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.
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
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’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.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.
Yep that’s how I think nowI 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.
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’
Putin might and will include war probablyAnd we’ve got a bunch of clowns in charge who won’t do anything about it.
Islam isnt a race either but we still go there ..
Mate I joke please let's not start this up
And we’ve got a bunch of clowns in charge who won’t do anything about it.
Legally it is as per the race and religious hatred act 2006
Legally it is as per the race and religious hatred act 2006
Putin might and will include war probably
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.
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.
Stand for Parliament mate pleaseMeat 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
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!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.
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(!)
How do we grow enough fruit and veg to cope with the world not eating meat?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.
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.
How do we grow enough fruit and veg to cope with the world not eating meat?
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.
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(!)
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.
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.
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?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.
We use the land currently used to grow animal feed to grow human feed.How do we grow enough fruit and veg to cope with the world not eating meat?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?