price in the same way that they will over the next decade. It would make considerably more sense to plant more forests and not cut them down.
In the very short term - the next decade - it would make sense to replace coal with natural gas. Virtually no one burns oil for electricity, other than emergency generators.
Fun fact, the island of St Lucia gets all its power from burning imported oil.
Fun fact, only one British league football team is mentioned in the New Testament.
I take your point. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured underground over 300m years ago when C02 levels were at 800ppm (3 x pre-industrial levels). It's releasing that fossil fuel carbon that has driven CO2 levels up from 280ppm to 410ppm, not burning biomass.
When it was stored as carbon is irrelevant. The result is the same. The fact that new biomass crops are grown in its place and draw carbon from the atmosphere once again is more relevant, but it is entirely possible that burning oil and planting a forest would result in less CO2 than burning sugar cane and replanting sugar cane.
I doubt it.
Growing a field of sugar cane takes X kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning it puts X kg of CO2 back into the atmosphere = net zero.
Burning fossil fuels quickly releases the carbon trapped by forests over potentially millions of years. Planting a new forest is not going to recapture the carbon stored from millions of years of decaying pre-historic forests.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Electricity from biomass is no cheaper than renewables, and extremely unlikely to fall in price in the same way that they will over the next decade. It would make considerably more sense to plant more forests and not cut them down.
In the very short term - the next decade - it would make sense to replace coal with natural gas. Virtually no one burns oil for electricity, other than emergency generators.
This series of Attenborough is particularly hectoring but it was upsetting last night to see the destruction of so much rainforest in Borneo and Sumutra for just that reason.
The SCons were bound to return to their astonishingly successful Euro strategy of 'Vote Ruth Davidson Party to say no to Indy Ref II'. The fact that they don't actually have another strategy has nothing to do with it.
Swinson will no doubt fall back on sex, claiming Farage is being beastly because he's a misogynist. Well, if your glossy hagiography tells us you are our next PM (as it does), show us how you are going to mix it with that all-round liberal nice guy, Mr. Putin. Girl.....
She's better equipped to deal with VVP than the current incumbent who is straining every podgy sinew to implement one of Russia's most important foreign policy goals of the last 20 years and is retaining one of Dymtro Firtash's winged monkeys as an advisor.
I take your point. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured underground over 300m years ago when C02 levels were at 800ppm (3 x pre-industrial levels). It's releasing that fossil fuel carbon that has driven CO2 levels up from 280ppm to 410ppm, not burning biomass.
When it was stored as carbon is irrelevant. The result is the same. The fact that new biomass crops are grown in its place and draw carbon from the atmosphere once again is more relevant, but it is entirely possible that burning oil and planting a forest would result in less CO2 than burning sugar cane and replanting sugar cane.
I doubt it.
Growing a field of sugar cane takes X kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning it puts X kg of CO2 back into the atmosphere = net zero.
Burning fossil fuels quickly releases the carbon trapped by forests over potentially millions of years. Planting a new forest is not going to recapture the carbon stored from millions of years of decaying pre-historic forests.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Eh?
If I grow a tree and then burn it, the net carbon released is zero. If I did a lump of coal out the ground and burn it, the net carbon released is something.
Not if it is offset by an action you would noy otherwise have taken, like planting a tree.
On what possible basis does Farage get an invite to any debates? He represents a private company, not a party, which has zero MPs, is almost certain to win zero seats, has never even stood for Parliament before and is not a candidate himself.
Mike is understandably disappointed that we are not going to get an "I agree with Jo" moment but the fact is last time out the Lib Dems got 12 seats and 7.4% of the vote. The Lib Dems have to earn back the right to be a major party again. Personally, I think that they will will roughly double the seats they won the last time but Nicola has a much better claim to take part in a debate that is about who the next PM is going to be. She will not be a candidate but she will have a bigger say than the Lib Dems.
Boris can spike Farage with Brexiteers in an instant. He just has to put his quote that he backed the 3-month extension with the EU in top-size font across every Tory leaflet and poster in every target seat in the land.
Will Johnson unequivocally rule out extending the transition period past December 2020?
Who knows? In an era of possibly negative interest rates there is much less incentive to live within our means however much traditionalists like me don't like it.
The party of Raab, Patel and Rees-Mogg will not allow high public spending for very long because at some point in the not too distant future it will mean higher taxes.
They can just blame the next Labour government for that.
We may not see another Labour government. The party is a Long Bailey or Pidcock away from permanent irrelevance.
Lets wait to see if Corbyn can stage a second recovery before writing them off I think.
My view is that Labour voters are as tribal as hell (even extremely intelligent ones like Jonathan and Southam) and will still vote Labour *despite* Corbyn.
What animates them is a visceral hatred of the Tories and, if it looks like doing so will stop them getting a majority, which it will of course, they will do so with whatever rationalisation suits the moment.
Since the tories have moved further and further down the populist route, you could say that conservative voters are just as "tribal" as Labour voters.
The way to stop what you call "tribal voting" is to get rid of FPTP.
I'm not interested in Whataboutism.
I'm interested in predicting the election campaign, and the behaviour of Labour voters who detest Corbyn will be instrumental in that.
I take your point. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured underground over 300m years ago when C02 levels were at 800ppm (3 x pre-industrial levels). It's releasing that fossil fuel carbon that has driven CO2 levels up from 280ppm to 410ppm, not burning biomass.
When it was stored as carbon is irrelevant. The result is the same. The fact that new biomass crops are grown in its place and draw carbon from the atmosphere once again is more relevant, but it is entirely possible that burning oil and planting a forest would result in less CO2 than burning sugar cane and replanting sugar cane.
I doubt it.
Growing a field of sugar cane takes X kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning it puts X kg of CO2 back into the atmosphere = net zero.
Burning fossil fuels quickly releases the carbon trapped by forests over potentially millions of years. Planting a new forest is not going to recapture the carbon stored from millions of years of decaying pre-historic forests.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Eh?
If I grow a tree and then burn it, the net carbon released is zero. If I did a lump of coal out the ground and burn it, the net carbon released is something.
Strictly speaking, both are zero carbon (in the sense that all carbon on the planet and in the atmosphere is always in balance) it's just the tree does it over a 30-80 year timescale, and the coal over a 10-30 million year one.
As Keynes pointed out, the length of the run affects how things look. If we leave coal in situ it is as if the carbon in it had been destroyed, because nothing except us is going to put it back in circulation in human timescales. So mining it is effectively the same as alchemising brand new carbon out of nothing.
One of the frustrating things about this is that in a year or two, once the deficit is soaring up towards £100bn again, and the national debt is expanding as a % of GDP, it will be a much bigger story, but despite our ability to anticipate this we're unable to pay attention to it until it happens.
Since the Brexit fanatics took over the Conservative Party, it is now Conservative In Name Only. They have ditched their reputation for economic competence. they should change their name to the Populist Party of England (PPE has a certain Oxbridge ring to it!). The Scottish and Welsh Conservatives can be affiliates if they are able to hold their noses sufficiently.
On what possible basis does Farage get an invite to any debates? He represents a private company, not a party, which has zero MPs, is almost certain to win zero seats, has never even stood for Parliament before and is not a candidate himself.
Mike is understandably disappointed that we are not going to get an "I agree with Jo" moment but the fact is last time out the Lib Dems got 12 seats and 7.4% of the vote. The Lib Dems have to earn back the right to be a major party again. Personally, I think that they will will roughly double the seats they won the last time but Nicola has a much better claim to take part in a debate that is about who the next PM is going to be. She will not be a candidate but she will have a bigger say than the Lib Dems.
Boris can spike Farage with Brexiteers in an instant. He just has to put his quote that he backed the 3-month extension with the EU in top-size font across every Tory leaflet and poster in every target seat in the land.
Will Johnson unequivocally rule out extending the transition period past December 2020?
