Do you want to discuss boring politics? (119 Viewers)

[Deleted member 5849]

You’re missing the point. I’m not comparing him to Johnson who is a complete fucking fraud.

It is noticable however that righties seem a lot less critical of their leaders, whoever they are, than lefties. Righties do play the game a lot better. Johnson's a case in point, loathed by a high proportion of his MPs, and for that matter the older, traditional membership, but they recognise they have to get behind him even if they think he's a cock.

And it's not just Johnson having an uncanny magnetic appeal (that really is intangible!) that wins elections, it's the fact they all sing from the same hymn sheet, cynically or not.

 

---

[oakey]

Exactly. The Conservative party is the most successful in the whole Western world - at winning elections and keeping their hands on the levers of power.
Not very good at governing though. The country has been in steady decline throughout their history. Nearly all positive changes have been made in the brief periods when Liberals or Labour have been in power or when Conservatives tacked to the centre to maintain power.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Exactly the Conservative party is the most successful in the whole Western world - at winning elections and keeping their hands on the levers of power

It's not even their strategies either. So, Starmer's ineffective, eh? What's not going to make him more effective is if he has to waste his time arguing with his own side, rather than with the people in power!

 

[oakey]

It's not even their strategies either. So, Starmer's ineffective, eh? What's not going to make him more effective is if he has to waste his time arguing with his own side, rather than with the people in power!

Which is precisely why I and many others could never join the Labour party. Too many zealots arguing about rulebooks, Hamas or union block votes.

 

[Northants Sky Blue]

Labour unfortunately seems to face an inherent, recurring problem.

Parties of the left based on progressive ideals have to accommodate many different interest groups under one umbrella.

The Tories seem to only care about winning and many will happily ditch small c conservative, family values etc to grab the coat tails of a populist chancer like Johnson.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

He’s labours IDS they need to ditch him

There needs to be a well timed by election in ‘23 for Burnham to jump in

 

[oakey]

I think a lot of 'lefties' or progressives like the Tories being in power. It gives them something to rail against whilst maintaining some sense of moral superiority and being spared the practical issues of power.
It's this that puts many people off Labour. They "smell" too preachy.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I think a lot of 'lefties' or progressives like the Tories being in power. It gives them something to rail against whilst maintaining some sense of moral superiority and being spared the practical issues of power.
It's this that puts many people off Labour. They "smell" too preachy.

Corbyn's helped moderate me, ironically. My beliefs haven't changed, but I currently see a government totally opposed in philosophy to me, able to do what it wants with impunity. I also see the only time during my life when Britain seemed to have a vague sense of a social conscience, was under Blair and Brown (do I really need to point out the general here, to head off the disruptors pointing out specifics?).

Therefore, pragmatism now rules, here at least.

 

[shmmeee]

Any Labour government is better than any Tory govenrment at the end of the day. I’m not sure you can win from where we were left in 2019, not without an exceptional politician (and I’d call Boris one of those). And Labour don’t have any right now anyway. He needs to steady the ship, detoxify us, and make some of the right moves in public perception on the basics like law and order and patriotism. Most of the public won’t really form an opinion on him until a GE campaign. Probably against Sunak rather than Johnson, which will change things a lot. Corbyn wasn’t really established until 2017.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The one thing Corbyn had in 2017 was an ability to go places and talk to crowds and get engagement - in a different way Major did as well in 92 when the odds were heavily against him. Starmer looks like the people he addressed are beneath him

Everything is about selling yourself as a leader of people. Not a forensic evaluation. Theresa May isn’t a stupid person but was useless at trying to be personable. All leaders have to have engage abilities

I think the second quote is closer to the truth than the first. He doesn't know how to engage with them rather than think they're 'beneath' him as such.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

He doesn’t stand for anything. He’s a weather vane and doesn’t appear to have any conviction on many things. He’s basically sat there and let people say that under 25’s are feckless and workshy… and this is the demographic that leans heavily to his party.

That said, in his defence, that whole BBC thing was a setup, designed to humiliate him.

