Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Burnham is overpriced as the 22% favourite to succeed Starmer – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 1 in General
imageBurnham is overpriced as the 22% favourite to succeed Starmer – politicalbetting.com

I have made this point before but I will make it again that punters are over rating Andy Burnham’s chances of becoming the next Labour leader. In my view he is favourite in the betting almost solely on the basis that he has higher name recognition and he has competed for the job twice before.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,582
    First like Boris
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806
    I agree. But haven't been tempted to tie my money up.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,457
    Phillipson at 6% is the value.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,457

    First like Boris

    As in first to get the hell out of Glasgow?
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 5,535
    Interesting that the one man on the list is ahead of all of the women. Surely they can’t keep having all the men in any leadership contest getting more votes than the highest placed woman?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    I agree, if Starmer goes before the next general election Reeves will be his likely replacement.

    Burnham has said he will only stand for Parliament again at the next general election so would only come into the frame as next Labour leader after that. Even then only if Starmer had lost that general election
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,457

    Neil Henderson
    @hendopolis
    ·
    11m
    TELEGRAPH: ‘Rise above politics for the sake of our children’ #TomorrowsPapersToday
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924
    HYUFD said:

    I agree, if Starmer goes before the next general election Reeves will be his likely replacement.

    Burnham has said he will only stand for Parliament again at the next general election so would only come into the frame as next Labour leader after that. Even then only if Starmer had lost that general election

    I would tend to agree with you, but do you have any insight into whether the Labour selectorate do? The unions aren’t exactly known for their enthusiasm for female candidates.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    On topic surely Burnham ran for Labour leader in 2010 and 2015, it was Owen Smith who challenged Corbyn in 2016
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Roger said:


    Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

    Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

    The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering


    https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20

    Macron might be seeking to win the adoration of the FBPE Twitter crowd with that childish language.

    Not sure its going to achieve much else though.
    ....Childish language!

    "We won't roll over...."

    Liz Truss sounding like Maggie's new tribute act

    (.......and doesn't it sound dated?)
    I regret to inform PB that Roger, an elderly, esteemed and retired member of this parish, has returned to make a comment
    Surely old posters returning is a cause for celebration not regret?

    I still live in hope of a messianic return of SeanT one day!
    He did a "piece" in the Spectator today. The usual predictable whingeing

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-if-wokeness-really-is-the-new-christianity-
    My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.

    "Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.

    Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
    Same here. This is the only place I see it. Not sure if most people I know would actually know what it means. Seems a type of paranoia for some.
    Yes, likewise. I just used it myself, but only in reply to someone else.
    I'm a freelancer but I have a kind of boss. She has just had her THIRD compulsory 90 minute seminar and exam on "diversity awareness" in 18 months

    She said this one was comparatively mild, but the first two were basically brainwashing. You HAVE to agree with some quite controversial statements (eg "race does not exist and is a social construct) or you fail, and then it all gets worse

    If race does not exist, and it's all a social construct (which is not an unreasonable view), then surely all issues of racial identity disappear too?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,403
    edited November 1
    Hang on. Burnham ran for leader in 2010 and 2015.
    Both times as a New Labour apparatchik.
    Edit. @HYUFD spotted this too.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142
    How long did it take for Labour centrists to realise that David Miliband was not coming back? History suggests you might be able to mine this market for profit for a long while. But you could easily be tying your money up for the best part of a decade so that's no from me.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924

    Phillipson at 6% is the value.

    A PB favourite! But, yes, I agree she is the dark horse.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,582
    HYUFD said:

    On topic surely Burnham ran for Labour leader in 2010 and 2015, it was Owen Smith who challenged Corbyn in 2016

    Owen who?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,582
    @MikeSmithson

    Burnham didn't run in the 2016 leadership election.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,009
    MikeL said:

    UK deaths

    image

    I'm afraid your deaths graph bears no resemblance at all to the data on the official site, eg:

    29 Oct - Official site has 58, you have zero
    28 Oct - Official site has 133, you have just under 120

    As far as deaths are concerned, I think the graph on the official site is far more meaningful - the 7 day average is properly centred and the 3 month and 6 month graphs give a far better feel for the position.
    That's because I accidentally uploaded yesterdays, instead of todays. Thank you for noticing

    image

    As to which graph is more demonstrative.... well, they show different things I think....

    This would be interesting (but sadly the Welsh data is not being provided)

    https://i.imgur.com/DMIfzER.jpg

    It's a link so that it doesn't kill the PB comments by slow loading
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806

    Selebian said:



    Leeds uni students have demanded all senior staff publish their pronouns apparently.

    God knows what that means but it sounds woke to me.

    It's commonplace in workplaces with younger staff, though usually optional. In your signature you indicate how you want to be called, e.g. Rottenborough (he/him). I don't bother with it myself, but most of my colleagues do, and nearly all the younger ones. The argument is that it's much like saying "call me Fred" or "call me Freddie" - why shouldn't people decide how they'd like to be addressed?

    The only woke angle is that there's an implication that it's up to you, and all choices are equally acceptable. I don't have a problem with that.
    At work I’m normally addressed as “sir”…
    If forced, I'll put mine as Dr/Dr's :wink:

    A gender neutral singular would be handy. I've certainly found myself in situations talking about someone I've never met, with an unfamiliar name and not knowing the gender. Happens on here too, of course. When I don't know, I often use he/she, but that's ugly. 'they' also grates for one person.
    “They” was used by Jane Austin in that way, I seem to remember.

    Having said that, I don’t want anyone saying he/him to me: my name, sir (if a student or some of the younger staff), or you. Who would you ever address in the third person?
    Well, how you want people to refer to you when talking about you.

    But, of course, it's normally redundant. The thinking is, I believe, that if someone is trans they have to advertise their desired pronouns (ie refer to me as she now, not he). Which may be a bit awkward. If everyone does it, it's not so awkward. But it of course becomes something you don't notice. I noticed the first few times I saw pronouns on emails, now I don't. If someone changed their pronouns I'd very likely not notice from the email sig. So it becomes a bit pointless, IMHO. More virtue signalling from others that they're cool with transgender people.

    I'm happy or be corrected if someone has a better explanation /reason for giving pronouns in emails etc. There are of course the cases where it's an unfamiliar name in different language etc and you may not know unless told (or gender neutral name, such as Harpreet etc). Hilary Benn would maybe have found it useful too...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,009
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Roger said:


    Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

    Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

    The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering


    https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20

    Macron might be seeking to win the adoration of the FBPE Twitter crowd with that childish language.

    Not sure its going to achieve much else though.
    ....Childish language!

    "We won't roll over...."

    Liz Truss sounding like Maggie's new tribute act

    (.......and doesn't it sound dated?)
    I regret to inform PB that Roger, an elderly, esteemed and retired member of this parish, has returned to make a comment
    Surely old posters returning is a cause for celebration not regret?

    I still live in hope of a messianic return of SeanT one day!
    He did a "piece" in the Spectator today. The usual predictable whingeing

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-if-wokeness-really-is-the-new-christianity-
    My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.

    "Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.

    Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
    Same here. This is the only place I see it. Not sure if most people I know would actually know what it means. Seems a type of paranoia for some.
    Yes, likewise. I just used it myself, but only in reply to someone else.
    I'm a freelancer but I have a kind of boss. She has just had her THIRD compulsory 90 minute seminar and exam on "diversity awareness" in 18 months

    She said this one was comparatively mild, but the first two were basically brainwashing. You HAVE to agree with some quite controversial statements (eg "race does not exist and is a social construct) or you fail, and then it all gets worse

    If race does not exist, and it's all a social construct (which is not an unreasonable view), then surely all issues of racial identity disappear too?
    Social constructs and peoples perception of them are more important than so-called "objective facts"
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,353

    HYUFD said:

    On topic surely Burnham ran for Labour leader in 2010 and 2015, it was Owen Smith who challenged Corbyn in 2016

    Owen who?
    Who was that?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,176
    edited November 1
    Fpt
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Putin's entire speech at Valdai is worth reading, even if it has become known for these paragraphs and others

    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66975

    "We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."

    "The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."

