When both the Scottish and the UK climate change legislation proposals first appeared, aviation and shipping were mysteriously absent. The Nats have since pledged to remedy this oversight, incidentally.Such an exemption is clearly absurd, and I'm pretty sure that we came up with the killer line on it (specifically either Robin or Patrick - I can't remember who thought of it first).
Either way, Robin told the Chamber on September 3rd that "having a climate change bill with an exemption for air transport is a bit like having a diet plan with an exemption for pies, beans, chips and black puddings". It even inspired a charity challenge, sadly not risen to by the First Minister.
By October 16th, the Liberals had gotten in on the act. In the Commons, Steve Webb said "However, Mr Miliband appears to think he can simply ignore the hugely polluting aviation and shipping industries. It's like telling everyone you're going on a calorie-controlled diet but not counting cream cakes." Amusingly, this was billed on the party's blog as his "cream cake triumph". (thanks to Adopted Domain for the spot)
Today Friends of the Earth have in turn recycled it, in a new and more potent form, as "a drink-driving law that doesn't count whisky".
It's not clear where the Tories are on this, although the last link there implies they're also on side with the forces of good. If so, I await their press release comparing the bill as it stands to "a detox plan with an exemption for crack."
My dear Doctors far from merely getting in on the act back on Oct 16 2006 (coincidentally) Chris Huhne raised the aviation issue in Parliament.
I'll need to check the exact working of the 2005 manifesto but I do remember aviation and shipping being debated pre-the last general election during debates on Climate Change.
I do wish you'd ease back rather with the snide remarks against the one party that actually is taking a green agenda forward through its policies.
Relax, Stephen, I just mean getting in on the act with that particular family of metaphors, sorry if it was unclear. I have no doubt the Liberal policy has been robust on that particular issue for some time.
However, I don't advise getting into a green-off with me, or suggesting that the actual Greens aren't taking forward a green agenda. I'd start by raising airport expansion, the M74, the Aberdeen Western Peripheral and GM crops. Whoops, I already did.
Oh, and Trump, that's the next one. You'll note that it's the local Liberal councillor we're supporting, and your national party and his colleagues who've buried him. In fact, in the Ford case we're the most pro-Liberal of all!
Thanks for the clarification. I wouldn't try to outgreen you. Though my original options for joining of party came down to two, and yours fell down on not having a balanced policy agenda. Plus I took two years of optional environmental and ecological economics as part of my degree. :)
Although you really should check which part of which coalition partners manifesto contained road expansion and which including the Borders and Bathgate/Airdrie, rail recommittments, trams, universial senior citizen public transport savings before attacking the party that was branded with the transport brief to carry through the compromise transport section of the Programme for Government.
I can assure you that was one of the most hotly questioned areas of the 2003 agreement between the Lib Dem local party reps.
As for the Aberdeenshire/Trump situation I can assure you we're on the same side and had a very good heart to heart with one of those involved at conference recently.
Ah Stephen Mea Culpa! That explains it all. Lib Dems don't really like motorways, the big bad Labour Party made them do it eh? I'm so glad you cleared that up for me. Maybe I would believe you if the Lib Dem ministers responsible for the M74 had resigned rather than support something at odds with their 'policies' rather than make "Scotland's Worst Environmental Decision" (FOES) while sitting on the damaging Public Local Inquiry Report, but then again that would take principles.