Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Whatever you think about UKIP and Farrage, the postal votes issue does worry me and I hope it's fully investigated. The share of the vote increasing is unexpected and it's incredibly important that any election result is beyond suspicion. If there is any fraud people should be nicked.
I would detest being told how to vote by my family/community as in the Biraderi voting system, but there's nothing stopping the 40-50% of disinterested voters, most of whom are presumably not mobilised to vote by their community, from going to the ballot box and reducing the effect of the former.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wish Diana Abbot would get a sore throat and

> stay off telly / radio for a bit.



Sorry to nitpick but she's Diane, not Diana


ETA: Oh and while I'm nitpicking, it's exercise, not exorcise (further up the thread) :))

I'm not surprised that there is suspicion around the postal voting system given

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/sep/06/men-jailed-attempted-postal-vote-fraud

and there are other examples but I linked this one because I know how much you all love the Guardian.....

'ETA: Oh and while I'm nitpicking, it's exercise, not exorcise (further up the thread)'


:D Yes that's my typo. Completely changes the meaning of that sentence reading it back :D oops!


I don't see how there can be suspicion around such a huge majority Uncle. Bradford as that article points out was a marginal seat. What UKIP were trying to say is that muslim and asian communities were being told who to vote for by their community leaders, as though that somehow denied them the 10,000 extra votes they needed to beat labour.


We keep seeing this with UKIP. The media hype up their candidates, but when it comes to the actual elections, they fall flat. Constituencies don't want UKIP MPs. UKIP are just a bunch of cry babies.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I often post using my phone. Hence my posts are

> full of incorrect words and typos.

>

> But a spelling mistake / typo shouldn't take away

> form a person's point.



Fat finger symptom :) - if you haven't got it it's difficult

to understand.

ploberman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi there.

>

> Just heard that the Labour Party had a new leader

> elected some time ago.

>

> As I am interested in politics and voted back in

> the eighties can someone fill me in on the current

> situation?


Considering you posted in this very thread back in August, I'm rather surprised this news has somehow managed to pass you by.

I saw him and he made some very interesting points about how climate change is cyclical and what a load of bull the whole mainstream money grabbing pro-green energy mob talk. I really liked him. As I've always said, there is little or no evidence to prove or disprove the whole climate change argument. The sooner we all realise that, the better.


Louisa.

That's complete nonsense Louisa. The science isn't in dispute. The causes are where the debate is. Pumping millions of tons of greenhouse gas into our atmosphere, whilst deforesting and getting rid of things that absorb CO2 is only going to have one result.


There are plenty of research papers on all aspects of climate change if you want to google and read them. As this extract from 'Ecological responses to recent climate change' says;


'There is now ample evidence of the ecological impacts of recent climate change, from polar terrestrial to tropical marine environments. The responses of both flora and fauna span an array of ecosystems and organizational hierarchies, from the species to the community levels. Despite continued uncertainty as to community and ecosystem trajectories under global change, our review exposes a coherent pattern of ecological change across systems. Although we are only at an early stage in the projected trends of global warming, ecological responses to recent climate change are already clearly visible.'

Indeed, Blah Blah, but we live in a country (a world?) where scientific illiteracy is flaunted proudly. More money than ever spent on education and the population still hasn't got an earthly, but that doesn't stop them 'taking sides' in scientific debates as if they're beauty contests. Profoundly depressing - and science needs to sort out its communication skills too.

Personally, I think it is real, but I really cannot fathom what the effect is going to be, whether that be a slight change in climate or complete disaster. There is crap science and numbers on both sides and this is magnified by the unseemly, often childish polarised row between the two sides. Quite often I think, "a pox on both their houses".


For instance, it annoys me when people keep saying "97% of CC scientists agree on Climate Change", as it's not true. That figure refers to numbers of peer-reviewed articles, and even that number hides a vast difference in what the effect may be. Apparently, as far as can be ascertained, about 83% of CC scientists agree. Now you may say that is nit-picking, but it's important that incorrect figures are not bandied around.