    He is right. He is absolutely right

    Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN

    He's not right, he's right-wing. No surprise you're a Putin admirer tbh.
    I dislike Putin, generally. He kills his enemies. But then, so does the POTUS, with drones (and so does Boris). And sometimes your wiser enemies, or rivals, see you better then you see yourself. Putin nails this here. Wokeness is Bolshevism, right down to the determined destruction of the family unit

    Putin is a fascinating character, worthy of respect, along with due wariness and preparedness. He is certainly not some mad aggressive autocrat, he is not Hitler. He actually thinks
    I sense your D’Annunzio hard-on is raising its ugly head again.
    You're not an idiot, TUD. You and I disagree vehemently on Scottish Nationalism, but I believe we disagree on principled grounds. I do not want to see the UK dismembered, you believe Scotland has a national destiny which demands this. But we respectfully differ

    Read Putin's speech and tell me he has not correctly identified sicknesses within the West. I believe he has
    I'm afraid I do disagree with you (& Vlad) about the sickness within the West. The current spasm seems to me just a version of the usual messy collision of young and old, right and left, ancient and modern, even if exacerbated by 'events'. More sinister is the retreat into nationalism, faith, family and all that good shit, and there seem to be versions of this sprouting up all over the shop.

    I don't even get the family unit stuff. My parents divorced 50 years ago, each married & divorced again and both are now a-moldering in their graves. I daresay that may have had unfavourable consequences for all involved but I think a golden age of the family unit is barely within living memory if it ever existed at all.

    ps, thanks for suggesting I'm not an idiot!
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,858
    edited November 1
    Can I be the first to point out that "cooperative Labour MP" is a deeply ambiguous term?

    Edit: otherwise, I agree entirely with the header.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704


    Neil Henderson
    @hendopolis
    ·
    11m
    TELEGRAPH: ‘Rise above politics for the sake of our children’ #TomorrowsPapersToday

    I honestly don't know what that actually means, rising above politics.

    I presume it's about avoiding petty partisan point scoring, but politics is all about decision making, and even when everyone can see and agree on an end goal, and even on the broad paths to get there , there will be valid arguments about decisions to be made to get there. Politics might change as a result, but consensus on the broad points doesn't mean we don't still have plenty to legitimately wrangle over. Indeed, our system is predicated on accepting a number of premises but arguing intently over the others.

    We should change our politics for the sake of our children, not rise above it - politics should be a good thing.

    Maybe I think too much about generic rallying cries.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,403

    Fpt

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Putin's entire speech at Valdai is worth reading, even if it has become known for these paragraphs and others

    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66975

    "We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."

    "The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."

    He is right. He is absolutely right

    Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN

    He's not right, he's right-wing. No surprise you're a Putin admirer tbh.
    I dislike Putin, generally. He kills his enemies. But then, so does the POTUS, with drones (and so does Boris). And sometimes your wiser enemies, or rivals, see you better then you see yourself. Putin nails this here. Wokeness is Bolshevism, right down to the determined destruction of the family unit

    Putin is a fascinating character, worthy of respect, along with due wariness and preparedness. He is certainly not some mad aggressive autocrat, he is not Hitler. He actually thinks
    I sense your D’Annunzio hard-on is raising its ugly head again.
    You're not an idiot, TUD. You and I disagree vehemently on Scottish Nationalism, but I believe we disagree on principled grounds. I do not want to see the UK dismembered, you believe Scotland has a national destiny which demands this. But we respectfully differ

    Read Putin's speech and tell me he has not correctly identified sicknesses within the West. I believe he has
    I'm afraid I do disagree with you (& Vlad) about the sickness within the West. The current spasm seems to me just a version of the usual messy collision of young and old, right and left, ancient and modern, even if exacerbated by 'events'. More sinister is the retreat into nationalism, faith, family and all that good shit, and there seem to be versions of this sprouting up all over the shop.

    I don't even get the family unit stuff. My parents divorced 50 years ago, each married & divorced again and both are now a-moldering in their graves. I daresay that may have had unfavourable consequences for all involved but I think a golden age of the family unit is barely within living memory if it ever existed at all.
    The family stuff is a mystery to me too. It is often asserted, but have yet to see it evidenced. Or even outlined as to the thinking behind it.
    Do wokey lefties have less stable families than righties? Do they not aspire to them?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,191
    Surely it depends upon whether you think Starmer will last to the next General Election or not?

    If he does, then Burnham could be an MP after it and would throw his hat in the ring. If he doesn't, he's not a contender.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,353
    Just for @HYUFD and @TheScreamingEagles - Her Majesty The Queen has spoken!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXvfqUe4EFQ
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,176
    I think this one is real.





  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    A pedant writes: the headline is that Burnham is overpriced but the story is the opposite: his price is too short. Presumably Burnham is overrated should be the headline (and not just in the betting sense).
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701

    I think this one is real.





    It would be more useful to provide links, possibly with a c&p of the salient points, rather than screenshots. I can't read it.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,782
    Climate change activists: "Don't have children to save the planet".

    Climate change activists: "Save the planet — not for yourself but for your children and you children's children".
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,191
    Andy_JS said:

    Climate change activists: "Don't have children to save the planet".

    Climate change activists: "Save the planet — not for yourself but for your children and you children's children".

    No sane activists are saying don't have children, so that's not hypocritical at all.

    Batshit crazy people say the former, sane people say the latter.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    Sainsbury's yesterday: more masks than not, but only 60 or 70 per cent. Large gaps on shelves.

    The Christmas food to order catalogue has shrunk to two sides of A4. I think we are supposed to look online. Christmas chocolates and mince pies are appearing, along with poppies.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,260

    I think this one is real.





    It would be more useful to provide links, possibly with a c&p of the salient points, rather than screenshots. I can't read it.
    Yes it's a bit blurred, but poking "control+" a few times makes it readable.
    You can of course reverse that using "control-"
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,931

    Fpt

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Putin's entire speech at Valdai is worth reading, even if it has become known for these paragraphs and others

    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66975

    "We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."

    "The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."

    He is right. He is absolutely right

    Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN

    He's not right, he's right-wing. No surprise you're a Putin admirer tbh.
    I dislike Putin, generally. He kills his enemies. But then, so does the POTUS, with drones (and so does Boris). And sometimes your wiser enemies, or rivals, see you better then you see yourself. Putin nails this here. Wokeness is Bolshevism, right down to the determined destruction of the family unit

    Putin is a fascinating character, worthy of respect, along with due wariness and preparedness. He is certainly not some mad aggressive autocrat, he is not Hitler. He actually thinks
    I sense your D’Annunzio hard-on is raising its ugly head again.
    You're not an idiot, TUD. You and I disagree vehemently on Scottish Nationalism, but I believe we disagree on principled grounds. I do not want to see the UK dismembered, you believe Scotland has a national destiny which demands this. But we respectfully differ

    Read Putin's speech and tell me he has not correctly identified sicknesses within the West. I believe he has
    I'm afraid I do disagree with you (& Vlad) about the sickness within the West. The current spasm seems to me just a version of the usual messy collision of young and old, right and left, ancient and modern, even if exacerbated by 'events'. More sinister is the retreat into nationalism, faith, family and all that good shit, and there seem to be versions of this sprouting up all over the shop.

    I don't even get the family unit stuff. My parents divorced 50 years ago, each married & divorced again and both are now a-moldering in their graves. I daresay that may have had unfavourable consequences for all involved but I think a golden age of the family unit is barely within living memory if it ever existed at all.

    ps, thanks for suggesting I'm not an idiot!
    I’m not seeing the woke Lubyanka, where the wokeists torture and murder their victims …. or perhaps the comparison with the Bolshevism is just idiotic.
    Incidentally, it’s not the wokeists who still run the Lubyanka, is it Vlad ?

    I wonder what @Leon makes of Josh’s take on the moral panic ?

    Republican senator Josh Hawley worries feminism has driven men to ‘pornography and video games’
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/01/josh-hawley-feminism-men-pornography-video-games
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,931
    kle4 said:


    Neil Henderson
    @hendopolis
    ·
    11m
    TELEGRAPH: ‘Rise above politics for the sake of our children’ #TomorrowsPapersToday

    I honestly don't know what that actually means, rising above politics.

    I presume it's about avoiding petty partisan point scoring, but politics is all about decision making, and even when everyone can see and agree on an end goal, and even on the broad paths to get there , there will be valid arguments about decisions to be made to get there. Politics might change as a result, but consensus on the broad points doesn't mean we don't still have plenty to legitimately wrangle over. Indeed, our system is predicated on accepting a number of premises but arguing intently over the others.