He'd rather die in a ditch. Hopefully, literally rather than figuratively.
I had a small bet last week on the Betfair Exchange "Meaningful Vote to pass in 2019?" market. This morning I see that the implied probability on that market has shot up from about 5% to about 20%.
If I understand correctly, that means the date of the first sitting of the new parliament is determined by the advice of the outgoing PM regardless of the election result, in which case parliament will be meeting again before Christmas.
That being the case, if Johnson gets a majority, I think having a meaningful vote on his deal before the New Year would be a "no brainer" in political terms.
The SCons were bound to return to their astonishingly successful Euro strategy of 'Vote Ruth Davidson Party to say no to Indy Ref II'. The fact that they don't actually have another strategy has nothing to do with it.
You see, whenever you post something like that I know it's because you're worried because you know it's effective.
I backed SCons seats at 16/1 for 16+ seats by the way. Just for you.
Since we had both of those before 2008 when Gordon Brown was splurging money around as if it came from reservoirs, that point won’t stand.
(The real scandal of food banks is not how they’ve grown, it’s how bloody difficult it was to set them up until the crash. The few that were available were grossly overstretched.)
I'm sorry, but it *is* a real scandal how much and how quickly the demand for food banks shot up in the Chancellor Osbourne years
Fun fact, only one British league football team is mentioned in the New Testament.
Orient?
Luke 11:31 King James Version (KJV)
31 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
I take your point. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured underground over 300m years ago when C02 levels were at 800ppm (3 x pre-industrial levels). It's releasing that fossil fuel carbon that has driven CO2 levels up from 280ppm to 410ppm, not burning biomass.
When it was stored as carbon is irrelevant. The result is the same. The fact that new biomass crops are grown in its place and draw carbon from the atmosphere once again is more relevant, but it is entirely possible that burning oil and planting a forest would result in less CO2 than burning sugar cane and replanting sugar cane.
I doubt it.
Growing a field of sugar cane takes X kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning it puts X kg of CO2 back into the atmosphere = net zero.
Burning fossil fuels quickly releases the carbon trapped by forests over potentially millions of years. Planting a new forest is not going to recapture the carbon stored from millions of years of decaying pre-historic forests.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Electricity from biomass is no cheaper than renewables, and extremely unlikely to fall in price in the same way that they will over the next decade. It would make considerably more sense to plant more forests and not cut them down.
In the very short term - the next decade - it would make sense to replace coal with natural gas. Virtually no one burns oil for electricity, other than emergency generators.
Fun fact, the island of St Lucia gets all its power from burning imported oil.
Fun fact, only one British league football team is mentioned in the New Testament.
Lets not forget the OT.
'And lo, the Philistines wreaked great destruction upon the tribe of Stenhousemuir, and there was much mumping of gums, and their prophet Ericjoyce spake thus: 'Am gonnae really smash some **** for this.'
On what possible basis does Farage get an invite to any debates? He represents a private company, not a party, which has zero MPs, is almost certain to win zero seats, has never even stood for Parliament before and is not a candidate himself.
Mike is understandably disappointed that we are not going to get an "I agree with Jo" moment but the fact is last time out the Lib Dems got 12 seats and 7.4% of the vote. The Lib Dems have to earn back the right to be a major party again. Personally, I think that they will will roughly double the seats they won the last time but Nicola has a much better claim to take part in a debate that is about who the next PM is going to be. She will not be a candidate but she will have a bigger say than the Lib Dems.
Boris can spike Farage with Brexiteers in an instant. He just has to put his quote that he backed the 3-month extension with the EU in top-size font across every Tory leaflet and poster in every target seat in the land.
Will Johnson unequivocally rule out extending the transition period past December 2020?
I doubt it. But, we'll be out of the EU.
I think that's the most important thing for Brexiteers.
Morning all and on thread of course the debate should only be between Johnson and Corbyn. The girl guide from Bearsden will be lucky to win more than 30-40 seats (probably mostly from Labour) and the MEP who has declined to stand is ineligible under our modern system to be PM. In 2017 the "Leaders" Debate was a shambolic nonsense which put most people off with 7 people being very shoutie at one another.
I take your point. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured underground over 300m years ago when C02 levels were at 800ppm (3 x pre-industrial levels). It's releasing that fossil fuel carbon that has driven CO2 levels up from 280ppm to 410ppm, not burning biomass.
When it was stored as carbon is irrelevant. The result is the same. The fact that new biomass crops are grown in its place and draw carbon from the atmosphere once again is more relevant, but it is entirely possible that burning oil and planting a forest would result in less CO2 than burning sugar cane and replanting sugar cane.
I doubt it.
Growing a field of sugar cane takes X kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning it puts X kg of CO2 back into the atmosphere = net zero.
Burning fossil fuels quickly releases the carbon trapped by forests over potentially millions of years. Planting a new forest is not going to recapture the carbon stored from millions of years of decaying pre-historic forests.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Eh?
If I grow a tree and then burn it, the net carbon released is zero. If I did a lump of coal out the ground and burn it, the net carbon released is something.
Not if it is offset by an action you would noy otherwise have taken, like planting a tree.
There's not enough land to plant enough trees to offset all the carbon you would release from burning fossil fuels continuously to generate electricity.
Swinson will no doubt fall back on sex, claiming Farage is being beastly because he's a misogynist. Well, if your glossy hagiography tells us you are our next PM (as it does), show us how you are going to mix it with that all-round liberal nice guy, Mr. Putin. Girl.....
She's better equipped to deal with VVP than the current incumbent who is straining every podgy sinew to implement one of Russia's most important foreign policy goals of the last 20 years and is retaining one of Dymtro Firtash's winged monkeys as an advisor.
+1. I am sure Vlad has a file on Bozo that is almost as weighty as the one he has on Trump. Corbyn seems very loathed to criticise Russia, but maybe that is just out of habit.
I take your point. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured underground over 300m years ago when C02 levels were at 800ppm (3 x pre-industrial levels). It's releasing that fossil fuel carbon that has driven CO2 levels up from 280ppm to 410ppm, not burning biomass.
When it was stored as carbon is irrelevant. The result is the same. The fact that new biomass crops are grown in its place and draw carbon from the atmosphere once again is more relevant, but it is entirely possible that burning oil and planting a forest would result in less CO2 than burning sugar cane and replanting sugar cane.
I doubt it.
Growing a field of sugar cane takes X kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning it puts X kg of CO2 back into the atmosphere = net zero.
Burning fossil fuels quickly releases the carbon trapped by forests over potentially millions of years. Planting a new forest is not going to recapture the carbon stored from millions of years of decaying pre-historic forests.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Eh?
If I grow a tree and then burn it, the net carbon released is zero. If I did a lump of coal out the ground and burn it, the net carbon released is something.
Not if it is offset by an action you would noy otherwise have taken, like planting a tree.
Wrong. You would have to plant the tree, let it grow till it has ingested all the carbon emitted by the coal (and you have been dead for generations by the time this happens) and then - for equivalence - ensure that it will never (on human timescales) release the carbon in a fire or by decaying. To ensure this you would have to dig a very, very deep hole in the ground and bury the tree in it. You would have to dig and refill this hole in a carbon neutral manner.
Prob easier not to burn the coal in the first place.
The SCons were bound to return to their astonishingly successful Euro strategy of 'Vote Ruth Davidson Party to say no to Indy Ref II'. The fact that they don't actually have another strategy has nothing to do with it.
You see, whenever you post something like that I know it's because you're worried because you know it's effective.
I backed SCons seats at 16/1 for 16+ seats by the way. Just for you.
Can I just clarify, do you think 'Vote Ruth Davidson Party to say no to Indy Ref II' was an astonishingly successful Euro strategy or not? Your North British insights are always worth listening to.
On what possible basis does Farage get an invite to any debates? He represents a private company, not a party, which has zero MPs, is almost certain to win zero seats, has never even stood for Parliament before and is not a candidate himself.