I'm sure he stands for a lot. But like with Miliband the advisors get their claws in him and he ends up seemingly having no opinion because someone somewhere has told him it'd be a vote loser if he went one way or the other. So, yes, could could say he doesn't have conviction, because if he did he just tell them to bugger off and make a decision. Problem with being leader of the party is that he's supposed to reflect the party rather than his own personal views and Labour don't seem to know what they want at the moment. Partly because whatever they do it's seen as wrong and a vote loser.

 

[Ian1779]

I'm sure he stands for a lot. But like with Miliband the advisors get their claws in him and he ends up seemingly having no opinion because someone somewhere has told him it'd be a vote loser if he went one way or the other. So, yes, could could say he doesn't have conviction, because if he did he just tell them to bugger off and make a decision. Problem with being leader of the party is that he's supposed to reflect the party rather than his own personal views and Labour don't seem to know what they want at the moment. Partly because whatever they do it's seen as wrong and a vote loser.

I’ve said before on here that the people advising him need sacking because they are utterly hopeless. To be honest, why on earth would he do that meet up and then allow it to be broadcast on TV? He was stitched up a treat, no matter what they said it would have been edited to show him in a poor light, it’s just baffling.

When he ran for leader, he had plenty to say, and for me it was in the main good. But since then he’s rowed back so far that its almost unrecognisable. Now before someone says speaking to Labour members is not the same as speaking to the country, if he can row back like that with people he directly represents, is it any wonder the larger electorate don’t trust him - especially when you add that to the distrust around PV.

 

[Deleted member 4439]

Folks just have to accept it - Starmer is even less popular than a mass-murdering bastard.

Syria’s President Assad sworn in for fourth term with 95% of vote

Inauguration follows election dismissed by US, UK and other countries as ‘neither free nor fair’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I think a lot of 'lefties' or progressives like the Tories being in power. It gives them something to rail against whilst maintaining some sense of moral superiority and being spared the practical issues of power.
It's this that puts many people off Labour. They "smell" too preachy.

Yep that’s how I think now

 

[skybluetony176]

Classy

 

[wingy]

I see the express has another article about state pensions and the unlikely chance of the qualifying age being reduced, quelle suprise.
Just so happened that i was again having this conversation on Friday evening with a former workmate around the fact that there is absolutely no consideration given to career path be that arduous manual labour IE- Construction for example,which is just farcical these people are expected to carry on until reaching 68.
Where is the campaign from a crusading MP to right this blight.

 

[Deleted member 4439]

The bigger problem is the UK pension system has traditionally relied on occupational (and, to lesser degree, private) pensions to supplement the pauper state pension. As occupational pensions become downgraded or disappear altogether, it's going to be increasingly difficult to retire early anyway.

Currently, occupational/private pensions make up 50% of retirement income. This is significantly more than the majority of OCED countries (the lowest of the European countries bar the Netherlands). Only Ireland spends less % GDP on state pensions (though state pensions are higher than the UK), and only Latvia and Estonia have outright greater pensioner poverty.

And of course the 'new' state pension changed the goalpost again, penalising the average worker near to retirement age by effectively discounting several years NI contributions, and a lower top flat-rate.

 

[Deleted member 4439]

Wildfires in Siberia for the 3rd year running. It's happening guys.

As Frozen Land Burns, Siberia Fears: ‘If We Don’t Have the Forest, We Don’t Have Life’

 

[stupot07]

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[shmmeee]

Wildfires in Siberia for the 3rd year running. It's happening guys.

As Frozen Land Burns, Siberia Fears: ‘If We Don’t Have the Forest, We Don’t Have Life’

And we’ve got a bunch of clowns in charge who won’t do anything about it.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

And we’ve got a bunch of clowns in charge who won’t do anything about it.

Putin might and will include war probably

 

[David O'Day]

Islam isnt a race either but we still go there ..



Mate I joke please let's not start this up

Legally it is as per the race and religious hatred act 2006

 

[Deleted member 4439]

And we’ve got a bunch of clowns in charge who won’t do anything about it.