    We should change our politics for the sake of our children, not rise above it - politics should be a good thing.

    Maybe I think too much about generic rallying cries.
    I think it’s just shorthand for saying that climate change and the recognition of the need for urgent action ought not to be a party political issue, but a consensus ?
    Which is an encouraging message from a conservative publication.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 927
    WRT Putins speech quoted by @Leon yesterday. It is basically a clever act, we are the intended audience; and the aim is to undermine the west and justify his dictatorship.

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,957
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Roger said:


    Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

    Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

    The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering


    https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20

    Macron might be seeking to win the adoration of the FBPE Twitter crowd with that childish language.

    Not sure its going to achieve much else though.
    ....Childish language!

    "We won't roll over...."

    Liz Truss sounding like Maggie's new tribute act

    (.......and doesn't it sound dated?)
    I regret to inform PB that Roger, an elderly, esteemed and retired member of this parish, has returned to make a comment
    Surely old posters returning is a cause for celebration not regret?

    I still live in hope of a messianic return of SeanT one day!
    He did a "piece" in the Spectator today. The usual predictable whingeing

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-if-wokeness-really-is-the-new-christianity-
    My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.

    "Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.

    Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
    Same here. This is the only place I see it. Not sure if most people I know would actually know what it means. Seems a type of paranoia for some.
    Yes, likewise. I just used it myself, but only in reply to someone else.
    I'm a freelancer but I have a kind of boss. She has just had her THIRD compulsory 90 minute seminar and exam on "diversity awareness" in 18 months

    She said this one was comparatively mild, but the first two were basically brainwashing. You HAVE to agree with some quite controversial statements (eg "race does not exist and is a social construct) or you fail, and then it all gets worse

    If race does not exist, and it's all a social construct (which is not an unreasonable view), then surely all issues of racial identity disappear too?
    Weird post, not sure if there is some joke I am missing? Marriage and religion are social constructs as well. Do you think there are no problems or power relationships that are sometimes exploited in marriage or religion?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,931
    .

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Roger said:


    Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

    Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

    The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering


    https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20

    Macron might be seeking to win the adoration of the FBPE Twitter crowd with that childish language.

    Not sure its going to achieve much else though.
    ....Childish language!

    "We won't roll over...."

    Liz Truss sounding like Maggie's new tribute act

    (.......and doesn't it sound dated?)
    I regret to inform PB that Roger, an elderly, esteemed and retired member of this parish, has returned to make a comment
    Surely old posters returning is a cause for celebration not regret?

    I still live in hope of a messianic return of SeanT one day!
    He did a "piece" in the Spectator today. The usual predictable whingeing

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-if-wokeness-really-is-the-new-christianity-
    My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.

    "Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.

    Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
    Same here. This is the only place I see it. Not sure if most people I know would actually know what it means. Seems a type of paranoia for some.
    Yes, likewise. I just used it myself, but only in reply to someone else.
    I'm a freelancer but I have a kind of boss. She has just had her THIRD compulsory 90 minute seminar and exam on "diversity awareness" in 18 months

    She said this one was comparatively mild, but the first two were basically brainwashing. You HAVE to agree with some quite controversial statements (eg "race does not exist and is a social construct) or you fail, and then it all gets worse

    If race does not exist, and it's all a social construct (which is not an unreasonable view), then surely all issues of racial identity disappear too?
    Weird post, not sure if there is some joke I am missing? Marriage and religion are social constructs as well. Do you think there are no problems or power relationships that are sometimes exploited in marriage or religion?
    Or even that they “don’t exist”, apparently.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,936
    Éric Zemmour, Macron’s far-right rival, wins backing from Russia

    “Then it is possible that we will see an alliance of Moscow, Paris and Berlin, which will confront the Anglo-Saxons led by the United States and Great Britain.”


    https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1455419497473576964?s=20
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,738
    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:


    Neil Henderson
    @hendopolis
    ·
    11m
    TELEGRAPH: ‘Rise above politics for the sake of our children’ #TomorrowsPapersToday

    I honestly don't know what that actually means, rising above politics.

    I presume it's about avoiding petty partisan point scoring, but politics is all about decision making, and even when everyone can see and agree on an end goal, and even on the broad paths to get there , there will be valid arguments about decisions to be made to get there. Politics might change as a result, but consensus on the broad points doesn't mean we don't still have plenty to legitimately wrangle over. Indeed, our system is predicated on accepting a number of premises but arguing intently over the others.

    We should change our politics for the sake of our children, not rise above it - politics should be a good thing.

    Maybe I think too much about generic rallying cries.
    I think it’s just shorthand for saying that climate change and the recognition of the need for urgent action ought not to be a party political issue, but a consensus ?
    Which is an encouraging message from a conservative publication.
    From a media and political leadership perspective, feels a lot like it’s only the Trumpites which are still putting fingers in ears. Haven’t read the detail but is the story correct that even Balsanaro is pledging to end deforestation? At an everyday level, I hear a lot less climate scepticism than I did even 2-3 years ago but it does still abound, even on here.

    I suspect a lot of this is because policy makers are still not yet at the stage of presenting a complete package of workable solutions, so denial remains the easier cognitive path. But with each passing year the solutions will become more obvious to everybody and retreat in cost.

    To those paying attention, the rewards will be considerable. It was obvious to many of us a decade ago that EVs would consume the auto industry. Some did better than I but I’m sat on 60x gains from that bet now (cashed out quite a bit on the way up).

    If I had to guess, I’d say carbon sequestration will be the big investment opportunity of the next decade. Not yet obvious to me if there’s a stock play on that or if instead the thing to do is to pick up my shovel (and black pen for the paperwork) and start doing it myself. Got some reading to do on the incentive schemes methinks.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 927
    Nigelb said:

    Fpt

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Putin's entire speech at Valdai is worth reading, even if it has become known for these paragraphs and others

    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66975

    "We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."

    "The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."

    He is right. He is absolutely right

    Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN

    He's not right, he's right-wing. No surprise you're a Putin admirer tbh.
    I dislike Putin, generally. He kills his enemies. But then, so does the POTUS, with drones (and so does Boris). And sometimes your wiser enemies, or rivals, see you better then you see yourself. Putin nails this here. Wokeness is Bolshevism, right down to the determined destruction of the family unit

    Putin is a fascinating character, worthy of respect, along with due wariness and preparedness. He is certainly not some mad aggressive autocrat, he is not Hitler. He actually thinks
    I sense your D’Annunzio hard-on is raising its ugly head again.
    You're not an idiot, TUD. You and I disagree vehemently on Scottish Nationalism, but I believe we disagree on principled grounds. I do not want to see the UK dismembered, you believe Scotland has a national destiny which demands this. But we respectfully differ

    Read Putin's speech and tell me he has not correctly identified sicknesses within the West. I believe he has
    I'm afraid I do disagree with you (& Vlad) about the sickness within the West. The current spasm seems to me just a version of the usual messy collision of young and old, right and left, ancient and modern, even if exacerbated by 'events'. More sinister is the retreat into nationalism, faith, family and all that good shit, and there seem to be versions of this sprouting up all over the shop.

    I don't even get the family unit stuff. My parents divorced 50 years ago, each married & divorced again and both are now a-moldering in their graves. I daresay that may have had unfavourable consequences for all involved but I think a golden age of the family unit is barely within living memory if it ever existed at all.

    ps, thanks for suggesting I'm not an idiot!
    I’m not seeing the woke Lubyanka, where the wokeists torture and murder their victims …. or perhaps the comparison with the Bolshevism is just idiotic.
    Incidentally, it’s not the wokeists who still run the Lubyanka, is it Vlad ?

    I wonder what @Leon makes of Josh’s take on the moral panic ?

    Republican senator Josh Hawley worries feminism has driven men to ‘pornography and video games’
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/01/josh-hawley-feminism-men-pornography-video-games
    The context differs, but problem with revolutions, social or political; is that they tend to lead to counter revolutions. So it will be with the woke, and it won’t be a good thing.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,066
    The problem with wind power in a nutshell.

    Yesterday at 7am 52% of generation.

    Today 8%.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,925
    So we are saying that Andy Burnham is the new David Miliband?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,066
    Sandpit said:

    So we are saying that Andy Burnham is the new David Miliband?