Mike is understandably disappointed that we are not going to get an "I agree with Jo" moment but the fact is last time out the Lib Dems got 12 seats and 7.4% of the vote. The Lib Dems have to earn back the right to be a major party again. Personally, I think that they will will roughly double the seats they won the last time but Nicola has a much better claim to take part in a debate that is about who the next PM is going to be. She will not be a candidate but she will have a bigger say than the Lib Dems.
Boris can spike Farage with Brexiteers in an instant. He just has to put his quote that he backed the 3-month extension with the EU in top-size font across every Tory leaflet and poster in every target seat in the land.
Will Johnson unequivocally rule out extending the transition period past December 2020?
I doubt it. But, we'll be out of the EU.
I think that's the most important thing for Brexiteers.
If that were the case they’d have supported May’s Deal. The ERG will not tolerate an extension.
I take your point. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured underground over 300m years ago when C02 levels were at 800ppm (3 x pre-industrial levels). It's releasing that fossil fuel carbon that has driven CO2 levels up from 280ppm to 410ppm, not burning biomass.
When it was stored as carbon is irrelevant. The result is the same. The fact that new biomass crops are grown in its place and draw carbon from the atmosphere once again is more relevant, but it is entirely possible that burning oil and planting a forest would result in less CO2 than burning sugar cane and replanting sugar cane.
I doubt it.
Growing a field of sugar cane takes X kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning it puts X kg of CO2 back into the atmosphere = net zero.
Burning fossil fuels quickly releases the carbon trapped by forests over potentially millions of years. Planting a new forest is not going to recapture the carbon stored from millions of years of decaying pre-historic forests.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
What matters to the green house effect is the total global level of CO2. So it is the net quantity being released. As others have pointed out the net CO2 release is roughly neutral for biofuel, although if forest has been cut down for land to farm the biofuel then there is a large set up cost in CO2 terms.
An interesting question IMO is how many seats would the LDs have to win for Jo Swinson to enter Downing Street as PM. At first glance, one might say it's 326 (or 320), but in practice if the LDs came second Labour would probably have no choice but to support her in order to stop the Tories. So in reality it might be 150 seats for the LDs, because Labour would be on about 120, the SNP 50, PC and Greens 5. (That assumes the Tories are on about 310 to 315).
Fun fact, only one British league football team is mentioned in the New Testament.
Orient?
Luke 11:31 King James Version (KJV)
31 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
Though of course there is a prophecy in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas that is widely believed to refer to Wolverhampton Wanderers.
Fun fact, only one British league football team is mentioned in the New Testament.
Orient?
Luke 11:31 King James Version (KJV)
31 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
Jeremiah 11:10
They are turned back to the iniquities of their forfarthers, which refused to hear my words; and they went after other gods to serve them: the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers.
It's quite natural for non-participants in this one to cry foul. But seriously, it's difficult to map out a route that takes anyone except Johnson or Corbyn to Number 10. I think ITV should have announced the two-stage plan (two leaders in one debate, everyone in the second one) together, and most people would see that as reasonable.
My impression - I can't evidence it scientifically - is that for many voters Brexit is starting to be parked as the dominant issue. There was a poll some weeks back saying IIRC that around half the voters saw it as primary - by polling day, I suspect that'll be down to 25-30%. Leavers feel the job is more or less being done, Remainers feel they've got a shot at stopping it but it's not the only issue. I had nearly 100 replies to my Facebook video endorsing my successor as Labour candidate - some agree, some disagree, but only one mentions Brexit at all.
Hope this provides the polling on Brexit importance in GE 2019 Nick
Could this be an election determined by Brexit views?
At the start of this election campaign, 40% of the public say they are most likely to base their vote on Brexit. https://t.co/vOD6a5riXw
One of the frustrating things about this is that in a year or two, once the deficit is soaring up towards £100bn again, and the national debt is expanding as a % of GDP, it will be a much bigger story, but despite our ability to anticipate this we're unable to pay attention to it until it happens.
Since the Brexit fanatics took over the Conservative Party, it is now Conservative In Name Only. They have ditched their reputation for economic competence. they should change their name to the Populist Party of England (PPE has a certain Oxbridge ring to it!). The Scottish and Welsh Conservatives can be affiliates if they are able to hold their noses sufficiently.
But still 35-40% of the electorate are "robots" and "tribally vote" conservative.
The SCons were bound to return to their astonishingly successful Euro strategy of 'Vote Ruth Davidson Party to say no to Indy Ref II'. The fact that they don't actually have another strategy has nothing to do with it.
You see, whenever you post something like that I know it's because you're worried because you know it's effective.
I backed SCons seats at 16/1 for 16+ seats by the way. Just for you.
Can I just clarify, do you think 'Vote Ruth Davidson Party to say no to Indy Ref II' was an astonishingly successful Euro strategy or not? Your North British insights are always worth listening to.
A rather tetchy and sarcastic response which, whilst being all too typical of your posting style, is in itself rather telling.
Any attuned Unionist in Scotland now knows three things: (1) Sturgeon will be pushing for an IndyRef next year (2) She will be using a strong SNP result in GE2019 as a mandate for it, and, (3) the poor SNP showing in GE2017 inhibited her from doing so last time.
It's for those reasons that I expect the Scottish Conservatives to retain almost all their seats, and I am betting accordingly.
I had a small bet last week on the Betfair Exchange "Meaningful Vote to pass in 2019?" market. This morning I see that the implied probability on that market has shot up from about 5% to about 20%.
If I understand correctly, that means the date of the first sitting of the new parliament is determined by the advice of the outgoing PM regardless of the election result, in which case parliament will be meeting again before Christmas.
That being the case, if Johnson gets a majority, I think having a meaningful vote on his deal before the New Year would be a "no brainer" in political terms.
It's quite natural for non-participants in this one to cry foul. But seriously, it's difficult to map out a route that takes anyone except Johnson or Corbyn to Number 10. I think ITV should have announced the two-stage plan (two leaders in one debate, everyone in the second one) together, and most people would see that as reasonable.
My impression - I can't evidence it scientifically - is that for many voters Brexit is starting to be parked as the dominant issue. There was a poll some weeks back saying IIRC that around half the voters saw it as primary - by polling day, I suspect that'll be down to 25-30%. Leavers feel the job is more or less being done, Remainers feel they've got a shot at stopping it but it's not the only issue. I had nearly 100 replies to my Facebook video endorsing my successor as Labour candidate - some agree, some disagree, but only one mentions Brexit at all.
Where I think you might be right is that it is less of an issue for the average Labour voter. That may mean that Cummings has majorly miscalculated. The idea that Labour heartlands that voted Leave are going to vote Tory may be as bad an error as the dementia tax. This will mean that if Conservatives lose to SNP or LD in Scotland, and lose seats to LDs in southern England then we are heading back to hung parliament land. The question does remain as to how badly do Labour need to do for them to ditch Corbyn? A decent LoTO is what is needed to bring British politics back to being sensible.
Forget the LD spin. Almost half their MPs are defectors, not directly elected, but with or without them, the LibDems are not even our third party: the SNP is.
If Swinson has any sense, she will let Boris and Corbyn get on with it, and press for her own head-to-head with Farage. First, she will get more airtime, half as opposed to a third or a fifth or an eighth; second, she will win, at least as far as Remain-leaning voters are concerned; third, it allows Farage to peel off Leave-inclined voters from the two main parties, thus making the LibDems' task easier.
Not to mention that, as OGH implies, Boris will probably take any excuse to skip the debate anyway.
I notice that back in 2015, the LibDems weren't keen to let European election performance or opinion polls or even by-elections determine who were in the debates...
Still, I'd argue that the LibDems have a better argument for being at the top table than the SNP. They got two and a half times the number of votes the SNP got, and are actually standing in almost all the constituencies.