Well, them clowns be the whole world-over then, both govts and population. Let's face it, no-body really cares, and if they did they would look to alter their lifestyle and consumption.

 

[Evo1883]

Legally it is as per the race and religious hatred act 2006

Which covers religion as per the title of the act

 

[Deleted member 4439]

Legally it is as per the race and religious hatred act 2006

As Evo has said, legally it's not, nor have I seen Muslims claiming such. That's different to many Jewish people, who see themselves as a race.

edit: It is possible I suppose that the expressed hatred of an ethnicity identified by indicators of faith could take racial form, and therefore be covered under the act.

 

[shmmeee]

Putin might and will include war probably

The next twenty years are pretty scary.

Well, them clowns be the whole world-over then, both govts and population. Let's face it, no-body really cares, and if they did they would look to alter their lifestyle and consumption.

Yes to the first bit. Hard no to the second. Personal choices are a distraction. What matters is government action. My mum recycling won’t save the planet, Johnson moving us to green energy/transport and insulating homes will.

This is the fundamental issue with libertarian ideology in the 21st century. It’s completely blown apart by the real world.

 

[Deleted member 4439]

The next twenty years are pretty scary.


Yes to the first bit. Hard no to the second. Personal choices are a distraction. What matters is government action. My mum recycling won’t save the planet, Johnson moving us to green energy/transport and insulating homes will.

This is the fundamental issue with libertarian ideology in the 21st century. It’s completely blown apart by the real world.

You and your mum, and your neighbours, and their neighbours can stop eating meat - that's 15% net C02 reduction straightaway. We could all also choose to reduce our consumption of things we want but don't actually need.

I suspect that of those that do protest, most still eat meat, consume all forms of tech gadgets, sit on their social media driven computers helping burn energy, and will walk into jobs and professions that support unnecessary (but nice) consumption.

I'm confident that nature will take care of things however, through ever greater natural disasters and loss of land. So, everybody just chill (buy an C02 producing air con system) - Nature's got this one.

 

[shmmeee]

You and your mum, and your neighbours, and their neighbours can stop eating meat - that's 15% net C02 reduction straightaway. We could all also choose to reduce our consumption of things we want but don't actually need.

I suspect that of those that do protest, most still eat meat, consume all forms of tech gadgets, sit on their social media driven computers helping burn energy, and will walk into jobs and professions that support unnecessary (but nice) consumption.

I'm confident that nature will take care of things however, through ever greater natural disasters and loss of land. So, everybody just chill (buy an C02 producing air con system) - Nature's got this one.

Meat eating is nothing like that number. The figures used to get there are wildly off. Electricity production is governments responsibility. We could easily be carbon neutral there by now if we hadn’t had the silly aversion to wind while being probably the best country on the planet for wind power.

Consumption and carbon footprint are ideas spread by fossil fuel lobbies to dodge their responsibility. And the green lobby and it’s penchant for telling people off so they can feel virtuous fell for it hook line and sinker. Thankfully it’s not just the crusties that are working on this now.

Simple things we could do: insulate homes, move to renewables and nuclear, decarbonise most transport, all doable today with little impact.

Pretending we can change human nature en masses is just delusional. That’s not how people work.

We didn’t stop smoking indoors by asking nicely. We didn’t remove toxic substances by asking manufacturers nicely. We didn’t stop single use plastic by asking nicely. You set regulations and people adapt.

Sadly we’ve got a government who doesn’t believe in government and is ideologically bent on doing nothing in response to any issue.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Meat eating is nothing like that number. The figures used to get there are wildly off. Electricity production is governments responsibility. We could easily be carbon neutral there by now if we hadn’t had the silly aversion to wind while being probably the best country on the planet for wind power.

Consumption and carbon footprint are ideas spread by fossil fuel lobbies to dodge their responsibility. And the green lobby and it’s penchant for telling people off so they can feel virtuous fell for it hook line and sinker. Thankfully it’s not just the crusties that are working on this now.