    I haven't seen him wielding any soft fruits, so no.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,925
    As predicted last week, first Daily Mail article counting the private jets - 52 in Glasgow yesterday, including four that flew from Glasgow to Prestwick empty to park, as GLA was full. Four planes for Biden, landing in Edinburgh and going in a 85-vehicle convoy to Glasgow.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10152027/Hypocrite-airways-Jeff-Bezoss-48m-gulf-stream-leads-parade-400-private-jets.html
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,936
    darkage said:

    Nigelb said:

    Fpt

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Putin's entire speech at Valdai is worth reading, even if it has become known for these paragraphs and others

    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66975

    "We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."

    "The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."

    He is right. He is absolutely right

    Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN

    He's not right, he's right-wing. No surprise you're a Putin admirer tbh.
    I dislike Putin, generally. He kills his enemies. But then, so does the POTUS, with drones (and so does Boris). And sometimes your wiser enemies, or rivals, see you better then you see yourself. Putin nails this here. Wokeness is Bolshevism, right down to the determined destruction of the family unit

    Putin is a fascinating character, worthy of respect, along with due wariness and preparedness. He is certainly not some mad aggressive autocrat, he is not Hitler. He actually thinks
    I sense your D’Annunzio hard-on is raising its ugly head again.
    You're not an idiot, TUD. You and I disagree vehemently on Scottish Nationalism, but I believe we disagree on principled grounds. I do not want to see the UK dismembered, you believe Scotland has a national destiny which demands this. But we respectfully differ

    Read Putin's speech and tell me he has not correctly identified sicknesses within the West. I believe he has
    I'm afraid I do disagree with you (& Vlad) about the sickness within the West. The current spasm seems to me just a version of the usual messy collision of young and old, right and left, ancient and modern, even if exacerbated by 'events'. More sinister is the retreat into nationalism, faith, family and all that good shit, and there seem to be versions of this sprouting up all over the shop.

    I don't even get the family unit stuff. My parents divorced 50 years ago, each married & divorced again and both are now a-moldering in their graves. I daresay that may have had unfavourable consequences for all involved but I think a golden age of the family unit is barely within living memory if it ever existed at all.

    ps, thanks for suggesting I'm not an idiot!
    I’m not seeing the woke Lubyanka, where the wokeists torture and murder their victims …. or perhaps the comparison with the Bolshevism is just idiotic.
    Incidentally, it’s not the wokeists who still run the Lubyanka, is it Vlad ?

    I wonder what @Leon makes of Josh’s take on the moral panic ?

    Republican senator Josh Hawley worries feminism has driven men to ‘pornography and video games’
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/01/josh-hawley-feminism-men-pornography-video-games
    The context differs, but problem with revolutions, social or political; is that they tend to lead to counter revolutions. So it will be with the woke, and it won’t be a good thing.

    Not all counter revolutions are bad - for example the one against the Paedophile Information Exchange from the 1970s - which at the time was supported by people who should and now have thought better of it. PIE was an extension of the entirely appropriate liberalisation of sexual relations between consenting adults.

    Similarly some of the discussions about Trans rights and the absolutism of some of their supporters when they intersect with natal women’s rights will not look so clever in hindsight I suspect.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,183

    Dear Greta,

    You care about the environment. I get it. It is a justifiable concern, and the aim of reducing our impact on the environment is laudable.

    However: your criticism of politicians is a little off. Politics is about people, and people have many needs and concerns: jobs, health, wealth, safety, etc. A politician needs to weigh all these up, and come up with solutions that they hope will work to the satisfaction of the electorate. They are not pretending (at least, most): they are weighing up a vast mass of issues. What care does someone have for the environment if they cannot put food on the table? If they have just lost their job? If they have lost a child to an avoidable disease?

    The easiest way of saving the environment would be to stop all economic activity. Which, I am sure you will agree, would have rather negative consequences for many. The environment therefore becomes a compromise amongst many other requirements.

    I would also disagree that politicians have done nothing. All around the world, there are increasing amounts of renewable energy, and ever-more legislation to ban all sorts of things that are bad for the environment. You may believe they're not moving fast enough; you might disagree if moving faster meant your job, your livelihood, your welfare, was on the line.

    Progress can be made: the Montreal agreement to ban CFCs and stop damage to the Ozone Layer was a massive success. But that was a relatively easy problem to fix, and the technology to move over from those pernicious gasses was present. Climate change is a much thornier issue, and the technology isn't fully there - yet.

    People matter: not just the next generation, but everyone.

    Whilst I have as little time for self promoting emoting as anyone I am not sure I agree with that. Politicians weigh problems and consequences and try to find a solution that gets them re-elected. The purpose of this jamboree in Glasgow (apart from screwing up my travel arrangements, natch) is to both push this up the agenda and allow politicians to sell the consequences. This is important and pressure from the likes of Greta is an important part of the process.

    The problem I see is that these risks and balances are relevant to democracies. China and Russia not so much.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,191
    Sandpit said:

    As predicted last week, first Daily Mail article counting the private jets - 52 in Glasgow yesterday, including four that flew from Glasgow to Prestwick empty to park, as GLA was full. Four planes for Biden, landing in Edinburgh and going in a 85-vehicle convoy to Glasgow.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10152027/Hypocrite-airways-Jeff-Bezoss-48m-gulf-stream-leads-parade-400-private-jets.html

    I don't see an issue with this.

    Yes the crazy brigade of climate activists are saying we shouldn't fly, but as far as I'm aware Biden is not amongst them.

    If as I believe (and I think you do too) the future is dependant upon switching to clean technology aviation and not abandoning aviation, then what is wrong with the US President and his entourage flying to a summit designed to help us get there?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    edited November 2
    Good morning everyone. Brighter but cooler here. 4.3degC.
    What's all this about global warming?

    One gets conflicted. Too many people on the planet; need to do something about the birthrate. But, but, but we're living beings, and living beings have a powerful urge both to reproduce themselves and to see one's genes carried on.
    Thus Mrs C is mildly jealous...... envious..... of those of her friends who have great-grandchildren! (We're long past the child and indeed grandchild ambitions!)

    And some of our grandchildren live a long, long way away. Yes we can use a video link but it's not the same as Granny (or Grandpa) having a real hug!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,183

    Good morning everyone. Brighter but cooler here. 4.3degC.
    What's all this about global warming?

    One gets conflicted. Too many people on the planet; need to do something about the birthrate. But, but, but we're living beings, and living beings have a powerful urge both to reproduce themselves and to see one's genes carried on.
    Thus Mrs C is mildly jealous...... envious..... of those of her friends who have great-grandchildren! (We're long past the child and indeed grandchild ambitions!)

    And some of our grandchildren live a Lon, long way away. Yes we can use a video link but it's not the same as Granny (or Grandpa) having a real hug!

    I think that is pretty conclusive OKC. Everyone should just go home from Glasgow and get out of my road. Now.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,893

    Éric Zemmour, Macron’s far-right rival, wins backing from Russia

    “Then it is possible that we will see an alliance of Moscow, Paris and Berlin, which will confront the Anglo-Saxons led by the United States and Great Britain.”


    https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1455419497473576964?s=20

    This would seem to be the most likely outcome when the Western Alliance disintegrates.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519

    Sandpit said:

    As predicted last week, first Daily Mail article counting the private jets - 52 in Glasgow yesterday, including four that flew from Glasgow to Prestwick empty to park, as GLA was full. Four planes for Biden, landing in Edinburgh and going in a 85-vehicle convoy to Glasgow.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10152027/Hypocrite-airways-Jeff-Bezoss-48m-gulf-stream-leads-parade-400-private-jets.html

    I don't see an issue with this.

    Yes the crazy brigade of climate activists are saying we shouldn't fly, but as far as I'm aware Biden is not amongst them.

    If as I believe (and I think you do too) the future is dependant upon switching to clean technology aviation and not abandoning aviation, then what is wrong with the US President and his entourage flying to a summit designed to help us get there?
    Yes, it is typical denialism-lite. To not take what is going with climate change seriously because some attendees are less than perfect. Leaders always have camp followers.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    Dura_Ace said:

    Éric Zemmour, Macron’s far-right rival, wins backing from Russia

    “Then it is possible that we will see an alliance of Moscow, Paris and Berlin, which will confront the Anglo-Saxons led by the United States and Great Britain.”


    https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1455419497473576964?s=20

    This would seem to be the most likely outcome when the Western Alliance disintegrates.
    Which would have been less likely without Brexit.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,191
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    As predicted last week, first Daily Mail article counting the private jets - 52 in Glasgow yesterday, including four that flew from Glasgow to Prestwick empty to park, as GLA was full. Four planes for Biden, landing in Edinburgh and going in a 85-vehicle convoy to Glasgow.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10152027/Hypocrite-airways-Jeff-Bezoss-48m-gulf-stream-leads-parade-400-private-jets.html

    I don't see an issue with this.