This is how it spirals out of control, like last time. The LibDems want to take part on the basis you state. Then the SNP is admitted because they are the third party by seats. And if you have the SNP, you ought to have Plaid Cymru as the corresponding nationalist party in Wales. And if PC, then the Greens. Oh, and let's not forget BXP on the back of the Euros.
And now you've got a 7- or 8-way debate which will be chaotic and uninformative, so Boris will decline, and if Boris declines so will Corbyn, especially after the way Ed Miliband was stitched up in 2015. This leaves the LibDems scrabbling for attention in a 5-way also-rans debate.
So a Pyrrhic victory for Swinson. No, she should aim directly for the Farage head-to-head for the reasons already stated.
Oh, I agree with you. l'd argue that the LDs had a case for being top table when they were getting 20+% of the vote, but don't right now. If they get 20% this time around, then next time, they'll deserve their spot. There needs to be some kind of barrier.
But if Ms Swinson has any sense*, she'll use this to her advantage through organising a competing debate. Both her and Farage would be winners if they went head-to-head, because they're not fishing in the same pond.
* She doesn't have any sense
She was like a fish out of water on SKY yesterday, Ridge pummeled her on her lies and dodgy bar charts, she had no answer. Useless and going nowhere.
The LDs should apply for judicial review. Section 320 of The Communications Act 2003 places a statutory duty on broadcasters to achieve balance in their coverage of matters of 'political controversy' and 'current public policy'. It is at least arguable that such balance is impossible if 2 parties are given exclusive access to the main slot and that performance in 2019 local and European elections demonstrates the multi-party nature of this election.
A major benefit of such a move, regardless of result, would be to expose any conditions imposed by Johnson (or Corbyn) on participation - making Johnson look a complete coward and fool if the rumours about him vetoing the involvement of others is correct.
One of the frustrating things about this is that in a year or two, once the deficit is soaring up towards £100bn again, and the national debt is expanding as a % of GDP, it will be a much bigger story, but despite our ability to anticipate this we're unable to pay attention to it until it happens.
Since the Brexit fanatics took over the Conservative Party, it is now Conservative In Name Only. They have ditched their reputation for economic competence. they should change their name to the Populist Party of England (PPE has a certain Oxbridge ring to it!). The Scottish and Welsh Conservatives can be affiliates if they are able to hold their noses sufficiently.
But still 35-40% of the electorate are "robots" and "tribally vote" conservative.
Yes, but a decent number of those do so because the LoTO is so awful as an alternative. Change that dynamic and who knows?!
This is precisely the sort of thing that will lead to the Scottish Conservatives retaining almost all their seats.
Based on that photo, there's no mistaking an SNP activist and a ray of sunshine......
Indeed. Once you tune out all the sarcasm and sledging, you recognise they are getting rather nervous that the Scottish Conservatives might piss on their parade.
The best way for any Unionist to stop independence getting legs next year is to deny the SNP any of the gains they want in Scotland this year, and deny the possibility of any alternative Government led by Corbyn.
That means Labour are utterly toast in Scotland, and the Tories will retain most of their seats. On a very good night, they might only lost 2-3 but gain 5-6 others.
Which is why I've taken the 16/1 on Tories on 16+ seats with Ladbrokes.
I take your point. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured underground over 300m years ago when C02 levels were at 800ppm (3 x pre-industrial levels). It's releasing that fossil fuel carbon that has driven CO2 levels up from 280ppm to 410ppm, not burning biomass.
When it was stored as carbon is irrelevant. The result is the same. The fact that new biomass crops are grown in its place and draw carbon from the atmosphere once again is more relevant, but it is entirely possible that burning oil and planting a forest would result in less CO2 than burning sugar cane and replanting sugar cane.
I doubt it.
Growing a field of sugar cane takes X kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning it puts X kg of CO2 back into the atmosphere = net zero.
Burning fossil fuels quickly releases the carbon trapped by forests over potentially millions of years. Planting a new forest is not going to recapture the carbon stored from millions of years of decaying pre-historic forests.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Electricity from biomass is no cheaper than renewables, and extremely unlikely to fall in price in the same way that they will over the next decade. It would make considerably more sense to plant more forests and not cut them down.
In the very short term - the next decade - it would make sense to replace coal with natural gas. Virtually no one burns oil for electricity, other than emergency generators.
Fun fact, the island of St Lucia gets all its power from burning imported oil.
Fun fact, only one British league football team is mentioned in the New Testament.
Fun fact, the QM2 uses more electricity than its home port of Southampton
It's quite natural for non-participants in this one to cry foul. But seriously, it's difficult to map out a route that takes anyone except Johnson or Corbyn to Number 10. I think ITV should have announced the two-stage plan (two leaders in one debate, everyone in the second one) together, and most people would see that as reasonable.
My impression - I can't evidence it scientifically - is that for many voters Brexit is starting to be parked as the dominant issue. There was a poll some weeks back saying IIRC that around half the voters saw it as primary - by polling day, I suspect that'll be down to 25-30%. Leavers feel the job is more or less being done, Remainers feel they've got a shot at stopping it but it's not the only issue. I had nearly 100 replies to my Facebook video endorsing my successor as Labour candidate - some agree, some disagree, but only one mentions Brexit at all.
Where I think you might be right is that it is less of an issue for the average Labour voter. That may mean that Cummings has majorly miscalculated. The idea that Labour heartlands that voted Leave are going to vote Tory may be as bad an error as the dementia tax. This will mean that if Conservatives lose to SNP or LD in Scotland, and lose seats to LDs in southern England then we are heading back to hung parliament land. The question does remain as to how badly do Labour need to do for them to ditch Corbyn? A decent LoTO is what is needed to bring British politics back to being sensible.
My guess is that the Tories will win the election by winning very big in the Midlands. As for Corbyn, he’s going nowhere until the far-left has a guaranteed replacement. That won’t be for a while.
It's quite natural for non-participants in this one to cry foul. But seriously, it's difficult to map out a route that takes anyone except Johnson or Corbyn to Number 10. I think ITV should have announced the two-stage plan (two leaders in one debate, everyone in the second one) together, and most people would see that as reasonable.
My impression - I can't evidence it scientifically - is that for many voters Brexit is starting to be parked as the dominant issue. There was a poll some weeks back saying IIRC that around half the voters saw it as primary - by polling day, I suspect that'll be down to 25-30%. Leavers feel the job is more or less being done, Remainers feel they've got a shot at stopping it but it's not the only issue. I had nearly 100 replies to my Facebook video endorsing my successor as Labour candidate - some agree, some disagree, but only one mentions Brexit at all.
Where I think you might be right is that it is less of an issue for the average Labour voter. That may mean that Cummings has majorly miscalculated. The idea that Labour heartlands that voted Leave are going to vote Tory may be as bad an error as the dementia tax. This will mean that if Conservatives lose to SNP or LD in Scotland, and lose seats to LDs in southern England then we are heading back to hung parliament land. The question does remain as to how badly do Labour need to do for them to ditch Corbyn? A decent LoTO is what is needed to bring British politics back to being sensible.
Wrong as this poll of Workington shows there is a small swing from Labour to the Tories in Labour Leave seats but a bigger swing from Labour to the Brexit Party giving the Tories the seat
Fun fact, only one British league football team is mentioned in the New Testament.
Orient?
Luke 11:31 King James Version (KJV)
31 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
Though of course there is a prophecy in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas that is widely believed to refer to Wolverhampton Wanderers.
An interesting question IMO is how many seats would the LDs have to win for Jo Swinson to enter Downing Street as PM. At first glance, one might say it's 326 (or 320), but in practice if the LDs came second Labour would probably have no choice but to support her in order to stop the Tories. So in reality it might be 150 seats for the LDs, because Labour would be on about 120, the SNP 50, PC and Greens 5. (That assumes the Tories are on about 310 to 315).
