Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
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.
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (14 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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.
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
Folks just have to accept it - Starmer is even less popular than a mass-murdering bastard.
www.theguardian.com
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’
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Yep that’s how I think now
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Classy
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.
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.
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
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.
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.
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
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’
As Frozen Land Burns, Siberia Fears: ‘If We Don’t Have the Forest, We Don’t Have Life’
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
And we’ve got a bunch of clowns in charge who won’t do anything about it.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Putin might and will include war probably
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
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
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
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
Well-Known Member
Which covers religion as per the title of the act
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
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
Well-Known Member
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.
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
Stand for Parliament mate please
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Hard no to that too.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
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(!)
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
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
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
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.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
How do we grow enough fruit and veg to cope with the world not eating meat?
COV
Well-Known Member
I don’t think he’s saying that we shouldn’t bother, more that the people who could make serious changes for the better are unwilling/ unable to do so
Then again when you have Branson asking for emergency loans but then bragging about trips to space a few months later it shows how fucked up the world really is, nobody will do anything until it’s too late.
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
Stop use agricultural land for growing meat. which is between 4-7 times less efficient at producing calorific input per acre. So you could feed more, not less. It is this inefficiency when combined with other destructive acts associated with growing meat, such as deforestation, that amounts to the C02.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
To be fair though we do have an economy that's based almost entirely on consumption and growth of that consumption over time. This is because the metrics governments use to measure 'success' are based around them and so therefore have to promote them to be seen to be successful and achieving economic growth.
We need someone brave enough to say there's more to it than that and introduce more indicators to determine success. Sadly, we all know anyone that did would get destroyed in the media by those with a lot of influence doing very nicely out of the current set-up.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Sadly, when you look at any of the problems facing the world and trace them back, almost all of them start because there's too many of us around to be sustainable.
It's something that could be sorted in a generation if we could get rid of the cultural and religious ideologies around the world that promote having lots of children.
But we won't and eventually nature will sort it for us and it will not be pretty. Coronavirus is little more than nature shaking its head and tutting at us compared to what will happen eventually if we don't reel ourselves in.
COV
Well-Known Member
I agree win this 100%. Covid is just the beginning. When you have fires in Siberia that’s another way of nature asking “are you really sure about this folks?” Saw quite a few articles projecting what is coming our way, chilling stuff. As with all things there will be hyperbole in there, but underneath it is the truth that we’re heading for a huge wake-up call at some point.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
It would be better, as plant crops take up less space than that needed for animals to produce the same amount of food. If we switch to stuff like insects as an alternative it would be an improvement.
Trouble is a lot of pastoral land isn't suitable for arable farming due to soil, location etc so we'd have to take land from somewhere else to meet demand. I think we could have vertical farming in large skyscrapers using hydroponics but that also uses loads of resources to create the structure.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Do those figures include the fact that agricultural land can't be used every year for growing fruit and veg? Or areas of the world that struggle immensely to grow fruit and veg?
Deforestation also happens for produce that takes a higher profit anyway, so if that's not a cow, it'd be something else... a yam, say.
I appreciate this reads slightly confrontationally, and I don't necessarily mean it to (give me the answers to the questions, and I'll look into it / test it out as a hypothesis), but I am struggling to get my head around how scaling things up works. Hunter / gatherers augment what they farm (limited) with meat, after all, with no real detrimental effect, but they're not doing it as a mass-market industry.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
We use the land currently used to grow animal feed to grow human feed.
The two biggest causes of deforestation in the world are clearing land to grow animal feed and then clearing land for pasture. Not only we do have enough land to feed the world without meat eating we would also have enough spare land to start planting trees and re-wilding land.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
This is classic left wing thinking. “First change all of human civilisation”. OK good luck with that.