    Yes the crazy brigade of climate activists are saying we shouldn't fly, but as far as I'm aware Biden is not amongst them.

    If as I believe (and I think you do too) the future is dependant upon switching to clean technology aviation and not abandoning aviation, then what is wrong with the US President and his entourage flying to a summit designed to help us get there?
    Yes, it is typical denialism-lite. To not take what is going with climate change seriously because some attendees are less than perfect. Leaders always have camp followers.
    Though I do think its a valid argument to use with the crazies who do follow these events, the Gretas of this world, who are adamant we're not doing enough and that we shouldn't be travelling and this needs to all happen overnight.

    Ok, you first.
  • Good morning everyone. Brighter but cooler here. 4.3degC.
    What's all this about global warming?

    One gets conflicted. Too many people on the planet; need to do something about the birthrate. But, but, but we're living beings, and living beings have a powerful urge both to reproduce themselves and to see one's genes carried on.
    Thus Mrs C is mildly jealous...... envious..... of those of her friends who have great-grandchildren! (We're long past the child and indeed grandchild ambitions!)

    And some of our grandchildren live a long, long way away. Yes we can use a video link but it's not the same as Granny (or Grandpa) having a real hug!

    Birthrate is a problem in different ways depending on the country. Too few babies being born in some 1st world countries, too many in the 3rd world. Even if we set climate change aside there is a real problem with resources - we are going to need to find some off-world or have a massive cull of human numbers.

    Future generations are going to revere Elon Musk as a visionary who set the human race back onto the path towards its own salvation. And he knows it, hence doing as much crazy shit as possible.

    On topic? No Labour leadership change until at least after the GE, so Burnham a decent bet.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    So we are saying that Andy Burnham is the new David Miliband?

    I haven't seen him wielding any soft fruits, so no.
    Isnt banana a vegetable?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,158
    DavidL said:

    Dear Greta,

    You care about the environment. I get it. It is a justifiable concern, and the aim of reducing our impact on the environment is laudable.

    However: your criticism of politicians is a little off. Politics is about people, and people have many needs and concerns: jobs, health, wealth, safety, etc. A politician needs to weigh all these up, and come up with solutions that they hope will work to the satisfaction of the electorate. They are not pretending (at least, most): they are weighing up a vast mass of issues. What care does someone have for the environment if they cannot put food on the table? If they have just lost their job? If they have lost a child to an avoidable disease?

    The easiest way of saving the environment would be to stop all economic activity. Which, I am sure you will agree, would have rather negative consequences for many. The environment therefore becomes a compromise amongst many other requirements.

    I would also disagree that politicians have done nothing. All around the world, there are increasing amounts of renewable energy, and ever-more legislation to ban all sorts of things that are bad for the environment. You may believe they're not moving fast enough; you might disagree if moving faster meant your job, your livelihood, your welfare, was on the line.

    Progress can be made: the Montreal agreement to ban CFCs and stop damage to the Ozone Layer was a massive success. But that was a relatively easy problem to fix, and the technology to move over from those pernicious gasses was present. Climate change is a much thornier issue, and the technology isn't fully there - yet.

    People matter: not just the next generation, but everyone.

    Whilst I have as little time for self promoting emoting as anyone I am not sure I agree with that. Politicians weigh problems and consequences and try to find a solution that gets them re-elected. The purpose of this jamboree in Glasgow (apart from screwing up my travel arrangements, natch) is to both push this up the agenda and allow politicians to sell the consequences. This is important and pressure from the likes of Greta is an important part of the process.

    The problem I see is that these risks and balances are relevant to democracies. China and Russia not so much.
    It's carrot-and-stick; positive-and-negatives. What we see from Greta and her ilk is constant negativity (*). Whatever we do, it is not enough. However fast we move, it is not fast enough. No other consideration matters, except what she thinks matters.

    When governments do well, they should be congratulated. That's the carrot. Instead, she seems to ignore everything that has been done, even if she thinks it is not enough.

    (*) Can anyone point to positivity from her?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,191

    Dura_Ace said:

    Éric Zemmour, Macron’s far-right rival, wins backing from Russia

    “Then it is possible that we will see an alliance of Moscow, Paris and Berlin, which will confront the Anglo-Saxons led by the United States and Great Britain.”


    https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1455419497473576964?s=20

    This would seem to be the most likely outcome when the Western Alliance disintegrates.
    Which would have been less likely without Brexit.
    No, it wouldn't.

    The USA was always going to tilt to the Pacific instead of Europe and has been for decades now. It began in earnest under Obama, if not under Dubya Bush.

    Any sensible countries would join with the USA in recognising that as the future concern of the world. The UK is sensible, the EU nations are perpetually acting just bickering siblings literally arguing over who gets to sit in the chair.

    Brexit hasn't made the EU foolish. It was a recognition that it already was.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    edited November 2

    Dura_Ace said:

    Éric Zemmour, Macron’s far-right rival, wins backing from Russia

    “Then it is possible that we will see an alliance of Moscow, Paris and Berlin, which will confront the Anglo-Saxons led by the United States and Great Britain.”


    https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1455419497473576964?s=20

    This would seem to be the most likely outcome when the Western Alliance disintegrates.
    Which would have been less likely without Brexit.
    No, it wouldn't.

    The USA was always going to tilt to the Pacific instead of Europe and has been for decades now. It began in earnest under Obama, if not under Dubya Bush.

    Any sensible countries would join with the USA in recognising that as the future concern of the world. The UK is sensible, the EU nations are perpetually acting just bickering siblings literally arguing over who gets to sit in the chair.

    Brexit hasn't made the EU foolish. It was a recognition that it already was.
    I wondered who'd be first!

    I think, Mr T, that while, from looking at the Likes button, you and I agree on quite a number of things, 'Britain and the EU' isn't one of them!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,191

    DavidL said:

    Dear Greta,

    You care about the environment. I get it. It is a justifiable concern, and the aim of reducing our impact on the environment is laudable.

    However: your criticism of politicians is a little off. Politics is about people, and people have many needs and concerns: jobs, health, wealth, safety, etc. A politician needs to weigh all these up, and come up with solutions that they hope will work to the satisfaction of the electorate. They are not pretending (at least, most): they are weighing up a vast mass of issues. What care does someone have for the environment if they cannot put food on the table? If they have just lost their job? If they have lost a child to an avoidable disease?

    The easiest way of saving the environment would be to stop all economic activity. Which, I am sure you will agree, would have rather negative consequences for many. The environment therefore becomes a compromise amongst many other requirements.

    I would also disagree that politicians have done nothing. All around the world, there are increasing amounts of renewable energy, and ever-more legislation to ban all sorts of things that are bad for the environment. You may believe they're not moving fast enough; you might disagree if moving faster meant your job, your livelihood, your welfare, was on the line.

    Progress can be made: the Montreal agreement to ban CFCs and stop damage to the Ozone Layer was a massive success. But that was a relatively easy problem to fix, and the technology to move over from those pernicious gasses was present. Climate change is a much thornier issue, and the technology isn't fully there - yet.

    People matter: not just the next generation, but everyone.

    Whilst I have as little time for self promoting emoting as anyone I am not sure I agree with that. Politicians weigh problems and consequences and try to find a solution that gets them re-elected. The purpose of this jamboree in Glasgow (apart from screwing up my travel arrangements, natch) is to both push this up the agenda and allow politicians to sell the consequences. This is important and pressure from the likes of Greta is an important part of the process.

    The problem I see is that these risks and balances are relevant to democracies. China and Russia not so much.
    It's carrot-and-stick; positive-and-negatives. What we see from Greta and her ilk is constant negativity (*). Whatever we do, it is not enough. However fast we move, it is not fast enough. No other consideration matters, except what she thinks matters.

    When governments do well, they should be congratulated. That's the carrot. Instead, she seems to ignore everything that has been done, even if she thinks it is not enough.