You could argue that her moral right arises the minute the LibDems top the popular vote, regardless of the seats.
I had a small bet last week on the Betfair Exchange "Meaningful Vote to pass in 2019?" market. This morning I see that the implied probability on that market has shot up from about 5% to about 20%.
If I understand correctly, that means the date of the first sitting of the new parliament is determined by the advice of the outgoing PM regardless of the election result, in which case parliament will be meeting again before Christmas.
That being the case, if Johnson gets a majority, I think having a meaningful vote on his deal before the New Year would be a "no brainer" in political terms.
Seems tight but possible if Boris has a reasonable majority
I think what we will see in practice is a refocusing of public spending onto more consumption driven aspects with some services etc cut deep into the bone. But Tory attacks on Labour's spending will be deeply hypocritical. If Boris gets a majority I hope he thinks hard about who his Chancellor should be. Javid has not impressed.
Johnson will do what’s best for Johnson. Right now a commitment to high public spending is part of the plan because it will help to secure votes from former Labour supporters. The Tory party as a whole will not allow him to keep on spending, though.
Who knows? In an era of possibly negative interest rates there is much less incentive to live within our means however much traditionalists like me don't like it.
The party of Raab, Patel and Rees-Mogg will not allow high public spending for very long because at some point in the not too distant future it will mean higher taxes.
They can just blame the next Labour government for that.
We may not see another Labour government. The party is a Long Bailey or Pidcock away from permanent irrelevance.
Yes a LDs led by Chuka Umunna would push a Pidcock or Long Bailey led Labour into third
I take your point. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured underground over 300m years ago when C02 levels were at 800ppm (3 x pre-industrial levels). It's releasing that fossil fuel carbon that has driven CO2 levels up from 280ppm to 410ppm, not burning biomass.
When it was stored as carbon is irrelevant. The result is the same. The fact that new biomass crops are grown in its place and draw carbon from the atmosphere once again is more relevant, but it is entirely possible that burning oil and planting a forest would result in less CO2 than burning sugar cane and replanting sugar cane.
I doubt it.
Growing a field of sugar cane takes X kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning it puts X kg of CO2 back into the atmosphere = net zero.
Burning fossil fuels quickly releases the carbon trapped by forests over potentially millions of years. Planting a new forest is not going to recapture the carbon stored from millions of years of decaying pre-historic forests.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Electricity from biomass is no cheaper than renewables, and extremely unlikely to fall in price in the same way that they will over the next decade. It would make considerably more sense to plant more forests and not cut them down.
In the very short term - the next decade - it would make sense to replace coal with natural gas. Virtually no one burns oil for electricity, other than emergency generators.
Fun fact, the island of St Lucia gets all its power from burning imported oil.
Fun fact, only one British league football team is mentioned in the New Testament.
I had a small bet last week on the Betfair Exchange "Meaningful Vote to pass in 2019?" market. This morning I see that the implied probability on that market has shot up from about 5% to about 20%.
If I understand correctly, that means the date of the first sitting of the new parliament is determined by the advice of the outgoing PM regardless of the election result, in which case parliament will be meeting again before Christmas.
That being the case, if Johnson gets a majority, I think having a meaningful vote on his deal before the New Year would be a "no brainer" in political terms.
I did that bet at 45 for the exact same reason.
Me and you - bloody hell.
You got a much better price than I did - about 13 - but it's currently 7.4-8 and by comparison with the election markets it still seems good value, unless I'm missing something.
This is precisely the sort of thing that will lead to the Scottish Conservatives retaining almost all their seats.
Was it not the case that in 2015 the SNP went to some lengths to emphasise that the GE was not about a vote for secession? This seems to be a change of tack from what served them well then.
"We may not see another Labour government. The party is a Long Bailey or Pidcock away from permanent irrelevance."
Yeah, you may be right. I`d love to see CP and Libdems as the major two parties. But there is so much tribal loyalty around Labour compared to the LibDems.
I think what we will see in practice is a refocusing of public spending onto more consumption driven aspects with some services etc cut deep into the bone. But Tory attacks on Labour's spending will be deeply hypocritical. If Boris gets a majority I hope he thinks hard about who his Chancellor should be. Javid has not impressed.
Johnson will do what’s best for Johnson. Right now a commitment to high public spending is part of the plan because it will help to secure votes from former Labour supporters. The Tory party as a whole will not allow him to keep on spending, though.
Who knows? In an era of possibly negative interest rates there is much less incentive to live within our means however much traditionalists like me don't like it.
The party of Raab, Patel and Rees-Mogg will not allow high public spending for very long because at some point in the not too distant future it will mean higher taxes.
They can just blame the next Labour government for that.
We may not see another Labour government. The party is a Long Bailey or Pidcock away from permanent irrelevance.
Yes a LDs led by Chuka Umunna would push a Pidcock or Long Bailey led Labour into third
And the Greens (or even the Monster Raving Loonies) may push them down further in the event of a Burgon led Labour.
I think what we will see in practice is a refocusing of public spending onto more consumption driven aspects with some services etc cut deep into the bone. But Tory attacks on Labour's spending will be deeply hypocritical. If Boris gets a majority I hope he thinks hard about who his Chancellor should be. Javid has not impressed.
Johnson will do what’s best for Johnson. Right now a commitment to high public spending is part of the plan because it will help to secure votes from former Labour supporters. The Tory party as a whole will not allow him to keep on spending, though.
Nobody believes in living within their means any more.
The argument now is who gets what place at the trough.
"We may not see another Labour government. The party is a Long Bailey or Pidcock away from permanent irrelevance."
Yeah, you may be right. I`d love to see CP and Libdems as the major two parties. But there is so much tribal loyalty around Labour compared to the LibDems.
It needs Chuka for the LDs to win Labour moderates, he was in Ed Miliband's Shadow Cabinet not the Coalition unlike Swinson and Davey and Cable
Forget the LD spin. Almost half their MPs are defectors, not directly elected, but with or without them, the LibDems are not even our third party: the SNP is.
If Swinson has any sense, she will let Boris and Corbyn get on with it, and press for her own head-to-head with Farage. First, she will get more airtime, half as opposed to a third or a fifth or an eighth; second, she will win, at least as far as Remain-leaning voters are concerned; third, it allows Farage to peel off Leave-inclined voters from the two main parties, thus making the LibDems' task easier.
Not to mention that, as OGH implies, Boris will probably take any excuse to skip the debate anyway.
I notice that back in 2015, the LibDems weren't keen to let European election performance or opinion polls or even by-elections determine who were in the debates...
Still, I'd argue that the LibDems have a better argument for being at the top table than the SNP. They got two and a half times the number of votes the SNP got, and are actually standing in almost all the constituencies.
This is how it spirals out of control, like last time. The LibDems want to take part on the basis you state. Then the SNP is admitted because they are the third party by seats. And if you have the SNP, you ought to have Plaid Cymru as the corresponding nationalist party in Wales. And if PC, then the Greens. Oh, and let's not forget BXP on the back of the Euros.
And now you've got a 7- or 8-way debate which will be chaotic and uninformative, so Boris will decline, and if Boris declines so will Corbyn, especially after the way Ed Miliband was stitched up in 2015. This leaves the LibDems scrabbling for attention in a 5-way also-rans debate.
So a Pyrrhic victory for Swinson. No, she should aim directly for the Farage head-to-head for the reasons already stated.
Oh, I agree with you. l'd argue that the LDs had a case for being top table when they were getting 20+% of the vote, but don't right now. If they get 20% this time around, then next time, they'll deserve their spot. There needs to be some kind of barrier.
But if Ms Swinson has any sense*, she'll use this to her advantage through organising a competing debate. Both her and Farage would be winners if they went head-to-head, because they're not fishing in the same pond.
* She doesn't have any sense
She was like a fish out of water on SKY yesterday, Ridge pummeled her on her lies and dodgy bar charts, she had no answer. Useless and going nowhere.
