Labour Leadership

[EDOldie]

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.

[miga]

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.

[Sue]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

>

> Cameron will just turn it on its head if we get

> attacked and say ' This is the proof that what we

> did was right '

> That's what politicians do.

>

Yes, agreed.

[Sue]

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) :))

[Otta]

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.

[Sue]

Otta Wrote:

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

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

> form a person's point.

No, of course not.

That's why I said I was nitpicking.

[uncleglen]

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.....

[Blah Blah]

'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.

[JohnL]

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.

[Otta]

It's no doubt part that, but also because I chose a smaller phone, hence smaller keypad. And sometimes (as with Diana / Diane, I type one word, and it takes it upon itself to correct me.

[ploberman]

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?

[Loz]

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.

[Otta]

But if you were politically active in the 80s, things should all seem pretty familiar.

[Loz]

Slightly tangential, but did anyone else see Corbyn's brother, Piers, on This Week last Thursday?

[Louisa]

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.

[Blah Blah]

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.'

[BrandNewGuy]

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.

[Blah Blah]

Yes I agree. People are more interested in reality shows than they are in the achievements of all the great scientists that have brought understanding to the world. Science has to find better and more effective ways to engage interest.

[Loz]

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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[Blah Blah]

I'd add to that the conflict between those who think we must act now, and those who think we can act as it evolves. There's a clear split on action/ solutions by scientists themselves.

[JohnL]

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.

[BrandNewGuy]

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.

[Loz]

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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.