    (*) Can anyone point to positivity from her?
    Precisely.

    To use a personal example from this site, I've been arguing for decades (not just here) against the poverty trap that means-tested benefits creates. I've been arguing for a long time for a removal of means-tested benefits and for an elimination of the taper in UC that it represents.

    At the Budget the taper got reduced and my response was I was delighted at the issue being recognised and that it was a great first step but more needs to be done in the future. Now in the future I will continue to argue that the taper is pernicious and the fact that we now have a real tax rate of 70% is far too high even though it was previously 75%, but I'm happy to recognise the progress even if I'm not happy for it to stop there.

    That's balance and its completely lost upon Greta and her ilk. They can never say "this is a good step but more needs to be done". Instead its "you're not doing anything, why aren't you doing anything?"
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,191

    Dura_Ace said:

    Éric Zemmour, Macron’s far-right rival, wins backing from Russia

    “Then it is possible that we will see an alliance of Moscow, Paris and Berlin, which will confront the Anglo-Saxons led by the United States and Great Britain.”


    https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1455419497473576964?s=20

    This would seem to be the most likely outcome when the Western Alliance disintegrates.
    Which would have been less likely without Brexit.
    No, it wouldn't.

    The USA was always going to tilt to the Pacific instead of Europe and has been for decades now. It began in earnest under Obama, if not under Dubya Bush.

    Any sensible countries would join with the USA in recognising that as the future concern of the world. The UK is sensible, the EU nations are perpetually acting just bickering siblings literally arguing over who gets to sit in the chair.

    Brexit hasn't made the EU foolish. It was a recognition that it already was.
    I wondered who'd be first!

    I think, Mr T, that while, from looking at the Likes button, you and I agree on quite a number of things, 'Britain and the EU' isn't one of them!
    If the EU was as you wished it to be, I wouldn't have wanted to leave. But if the EU was as you wished it to be, then Brexit wouldn't have happened.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743
    Sandpit said:

    So we are saying that Andy Burnham is the new David Miliband?

    David Miliband had a chance and blew it completely.

    Andy Burnham isn't in a position that currently gives him a chance.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    As predicted last week, first Daily Mail article counting the private jets - 52 in Glasgow yesterday, including four that flew from Glasgow to Prestwick empty to park, as GLA was full. Four planes for Biden, landing in Edinburgh and going in a 85-vehicle convoy to Glasgow.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10152027/Hypocrite-airways-Jeff-Bezoss-48m-gulf-stream-leads-parade-400-private-jets.html

    I don't see an issue with this.

    Yes the crazy brigade of climate activists are saying we shouldn't fly, but as far as I'm aware Biden is not amongst them.

    If as I believe (and I think you do too) the future is dependant upon switching to clean technology aviation and not abandoning aviation, then what is wrong with the US President and his entourage flying to a summit designed to help us get there?
    Yes, it is typical denialism-lite. To not take what is going with climate change seriously because some attendees are less than perfect. Leaders always have camp followers.
    Though I do think its a valid argument to use with the crazies who do follow these events, the Gretas of this world, who are adamant we're not doing enough and that we shouldn't be travelling and this needs to all happen overnight.

    Ok, you first.
    Sure, Greta can be annoyingly monomaniac on the subject of climate change, but consciousness raising and getting engagement with the topic is a very useful role. No one expects a teenager to have all the answers, including herself, but she has done a sterling job of raising publicity around the world.
    Yup, you're both correct. Yes, we do need to do all sorts of things. But the world's a tanker not a jet-ski; can't turn these things on a sixpence. (Remember those?)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,183

    DavidL said:

    Dear Greta,

    You care about the environment. I get it. It is a justifiable concern, and the aim of reducing our impact on the environment is laudable.

    However: your criticism of politicians is a little off. Politics is about people, and people have many needs and concerns: jobs, health, wealth, safety, etc. A politician needs to weigh all these up, and come up with solutions that they hope will work to the satisfaction of the electorate. They are not pretending (at least, most): they are weighing up a vast mass of issues. What care does someone have for the environment if they cannot put food on the table? If they have just lost their job? If they have lost a child to an avoidable disease?

    The easiest way of saving the environment would be to stop all economic activity. Which, I am sure you will agree, would have rather negative consequences for many. The environment therefore becomes a compromise amongst many other requirements.

    I would also disagree that politicians have done nothing. All around the world, there are increasing amounts of renewable energy, and ever-more legislation to ban all sorts of things that are bad for the environment. You may believe they're not moving fast enough; you might disagree if moving faster meant your job, your livelihood, your welfare, was on the line.

    Progress can be made: the Montreal agreement to ban CFCs and stop damage to the Ozone Layer was a massive success. But that was a relatively easy problem to fix, and the technology to move over from those pernicious gasses was present. Climate change is a much thornier issue, and the technology isn't fully there - yet.

    People matter: not just the next generation, but everyone.

    Whilst I have as little time for self promoting emoting as anyone I am not sure I agree with that. Politicians weigh problems and consequences and try to find a solution that gets them re-elected. The purpose of this jamboree in Glasgow (apart from screwing up my travel arrangements, natch) is to both push this up the agenda and allow politicians to sell the consequences. This is important and pressure from the likes of Greta is an important part of the process.

    The problem I see is that these risks and balances are relevant to democracies. China and Russia not so much.
    It's carrot-and-stick; positive-and-negatives. What we see from Greta and her ilk is constant negativity (*). Whatever we do, it is not enough. However fast we move, it is not fast enough. No other consideration matters, except what she thinks matters.

    When governments do well, they should be congratulated. That's the carrot. Instead, she seems to ignore everything that has been done, even if she thinks it is not enough.

    (*) Can anyone point to positivity from her?
    She is a pressure group. Their function is to press. They are not expected to be balanced.

    I also think, FWIW, that our politicians have been very slow to appreciate both the seriousness of the situation and the scale of the changes needed. Not because they are stupid but because we have collectively and the parameters of what they can sell in democracies are ultimately set by us.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,191
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    As predicted last week, first Daily Mail article counting the private jets - 52 in Glasgow yesterday, including four that flew from Glasgow to Prestwick empty to park, as GLA was full. Four planes for Biden, landing in Edinburgh and going in a 85-vehicle convoy to Glasgow.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10152027/Hypocrite-airways-Jeff-Bezoss-48m-gulf-stream-leads-parade-400-private-jets.html

    I don't see an issue with this.

    Yes the crazy brigade of climate activists are saying we shouldn't fly, but as far as I'm aware Biden is not amongst them.

    If as I believe (and I think you do too) the future is dependant upon switching to clean technology aviation and not abandoning aviation, then what is wrong with the US President and his entourage flying to a summit designed to help us get there?
    Yes, it is typical denialism-lite. To not take what is going with climate change seriously because some attendees are less than perfect. Leaders always have camp followers.
    Though I do think its a valid argument to use with the crazies who do follow these events, the Gretas of this world, who are adamant we're not doing enough and that we shouldn't be travelling and this needs to all happen overnight.

    Ok, you first.
    Sure, Greta can be annoyingly monomaniac on the subject of climate change, but consciousness raising and getting engagement with the topic is a very useful role. No one expects a teenager to have all the answers, including herself, but she has done a sterling job of raising publicity around the world.
    She's certainly done a sterling job of raising her own profile.

    Climate change has been on the agenda for decades now and we've been making iterative progress for decades now. Long since before Greta came to our attention. The Paris Accords which this COP is seeking to put more flesh on the bones to were agreed in 2015, three years before Greta began her campaigning. She's jumped on a pre-existing bandwagon, she didn't start it.

    I think if you're to pick one person who's done more than anybody on this I'd have to choose David Attenborough, who notably was inside the hall speaking to the delegates, not outside saying that those inside the hall don't matter and aren't doing anything.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,126

    MikeL said:

    UK deaths

    image

    I'm afraid your deaths graph bears no resemblance at all to the data on the official site, eg:

    29 Oct - Official site has 58, you have zero
    28 Oct - Official site has 133, you have just under 120

    As far as deaths are concerned, I think the graph on the official site is far more meaningful - the 7 day average is properly centred and the 3 month and 6 month graphs give a far better feel for the position.
    That's because I accidentally uploaded yesterdays, instead of todays. Thank you for noticing

    image

    As to which graph is more demonstrative.... well, they show different things I think....