The 'bar chart' part of that interview was so embarrassing and she had nowhere to hide over the blatant dishonesty
An interesting question IMO is how many seats would the LDs have to win for Jo Swinson to enter Downing Street as PM. At first glance, one might say it's 326 (or 320), but in practice if the LDs came second Labour would probably have no choice but to support her in order to stop the Tories. So in reality it might be 150 seats for the LDs, because Labour would be on about 120, the SNP 50, PC and Greens 5. (That assumes the Tories are on about 310 to 315).
You could argue that her moral right arises the minute the LibDems top the popular vote, regardless of the seats.
No it does not see Canada or the US recently or here in 1951 or Feb 1974, most seats maybe
Complete rubbish. The numbers for both would be higher because these calculations include no additional costs for the impact of such policies on the gilt coupon rate. And this would impact not just on the additional gilt issues needed to fund the new spending promises, but also on the £600 billion of maturing gilts during the next parliament which would need to be refinanced.
"We may not see another Labour government. The party is a Long Bailey or Pidcock away from permanent irrelevance."
Yeah, you may be right. I`d love to see CP and Libdems as the major two parties. But there is so much tribal loyalty around Labour compared to the LibDems.
That loyalty would wither away if either of those are the next leader as the party slips into irrelevance.
The great unknown in this election is in a seat where the MP is Tory and the second place candidate was Labour is it better to vote Labour or Lib Dem this time around? I suspect in some places the latter is the case.
And that question will continue for a while - Labour is more likely to die from death by hundred cuts (seat by seat) rather than an SNP style massacre but as Labour lose seats I suspect they may move rapidly from 1st to 3rd place in those seats never to return
This is precisely the sort of thing that will lead to the Scottish Conservatives retaining almost all their seats.
Was it not the case that in 2015 the SNP went to some lengths to emphasise that the GE was not about a vote for secession? This seems to be a change of tack from what served them well then.
They also did so in 2017. Sturgeon bent over backwards to make it clear it wasn't aboit Independence.
But no one believes them.
So they may as well make it about Independence and grab that mandate.
I take your point. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured underground over 300m years ago when C02 levels were at 800ppm (3 x pre-industrial levels). It's releasing that fossil fuel carbon that has driven CO2 levels up from 280ppm to 410ppm, not burning biomass.
When it was stored as carbon is irrelevant. The result is the same. The fact that new biomass crops are grown in its place and draw carbon from the atmosphere once again is more relevant, but it is entirely possible that burning oil and planting a forest would result in less CO2 than burning sugar cane and replanting sugar cane.
I doubt it.
Growing a field of sugar cane takes X kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning it puts X kg of CO2 back into the atmosphere = net zero.
Burning fossil fuels quickly releases the carbon trapped by forests over potentially millions of years. Planting a new forest is not going to recapture the carbon stored from millions of years of decaying pre-historic forests.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Electricity from biomass is no cheaper than renewables, and extremely unlikely to fall in price in the same way that they will over the next decade. It would make considerably more sense to plant more forests and not cut them down.
In the very short term - the next decade - it would make sense to replace coal with natural gas. Virtually no one burns oil for electricity, other than emergency generators.
Fun fact, the island of St Lucia gets all its power from burning imported oil.
Fun fact, only one British league football team is mentioned in the New Testament.
Orient?
Wolves Arsenal Spurs
must all be in with a chance
(But are we taking KJV or RSV)?
Wolves and Spurs are not the full names of the teams. Neither is Orient.
On what possible basis does Farage get an invite to any debates? He represents a private company, not a party, which has zero MPs, is almost certain to win zero seats, has never even stood for Parliament before and is not a candidate himself.
If you believe this, you should be aware that right now you can back the Brexit party to get zero seats on Betfair at 2.12 (11/10).
HYUFD says: "It needs Chuka for the LDs to win Labour moderates, he was in Ed Miliband's Shadow Cabinet not the Coalition unlike Swinson and Davey and Cable"
Well - whilst I support the LibDems I hope that Chuka doesn`t get elected. I don`t approved of politicians that jump ship: is he a collectivist or a liberal? Is Gyimah`s ideology conservatism or liberalism?
You got a much better price than I did - about 13 - but it's currently 7.4-8 and by comparison with the election markets it still seems good value, unless I'm missing something.
Turns out I was gilding the lily. Not 45. It was 25. Still, 7.6 now, as you say, so smug city. If he gets a good majority it would be surely be tempting. Also tempting to put his feet up for the hols, however, so think I might close out now. Thanks for the spot since I would not have known. It's not a market I check often now the GE is on.
HYUFD says: "It needs Chuka for the LDs to win Labour moderates, he was in Ed Miliband's Shadow Cabinet not the Coalition unlike Swinson and Davey and Cable"
Well - whilst I support the LibDems I hope that Chuka doesn`t get elected. I don`t approved of politicians that jump ship: is he a collectivist or a liberal? Is Gyimah`s ideology conservatism or liberalism?
Oh dear, you sound a bit like a Tory or Labour/Momentum purist. Centrist politicians need to unite.
Chris said: "You got a much better price than I did - about 13 - but it's currently 7.4-8 and by comparison with the election markets it still seems good value, unless I'm missing something."
"Turns out I was gilding the lily. Not 45. It was 25. Still, 7.6 now, as you say, so smug city. If he gets a good majority it would be surely be tempting. Also tempting to put his feet up for the hols, however, so think I might close out now. Thanks for the spot since I would not have known. It's not a market I check often now the GE is on."
So - are you closing your bets now for a profit or letting them run??
You got a much better price than I did - about 13 - but it's currently 7.4-8 and by comparison with the election markets it still seems good value, unless I'm missing something.
Turns out I was gilding the lily. Not 45. It was 25. Still, 7.6 now, as you say, so smug city. If he gets a good majority it would be surely be tempting. Also tempting to put his feet up for the hols, however, so think I might close out now. Thanks for the spot since I would not have known. It's not a market I check often now the GE is on.
Is it too pedantic to point out that it's "painting the lily"?
The SCons were bound to return to their astonishingly successful Euro strategy of 'Vote Ruth Davidson Party to say no to Indy Ref II'. The fact that they don't actually have another strategy has nothing to do with it.
You see, whenever you post something like that I know it's because you're worried because you know it's effective.
I backed SCons seats at 16/1 for 16+ seats by the way. Just for you.
Can I just clarify, do you think 'Vote Ruth Davidson Party to say no to Indy Ref II' was an astonishingly successful Euro strategy or not? Your North British insights are always worth listening to.
A rather tetchy and sarcastic response which, whilst being all too typical of your posting style, is in itself rather telling.
Any attuned Unionist in Scotland now knows three things: (1) Sturgeon will be pushing for an IndyRef next year (2) She will be using a strong SNP result in GE2019 as a mandate for it, and, (3) the poor SNP showing in GE2017 inhibited her from doing so last time.
It's for those reasons that I expect the Scottish Conservatives to retain almost all their seats, and I am betting accordingly.
As is all too typical of your posting style, you didn't actually answer my question. I'll leave it hanging as to whether that is in itself rather telling.
I take your point. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured underground over 300m years ago when C02 levels were at 800ppm (3 x pre-industrial levels). It's releasing that fossil fuel carbon that has driven CO2 levels up from 280ppm to 410ppm, not burning biomass.
When it was stored as carbon is irrelevant. The result is the same. The fact that new biomass crops are grown in its place and draw carbon from the atmosphere once again is more relevant, but it is entirely possible that burning oil and planting a forest would result in less CO2 than burning sugar cane and replanting sugar cane.
I doubt it.
Growing a field of sugar cane takes X kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning it puts X kg of CO2 back into the atmosphere = net zero.