To be honest, I think it is nit picking a little Loz, although I get your point. What it is fair to say is that there is a broad scientific consensus regarding the existence of man-made climate change. What is far less clear, as you rightly say, is the degree to which it will impact on the world. Let's face it though - it's unlikely to be good.

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Indeed, Blah Blah, but we live in a country (a

> world?) where scientific illiteracy is flaunted

> proudly. More money than ever spent on education

> and the population still hasn't got an earthly,

> but that doesn't stop them 'taking sides' in

> scientific debates as if they're beauty contests.

> Profoundly depressing - and science needs to sort

> out its communication skills too.



Maybe they think that if Climate Change was that serious ..


then surely the powers that be would do something - other than than talk.

Governments see climate change as something that will happen in the future, so they're happy to make exrtravagant promises that they won't be around to be accountable for. They need to be persuaded both that its effects are almost certainly happening now and that decisions we make now ? or don't make ? will affect us all in the future. I think too many scientists think that 'the data speaks for themselves', when they seldom do.
There's a lot (relatively) pointless stuff being suggested as well. I've been looking at our energy usage and taking steps to reduce it (admittedly more for cost reasons than for saving the planet). One of the popular moves suggested is to switch to low-watt lighting. But, after looking into it, the percentage of our annual bill caused by lighting was very small. A 40w light bulb costs less than 50p to run for 100 hours. Considering how much more technically complicated the compact flouro bulbs are (and so take more industrial processes to make), I suspect the total energy saved is probably close to zero.
I kind of agree. Short of a major, disruptive shift in how the world is organised, it feels very unlikely that we're going to make much difference at this stage. Sorry, that's incredible negative, but it does feel like recycling a few bottles when I go shop at a supermarket is little more than displacement activity.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Exactly what I said, that Corbyn's group of univeristy politics far-left back benchers would have been a disaster during Covid if they had won the election. Here you go:  BBC News - Ex-union boss McCluskey took private jet flights arranged by building firm, report finds https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o The 2019 result was considered one of the worst in living memory for Labour, not only for big swing of seats away from them but because they lost a large number of the Red-wall seats- generational Labour seats. Why? Because as Alan Johnson put it so succinctly: "Corbyn couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag"! https://youtu.be/JikhuJjM1VM?si=oHhP6rTq4hqvYyBC
    • Agreed and in the meantime its "joe public" who has to pay through higher prices. We're talking all over the shop from food to insurance and everything in between.  And to add insult to injury they "hurt " their own voters/supporters through the actions they have taken. Sadly it gets to a stage where you start thinking about leaving London and even exiting the UK for good, but where to go????? Sad times now and ahead for at least the next 4yrs, hence why Govt and Local Authorities need to cut spending on all but essential services.  An immediate saving, all managerial and executive salaries cannot exceed and frozen at £50K Do away with the Mayor of London, the GLA and all the hanging on organisations, plus do away with borough mayors and the teams that serve them. All added beauracracy that can be dispensed with and will save £££££'s  
    • The minimum wage hikes on top of the NICs increases have also caused vast swathes of unemployment.
    • Exactly - a snap election will make things even worse. Jazzer - say you get a 'new' administration tomorrow, you're still left with the same treasury, the same civil servants, the same OBR, the same think-tanks and advisors (many labour advisors are cross-party, Gauke for eg). The options are the same, no matter who's in power. Labour hasn't even changed the Tories' fiscal rules - the parties are virtually economically aligned these days.  But Reeves made a mistake in trying too hard, too early to make some seismic changes in her first budget as a big 'we're here and we're going to fix this mess, Labour to the rescue' kind of thing . They shone such a big light on the black hole that their only option was to try to fix it overnight. It was a comms clusterfuck.  They'd perhaps have done better sticking to Sunak's quiet, cautious approach, but they knew the gullible public was expecting an 24-hour turnaround miracle.  The NIC hikes are a disaster, I think they'll be reversed soon and enough and they'll keep trying till they find something that sticks.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...