    This would be interesting (but sadly the Welsh data is not being provided)

    https://i.imgur.com/DMIfzER.jpg

    It's a link so that it doesn't kill the PB comments by slow loading
    You really ought to fix the average line dropping to zero, it fools people into thinking everything is just about to be fine.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,183
    ydoethur said:

    The problem with wind power in a nutshell.

    Yesterday at 7am 52% of generation.

    Today 8%.

    So you are saying that the answer is not blowing in the wind after all? Poor Bob.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,437
    edited November 2

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    So we are saying that Andy Burnham is the new David Miliband?

    I haven't seen him wielding any soft fruits, so no.
    Isnt banana a vegetable?
    The banana plant is a herb. I have no idea what defines a herb. The banana is the fruit of the herb. However frankly as far as day to day use is concerned I think people worrying about things like what rhubarb and tomatoes are have too much time on their hands, although I appreciate some get very worked up about it.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,191
    On more important news than anything happening in Glasgow, I'm surprised to read that Jos Buttler's fantastic innings yesterday was the first time an English batsman has ever got a century in T20, ODI and Tests - joining Heather Knight as the only other England player to achieve that in all three major forms of the game.

    I hope our white ball form can help inspire our Test side downunder this winter because I'm not feeling optimistic about that as it stands. This World Cup and getting Stokes back has been a boost though.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,740

    Dear Greta,

    You care about the environment. I get it. It is a justifiable concern, and the aim of reducing our impact on the environment is laudable.

    However: your criticism of politicians is a little off. Politics is about people, and people have many needs and concerns: jobs, health, wealth, safety, etc. A politician needs to weigh all these up, and come up with solutions that they hope will work to the satisfaction of the electorate. They are not pretending (at least, most): they are weighing up a vast mass of issues. What care does someone have for the environment if they cannot put food on the table? If they have just lost their job? If they have lost a child to an avoidable disease?

    The easiest way of saving the environment would be to stop all economic activity. Which, I am sure you will agree, would have rather negative consequences for many. The environment therefore becomes a compromise amongst many other requirements.

    I would also disagree that politicians have done nothing. All around the world, there are increasing amounts of renewable energy, and ever-more legislation to ban all sorts of things that are bad for the environment. You may believe they're not moving fast enough; you might disagree if moving faster meant your job, your livelihood, your welfare, was on the line.

    Progress can be made: the Montreal agreement to ban CFCs and stop damage to the Ozone Layer was a massive success. But that was a relatively easy problem to fix, and the technology to move over from those pernicious gasses was present. Climate change is a much thornier issue, and the technology isn't fully there - yet.

    People matter: not just the next generation, but everyone.

    That's rather over polite of you.

    Goons are goon are goons, whether they are Greens or Greta.

    It's not enough. You've failed and your words are just Blah ! Blah ! Blah !
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 927

    darkage said:

    Nigelb said:

    Fpt

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Putin's entire speech at Valdai is worth reading, even if it has become known for these paragraphs and others

    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66975

    "We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."

    "The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."

    He is right. He is absolutely right

    Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN

    He's not right, he's right-wing. No surprise you're a Putin admirer tbh.
    I dislike Putin, generally. He kills his enemies. But then, so does the POTUS, with drones (and so does Boris). And sometimes your wiser enemies, or rivals, see you better then you see yourself. Putin nails this here. Wokeness is Bolshevism, right down to the determined destruction of the family unit

    Putin is a fascinating character, worthy of respect, along with due wariness and preparedness. He is certainly not some mad aggressive autocrat, he is not Hitler. He actually thinks
    I sense your D’Annunzio hard-on is raising its ugly head again.
    You're not an idiot, TUD. You and I disagree vehemently on Scottish Nationalism, but I believe we disagree on principled grounds. I do not want to see the UK dismembered, you believe Scotland has a national destiny which demands this. But we respectfully differ

    Read Putin's speech and tell me he has not correctly identified sicknesses within the West. I believe he has
    I'm afraid I do disagree with you (& Vlad) about the sickness within the West. The current spasm seems to me just a version of the usual messy collision of young and old, right and left, ancient and modern, even if exacerbated by 'events'. More sinister is the retreat into nationalism, faith, family and all that good shit, and there seem to be versions of this sprouting up all over the shop.

    I don't even get the family unit stuff. My parents divorced 50 years ago, each married & divorced again and both are now a-moldering in their graves. I daresay that may have had unfavourable consequences for all involved but I think a golden age of the family unit is barely within living memory if it ever existed at all.

    ps, thanks for suggesting I'm not an idiot!
    I’m not seeing the woke Lubyanka, where the wokeists torture and murder their victims …. or perhaps the comparison with the Bolshevism is just idiotic.
    Incidentally, it’s not the wokeists who still run the Lubyanka, is it Vlad ?

    I wonder what @Leon makes of Josh’s take on the moral panic ?

    Republican senator Josh Hawley worries feminism has driven men to ‘pornography and video games’
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/01/josh-hawley-feminism-men-pornography-video-games
    The context differs, but problem with revolutions, social or political; is that they tend to lead to counter revolutions. So it will be with the woke, and it won’t be a good thing.

    Not all counter revolutions are bad - for example the one against the Paedophile Information Exchange from the 1970s - which at the time was supported by people who should and now have thought better of it. PIE was an extension of the entirely appropriate liberalisation of sexual relations between consenting adults.

    Similarly some of the discussions about Trans rights and the absolutism of some of their supporters when they intersect with natal women’s rights will not look so clever in hindsight I suspect.
    There are various things going on that will fuel the counter revolution. The idea that children have a right to choose their gender and alter their bodies without their parents consent is an obvious one. No surprise that Putin has picked up on this.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,158
    Foxy said:

    Good morning everyone. Brighter but cooler here. 4.3degC.
    What's all this about global warming?

    One gets conflicted. Too many people on the planet; need to do something about the birthrate. But, but, but we're living beings, and living beings have a powerful urge both to reproduce themselves and to see one's genes carried on.
    Thus Mrs C is mildly jealous...... envious..... of those of her friends who have great-grandchildren! (We're long past the child and indeed grandchild ambitions!)

    And some of our grandchildren live a long, long way away. Yes we can use a video link but it's not the same as Granny (or Grandpa) having a real hug!

    Birthrate is a problem in different ways depending on the country. Too few babies being born in some 1st world countries, too many in the 3rd world. Even if we set climate change aside there is a real problem with resources - we are going to need to find some off-world or have a massive cull of human numbers.

    Future generations are going to revere Elon Musk as a visionary who set the human race back onto the path towards its own salvation. And he knows it, hence doing as much crazy shit as possible.

    On topic? No Labour leadership change until at least after the GE, so Burnham a decent bet.
    The simplest solution to a high birthrate is the economic liberation of women through education. When given the option women overall have fewer children. World population is expected to peak this century and then decline.

    The problem of climate change is a different one although overpopulation does drive other environmental damage. The birthrate needs multiplying by the percapita carbon footprint, so maybe 50 Malawian babies have the same footprint as one American.
    Totally agree with the first paragraph: female education and emancipation has many massive benefits for a society.

    As for the second: the problem is that the Malawian people live in relative poverty. It is one of the poorest countries in the world, and many people rely on subsistence farming. It is fair and right that those people might want to have a better quality of life, without hunger and endless work. That means a more 'western' / 'first world' lifestyle, and that means, at the moment, increased carbon footprint. As those fifty Malawian babies grow up, their carbon footprint will increase massively as (hopefully) their living conditions improve.

    The key to improving lifestyle and the environment is to reduce overpopulation pressures - yet maintaining the rights of people to have kids if they want.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    Good morning, everyone.

    Heed ye not the Word of the Doom Goblin!
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 927
    MattW said:

    Dear Greta,

    You care about the environment. I get it. It is a justifiable concern, and the aim of reducing our impact on the environment is laudable.

    However: your criticism of politicians is a little off. Politics is about people, and people have many needs and concerns: jobs, health, wealth, safety, etc. A politician needs to weigh all these up, and come up with solutions that they hope will work to the satisfaction of the electorate. They are not pretending (at least, most): they are weighing up a vast mass of issues. What care does someone have for the environment if they cannot put food on the table? If they have just lost their job? If they have lost a child to an avoidable disease?

    The easiest way of saving the environment would be to stop all economic activity. Which, I am sure you will agree, would have rather negative consequences for many. The environment therefore becomes a compromise amongst many other requirements.