Burning fossil fuels quickly releases the carbon trapped by forests over potentially millions of years. Planting a new forest is not going to recapture the carbon stored from millions of years of decaying pre-historic forests.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Actually if you burn it in an oxygen depleted environment you get charcoal which fixes a % of the CO2 so that it doesn't release back. https://biochar-international.org/biochar/
This is precisely the sort of thing that will lead to the Scottish Conservatives retaining almost all their seats.
Was it not the case that in 2015 the SNP went to some lengths to emphasise that the GE was not about a vote for secession? This seems to be a change of tack from what served them well then.
Well, since then we have had four more years of underwhelming SNP governance in Scotland. Not so easy to run on their record in 2019, so they have to go for the big play.
They are turned back to the iniquities of their forfarthers, which refused to hear my words; and they went after other gods to serve them: the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers.
Moses gets a ton of mentions. Too many to list.
Although being on loan to Fenerbahce maybe rules him out of this one.
The SCons were bound to return to their astonishingly successful Euro strategy of 'Vote Ruth Davidson Party to say no to Indy Ref II'. The fact that they don't actually have another strategy has nothing to do with it.
You see, whenever you post something like that I know it's because you're worried because you know it's effective.
I backed SCons seats at 16/1 for 16+ seats by the way. Just for you.
Can I just clarify, do you think 'Vote Ruth Davidson Party to say no to Indy Ref II' was an astonishingly successful Euro strategy or not? Your North British insights are always worth listening to.
A rather tetchy and sarcastic response which, whilst being all too typical of your posting style, is in itself rather telling.
Any attuned Unionist in Scotland now knows three things: (1) Sturgeon will be pushing for an IndyRef next year (2) She will be using a strong SNP result in GE2019 as a mandate for it, and, (3) the poor SNP showing in GE2017 inhibited her from doing so last time.
It's for those reasons that I expect the Scottish Conservatives to retain almost all their seats, and I am betting accordingly.
As is all too typical of your posting style, you didn't actually answer my question. I'll leave it hanging as to whether that is in itself rather telling.
It took you half-an-hour of sweating furiously behind your computer, drafting and re-drafting what you thought might be the most cutting response, to come up with that?
I take your point. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured underground over 300m years ago when C02 levels were at 800ppm (3 x pre-industrial levels). It's releasing that fossil fuel carbon that has driven CO2 levels up from 280ppm to 410ppm, not burning biomass.
When it was stored as carbon is irrelevant. The result is the same. The fact that new biomass crops are grown in its place and draw carbon from the atmosphere once again is more relevant, but it is entirely possible that burning oil and planting a forest would result in less CO2 than burning sugar cane and replanting sugar cane.
I doubt it.
Growing a field of sugar cane takes X kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning it puts X kg of CO2 back into the atmosphere = net zero.
Burning fossil fuels quickly releases the carbon trapped by forests over potentially millions of years. Planting a new forest is not going to recapture the carbon stored from millions of years of decaying pre-historic forests.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Actually if you burn it in an oxygen depleted environment you get charcoal which fixes a % of the CO2 so that it doesn't release back. https://biochar-international.org/biochar/
Just curious: how do you burn anything in an oxygen depleted environment? Is it phlogiston?
HYUFD says: "It needs Chuka for the LDs to win Labour moderates, he was in Ed Miliband's Shadow Cabinet not the Coalition unlike Swinson and Davey and Cable"
Well - whilst I support the LibDems I hope that Chuka doesn`t get elected. I don`t approved of politicians that jump ship: is he a collectivist or a liberal? Is Gyimah`s ideology conservatism or liberalism?
I have no idea why there is this slavering over Chuka.
There is no evidence that he is good at practical politics (he was the de facto leader of the disastrously launched TIG-gers); there is no evidence he believes in anything very much ("nightclubs full of trash"); there is no evidence he can convert undecided voters or is electorally successfully.
Someone would have to really hate the LibDems to wish Chuka on them as leader. (No, I can't do it ... )
Like you, I don't approve of defectors who jump ship without holding by-elections, but the best of the defectors in terms of practical politics for the LibDems was Heidi Allen. I think she was the only one who might have held her seat.
You got a much better price than I did - about 13 - but it's currently 7.4-8 and by comparison with the election markets it still seems good value, unless I'm missing something.
Turns out I was gilding the lily. Not 45. It was 25. Still, 7.6 now, as you say, so smug city. If he gets a good majority it would be surely be tempting. Also tempting to put his feet up for the hols, however, so think I might close out now. Thanks for the spot since I would not have known. It's not a market I check often now the GE is on.
Is it too pedantic to point out that it's "painting the lily"?
Those about-to-be redundant gilders of Ferraris will have to turn their hand to something.
They are turned back to the iniquities of their forfarthers, which refused to hear my words; and they went after other gods to serve them: the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers.
Moses gets a ton of mentions. Too many to list.
Although being on loan to Fenerbahce maybe rules him out of this one.
John the Baptist was very good with his head, I hear.
On what possible basis does Farage get an invite to any debates? He represents a private company, not a party, which has zero MPs, is almost certain to win zero seats, has never even stood for Parliament before and is not a candidate himself.
If you believe this, you should be aware that right now you can back the Brexit party to get zero seats on Betfair at 2.12 (11/10).
I think this is a great bet at this price.
You can still get 1.10 on Brexit party nil to nine seats
Nigel_Foremain said: "Oh dear, you sound a bit like a Tory or Labour/Momentum purist. Centrist politicians need to unite."
I think that (excluding libertarians) an individual holds inately one of three political ideologies: collectivism, liberalism or conservatism. And that it is from these three ideologies that the main three policital parties derive.
What I struggle to stomach is the sight of a career politician being able to advocate for one ideology one day and another the next, Wollaston is a prime example.
As I liberal, I cannot "decide" to wake up tomorrow morning as a conservative or a collectivist. If that`s being purist - well so be it.
This is precisely the sort of thing that will lead to the Scottish Conservatives retaining almost all their seats.
Was it not the case that in 2015 the SNP went to some lengths to emphasise that the GE was not about a vote for secession? This seems to be a change of tack from what served them well then.
Yep, but it was slightly different in GE2017 when they hoped to capitalise on the Brexit vote, and Scotland voting for Remain, to push for independence.
An interesting question IMO is how many seats would the LDs have to win for Jo Swinson to enter Downing Street as PM. At first glance, one might say it's 326 (or 320), but in practice if the LDs came second Labour would probably have no choice but to support her in order to stop the Tories. So in reality it might be 150 seats for the LDs, because Labour would be on about 120, the SNP 50, PC and Greens 5. (That assumes the Tories are on about 310 to 315).
Just for fun I was going to look at the Lib Dem gains that would need to be made to reach 150 seats, but the only target list that I can find that lists upto 150 is riddled with errors. [Redcar listed as requiring a 26.52% swing, actually requires a 19.4% swing, York Outer at 26.39% should be 20.4%, NE Somerset at 26.45% should be 22.7%, etc, unless I'm making some massive errors]
The SCons were bound to return to their astonishingly successful Euro strategy of 'Vote Ruth Davidson Party to say no to Indy Ref II'. The fact that they don't actually have another strategy has nothing to do with it.
You see, whenever you post something like that I know it's because you're worried because you know it's effective.
I backed SCons seats at 16/1 for 16+ seats by the way. Just for you.
Can I just clarify, do you think 'Vote Ruth Davidson Party to say no to Indy Ref II' was an astonishingly successful Euro strategy or not? Your North British insights are always worth listening to.
A rather tetchy and sarcastic response which, whilst being all too typical of your posting style, is in itself rather telling.
Any attuned Unionist in Scotland now knows three things: (1) Sturgeon will be pushing for an IndyRef next year (2) She will be using a strong SNP result in GE2019 as a mandate for it, and, (3) the poor SNP showing in GE2017 inhibited her from doing so last time.