Simple things we could do: insulate homes, move to renewables and nuclear, decarbonise most transport, all doable today with little impact.

Pretending we can change human nature en masses is just delusional. That’s not how people work.

We didn’t stop smoking indoors by asking nicely. We didn’t remove toxic substances by asking manufacturers nicely. We didn’t stop single use plastic by asking nicely. You set regulations and people adapt.

Sadly we’ve got a government who doesn’t believe in government and is ideologically bent on doing nothing in response to any issue.

Stand for Parliament mate please

 

[shmmeee]

Stand for Parliament mate please

Hard no to that too.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

You and your mum, and your neighbours, and their neighbours can stop eating meat - that's 15% net C02 reduction straightaway. We could all also choose to reduce our consumption of things we want but don't actually need.

I suspect that of those that do protest, most still eat meat, consume all forms of tech gadgets, sit on their social media driven computers helping burn energy, and will walk into jobs and professions that support unnecessary (but nice) consumption.

I'm confident that nature will take care of things however, through ever greater natural disasters and loss of land. So, everybody just chill (buy an C02 producing air con system) - Nature's got this one.

As an aside, a plant based diet is probably better for the environment until the whole world tries to do it. Then, in trying to serve the exponential increase in demand, I suspect we'd find it would be pretty bad for the environment, too!

Conclusion? Too many humans are bad for the environment(!)

 

[shmmeee]

I’m waiting for the time when we start Hollywood style tech interventions like giant mirrors in the sky or massive geoengineering.

It’ll probably backfire massively, but it’ll be cool to watch.

 

[Deleted member 4439]

Meat eating is nothing like that number. The figures used to get there are wildly off. Electricity production is governments responsibility. We could easily be carbon neutral there by now if we hadn’t had the silly aversion to wind while being probably the best country on the planet for wind power.

Consumption and carbon footprint are ideas spread by fossil fuel lobbies to dodge their responsibility. And the green lobby and it’s penchant for telling people off so they can feel virtuous fell for it hook line and sinker. Thankfully it’s not just the crusties that are working on this now.

Simple things we could do: insulate homes, move to renewables and nuclear, decarbonise most transport, all doable today with little impact.

Pretending we can change human nature en masses is just delusional. That’s not how people work.

We didn’t stop smoking indoors by asking nicely. We didn’t remove toxic substances by asking manufacturers nicely. We didn’t stop single use plastic by asking nicely. You set regulations and people adapt.

Sadly we’ve got a government who doesn’t believe in government and is ideologically bent on doing nothing in response to any issue.

Well made points, other than the fact that no govt is going to really act on reducing lifestyles and consummation, are they - it's a vote killer, and which supports the view that nobody really cares.

Put another sausage on that grill made in polluting China, and crack on.

• Total emissions from global livestock: 7.1 Gigatonnes of Co2-equiv per year, representing 14.5 percent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions. This figure is in line FAO’s previous assessment, Livestock’s Long Shadow, published in 2006, although it is based on a much more detailed analysis and improved data sets. The two figures cannot be accurately compared, as reference periods and sources differ.

FAO - News Article: Key facts and findings

www.fao.org

 

[Deleted member 4439]

As an aside, a plant based diet is probably better for the environment until the whole world tries to do it. Then, in trying to serve the exponential increase in demand, I suspect we'd find it would be pretty bad for the environment, too!

Conclusion? Too many humans are bad for the environment(!)

Nope, that's the whole point of the many analyses that have been undertaken. Making meat is inefficient and very destructive of the environment as a whole, not just is creating C02. It's a 15% reduction if all stopped eating meat. Easiest single thing we can do and which is in our hands.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Nope, that's the whole point of the many analyses that have been undertaken. Making meat is inefficient and very destructive of the environment as a whole, not just is creating C02. It's a 15% reduction if all stopped eating meat. Easiest single thing we can do and which is in our hands.

How do we grow enough fruit and veg to cope with the world not eating meat?