It's for those reasons that I expect the Scottish Conservatives to retain almost all their seats, and I am betting accordingly.
As is all too typical of your posting style, you didn't actually answer my question. I'll leave it hanging as to whether that is in itself rather telling.
It took you half-an-hour of sweating furiously behind your computer, drafting and re-drafting what you thought might be the most cutting response, to come up with that?
You're past your best.
Some of us have to drive folk to work among other things. I'd suggest your 30,783 posts give off more than a hint of furious, red faced sweating. And you still haven't answered my question.
I take your point. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured underground over 300m years ago when C02 levels were at 800ppm (3 x pre-industrial levels). It's releasing that fossil fuel carbon that has driven CO2 levels up from 280ppm to 410ppm, not burning biomass.
When it was stored as carbon is irrelevant. The result is the same. The fact that new biomass crops are grown in its place and draw carbon from the atmosphere once again is more relevant, but it is entirely possible that burning oil and planting a forest would result in less CO2 than burning sugar cane and replanting sugar cane.
I doubt it.
Growing a field of sugar cane takes X kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning it puts X kg of CO2 back into the atmosphere = net zero.
Burning fossil fuels quickly releases the carbon trapped by forests over potentially millions of years. Planting a new forest is not going to recapture the carbon stored from millions of years of decaying pre-historic forests.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Eh?
If I grow a tree and then burn it, the net carbon released is zero. If I did a lump of coal out the ground and burn it, the net carbon released is something.
sure, if the alternative to growing trees (or other crops for burning) on that fertile bit of land, was keeping anything from growing on it. i think the point is you could, in theory, grow a tree, and not burn it but burn a lump of coal instead
we need to grow trees and then not burn them, and also not burn the lump of coal.
i don't think we have a load of spare extra land available on the planet to grow crops for burning, so probably not a good solution.
Comments
It's the amount of CO2 it the atmosphere that counts.
The way to stop what you call "tribal voting" is to get rid of FPTP.
I'm interested in predicting the election campaign, and the behaviour of Labour voters who detest Corbyn will be instrumental in that.
I wonder if anyone knows why?
I note this from a written statement by Johnson on 28 October:
"In line with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, the date of Parliament’s return will be set by Royal Proclamation following Dissolution, and I will recommend to The Queen that the first meeting of the new Parliament takes place before 23 December."
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-10-28/HCWS43/
If I understand correctly, that means the date of the first sitting of the new parliament is determined by the advice of the outgoing PM regardless of the election result, in which case parliament will be meeting again before Christmas.
That being the case, if Johnson gets a majority, I think having a meaningful vote on his deal before the New Year would be a "no brainer" in political terms.
I backed SCons seats at 16/1 for 16+ seats by the way. Just for you.
Luke 11:31 King James Version (KJV)
31 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
'And lo, the Philistines wreaked great destruction upon the tribe of Stenhousemuir, and there was much mumping of gums, and their prophet Ericjoyce spake thus: 'Am gonnae really smash some **** for this.'
I think that's the most important thing for Brexiteers.
It was 13, so 12/1, but still a bit annoying to talk myself out of it (£1 free bet aside).
Mind you, I got super flukey with the Perez bet last weekend (by all rights Ricciardo should've been best of the rest) so I can't complain too much.
Prob easier not to burn the coal in the first place.
They are turned back to the iniquities of their forfarthers, which refused to hear my words; and they went after other gods to serve them: the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers.
Could this be an election determined by Brexit views?
At the start of this election campaign, 40% of the public say they are most likely to base their vote on Brexit. https://t.co/vOD6a5riXw
Any attuned Unionist in Scotland now knows three things: (1) Sturgeon will be pushing for an IndyRef next year (2) She will be using a strong SNP result in GE2019 as a mandate for it, and, (3) the poor SNP showing in GE2017 inhibited her from doing so last time.
It's for those reasons that I expect the Scottish Conservatives to retain almost all their seats, and I am betting accordingly.
Me and you - bloody hell.
A major benefit of such a move, regardless of result, would be to expose any conditions imposed by Johnson (or Corbyn) on participation - making Johnson look a complete coward and fool if the rumours about him vetoing the involvement of others is correct.
The best way for any Unionist to stop independence getting legs next year is to deny the SNP any of the gains they want in Scotland this year, and deny the possibility of any alternative Government led by Corbyn.
That means Labour are utterly toast in Scotland, and the Tories will retain most of their seats. On a very good night, they might only lost 2-3 but gain 5-6 others.
Which is why I've taken the 16/1 on Tories on 16+ seats with Ladbrokes.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1190402686828580865?s=20
Arsenal
Spurs
must all be in with a chance
(But are we taking KJV or RSV)?
"We may not see another Labour government. The party is a Long Bailey or Pidcock away from permanent irrelevance."
Yeah, you may be right. I`d love to see CP and Libdems as the major two parties. But there is so much tribal loyalty around Labour compared to the LibDems.
Con 39%
Lab 25%
LD 17%
BRX 10%
Grn 4%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/oct/31/uk-general-election-2019-poll-tracker
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50283719
The argument now is who gets what place at the trough.
The great unknown in this election is in a seat where the MP is Tory and the second place candidate was Labour is it better to vote Labour or Lib Dem this time around? I suspect in some places the latter is the case.
And that question will continue for a while - Labour is more likely to die from death by hundred cuts (seat by seat) rather than an SNP style massacre but as Labour lose seats I suspect they may move rapidly from 1st to 3rd place in those seats never to return
But no one believes them.
So they may as well make it about Independence and grab that mandate.
That means we will see the biggest giveaway of all time without it making any difference.
I think this is a great bet at this price.
Its now all about who gets what place at the trough.
The question is how many more TBP defect to the conservatives ?
BREAKING: Brexit Party Candidate Defects, Backs Tory MP https://t.co/YcVOuzX9lO https://t.co/ikzbihkMyX
Well - whilst I support the LibDems I hope that Chuka doesn`t get elected. I don`t approved of politicians that jump ship: is he a collectivist or a liberal? Is Gyimah`s ideology conservatism or liberalism?
Sound money, where art thou?
Chris said:
"You got a much better price than I did - about 13 - but it's currently 7.4-8 and by comparison with the election markets it still seems good value, unless I'm missing something."
"Turns out I was gilding the lily. Not 45. It was 25. Still, 7.6 now, as you say, so smug city. If he gets a good majority it would be surely be tempting. Also tempting to put his feet up for the hols, however, so think I might close out now. Thanks for the spot since I would not have known. It's not a market I check often now the GE is on."
So - are you closing your bets now for a profit or letting them run??
?? ""Gild the lily" describes the process of adorning or embellishing something that is already beautiful or already perfect"
Casino Royale might be on to something.
Although being on loan to Fenerbahce maybe rules him out of this one.
You're past your best.
There is no evidence that he is good at practical politics (he was the de facto leader of the disastrously launched TIG-gers); there is no evidence he believes in anything very much ("nightclubs full of trash"); there is no evidence he can convert undecided voters or is electorally successfully.
Someone would have to really hate the LibDems to wish Chuka on them as leader. (No, I can't do it ... )
Like you, I don't approve of defectors who jump ship without holding by-elections, but the best of the defectors in terms of practical politics for the LibDems was Heidi Allen. I think she was the only one who might have held her seat.
I think that (excluding libertarians) an individual holds inately one of three political ideologies: collectivism, liberalism or conservatism. And that it is from these three ideologies that the main three policital parties derive.
What I struggle to stomach is the sight of a career politician being able to advocate for one ideology one day and another the next, Wollaston is a prime example.
As I liberal, I cannot "decide" to wake up tomorrow morning as a conservative or a collectivist. If that`s being purist - well so be it.
They are really going all in this time.
we need to grow trees and then not burn them, and also not burn the lump of coal.
i don't think we have a load of spare extra land available on the planet to grow crops for burning, so probably not a good solution.