    I would also disagree that politicians have done nothing. All around the world, there are increasing amounts of renewable energy, and ever-more legislation to ban all sorts of things that are bad for the environment. You may believe they're not moving fast enough; you might disagree if moving faster meant your job, your livelihood, your welfare, was on the line.

    Progress can be made: the Montreal agreement to ban CFCs and stop damage to the Ozone Layer was a massive success. But that was a relatively easy problem to fix, and the technology to move over from those pernicious gasses was present. Climate change is a much thornier issue, and the technology isn't fully there - yet.

    People matter: not just the next generation, but everyone.

    That's rather over polite of you.

    Goons are goon are goons, whether they are Greens or Greta.

    It's not enough. You've failed and your words are just Blah ! Blah ! Blah !
    Shes just an autistic child in a social media storm.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,218

    She is a pressure group. Their function is to press. They are not expected to be balanced.

    I also think, FWIW, that our politicians have been very slow to appreciate both the seriousness of the situation and the scale of the changes needed. Not because they are stupid but because we have collectively and the parameters of what they can sell in democracies are ultimately set by us.

    Politicans have many problems to deal with; Greta has one. If you're a politican, you have to worry about crashing living standards, widespread unemployment etc. For Greta, these are all a price worth paying to reverse climate change.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,574
    kjh said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    So we are saying that Andy Burnham is the new David Miliband?

    I haven't seen him wielding any soft fruits, so no.
    Isnt banana a vegetable?
    The banana plant is a herb. I have no idea what defines a herb. The banana is the fruit of the herb. However frankly as far as day to day use is concerned I think people worrying about things like what rhubarb and tomatos are have too much time on their hands, although I appreciate some get very worked up about it.
    An oddly persistent fallacy. What has happened is that some old fart must have written that the banana is an herb short for herbaceous perennial, i.e. not a tree.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 927
    Dura_Ace said:

    Éric Zemmour, Macron’s far-right rival, wins backing from Russia

    “Then it is possible that we will see an alliance of Moscow, Paris and Berlin, which will confront the Anglo-Saxons led by the United States and Great Britain.”


    https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1455419497473576964?s=20

    This would seem to be the most likely outcome when the Western Alliance disintegrates.
    Thus achieving a longstanding Russian foreign policy goal. It was clear back in 2016 that Brexit could well lead to this.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,457
    edited November 2
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Dear Greta,

    You care about the environment. I get it. It is a justifiable concern, and the aim of reducing our impact on the environment is laudable.

    However: your criticism of politicians is a little off. Politics is about people, and people have many needs and concerns: jobs, health, wealth, safety, etc. A politician needs to weigh all these up, and come up with solutions that they hope will work to the satisfaction of the electorate. They are not pretending (at least, most): they are weighing up a vast mass of issues. What care does someone have for the environment if they cannot put food on the table? If they have just lost their job? If they have lost a child to an avoidable disease?

    The easiest way of saving the environment would be to stop all economic activity. Which, I am sure you will agree, would have rather negative consequences for many. The environment therefore becomes a compromise amongst many other requirements.

    I would also disagree that politicians have done nothing. All around the world, there are increasing amounts of renewable energy, and ever-more legislation to ban all sorts of things that are bad for the environment. You may believe they're not moving fast enough; you might disagree if moving faster meant your job, your livelihood, your welfare, was on the line.

    Progress can be made: the Montreal agreement to ban CFCs and stop damage to the Ozone Layer was a massive success. But that was a relatively easy problem to fix, and the technology to move over from those pernicious gasses was present. Climate change is a much thornier issue, and the technology isn't fully there - yet.

    People matter: not just the next generation, but everyone.

    Whilst I have as little time for self promoting emoting as anyone I am not sure I agree with that. Politicians weigh problems and consequences and try to find a solution that gets them re-elected. The purpose of this jamboree in Glasgow (apart from screwing up my travel arrangements, natch) is to both push this up the agenda and allow politicians to sell the consequences. This is important and pressure from the likes of Greta is an important part of the process.

    The problem I see is that these risks and balances are relevant to democracies. China and Russia not so much.
    It's carrot-and-stick; positive-and-negatives. What we see from Greta and her ilk is constant negativity (*). Whatever we do, it is not enough. However fast we move, it is not fast enough. No other consideration matters, except what she thinks matters.

    When governments do well, they should be congratulated. That's the carrot. Instead, she seems to ignore everything that has been done, even if she thinks it is not enough.

    (*) Can anyone point to positivity from her?
    She is a pressure group. Their function is to press. They are not expected to be balanced.

    I also think, FWIW, that our politicians have been very slow to appreciate both the seriousness of the situation and the scale of the changes needed. Not because they are stupid but because we have collectively and the parameters of what they can sell in democracies are ultimately set by us.
    AEP is in a bright mood today, in Telegraph, and sees a lot to be positive about climate, including Biden's massive $550bn programme. Essentially he argues that Paris set in motion unstoppable market and technology motions that are delivering.

    "Money moves faster than politicians"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/11/02/dogs-bark-cop-caravan-moves/

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,158
    darkage said:

    Nigelb said:

    Fpt

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Putin's entire speech at Valdai is worth reading, even if it has become known for these paragraphs and others

    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66975

    "We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."

    "The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."

    He is right. He is absolutely right

    Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN

    He's not right, he's right-wing. No surprise you're a Putin admirer tbh.
    I dislike Putin, generally. He kills his enemies. But then, so does the POTUS, with drones (and so does Boris). And sometimes your wiser enemies, or rivals, see you better then you see yourself. Putin nails this here. Wokeness is Bolshevism, right down to the determined destruction of the family unit

    Putin is a fascinating character, worthy of respect, along with due wariness and preparedness. He is certainly not some mad aggressive autocrat, he is not Hitler. He actually thinks
    I sense your D’Annunzio hard-on is raising its ugly head again.
    You're not an idiot, TUD. You and I disagree vehemently on Scottish Nationalism, but I believe we disagree on principled grounds. I do not want to see the UK dismembered, you believe Scotland has a national destiny which demands this. But we respectfully differ

    Read Putin's speech and tell me he has not correctly identified sicknesses within the West. I believe he has
    I'm afraid I do disagree with you (& Vlad) about the sickness within the West. The current spasm seems to me just a version of the usual messy collision of young and old, right and left, ancient and modern, even if exacerbated by 'events'. More sinister is the retreat into nationalism, faith, family and all that good shit, and there seem to be versions of this sprouting up all over the shop.

    I don't even get the family unit stuff. My parents divorced 50 years ago, each married & divorced again and both are now a-moldering in their graves. I daresay that may have had unfavourable consequences for all involved but I think a golden age of the family unit is barely within living memory if it ever existed at all.

    ps, thanks for suggesting I'm not an idiot!
    I’m not seeing the woke Lubyanka, where the wokeists torture and murder their victims …. or perhaps the comparison with the Bolshevism is just idiotic.
    Incidentally, it’s not the wokeists who still run the Lubyanka, is it Vlad ?

    I wonder what @Leon makes of Josh’s take on the moral panic ?

    Republican senator Josh Hawley worries feminism has driven men to ‘pornography and video games’
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/01/josh-hawley-feminism-men-pornography-video-games
    The context differs, but problem with revolutions, social or political; is that they tend to lead to counter revolutions. So it will be with the woke, and it won’t be a good thing.

    Plenty of revolutions occur with little, or no, counter-revolution.

    As an example of an utterly positive revolution, look at gat marriage. from unthinkable in the 1980s, to being accepted over vast swathes of the world in the 2010s. The same can probably be said for gay rights in the 1960s to 1980s.

    Or the way perceived roles of women - and of men as well - have changed considerably since the 1960s. Relatively few people in the UK are calling for women to leave the workplace.

    There has been massive societal change over the last few decades, and there have been barely whimpers in reply.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,183
    Sean_F said:


    She is a pressure group. Their function is to press. They are not expected to be balanced.

    I also think, FWIW, that our politicians have been very slow to appreciate both the seriousness of the situation and the scale of the changes needed. Not because they are stupid but because we have collectively and the parameters of what they can sell in democracies are ultimately set by us.

    Politicans have many problems to deal with; Greta has one. If you're a politican, you have to worry about crashing living standards, widespread unemployment etc. For Greta, these are all a price worth paying to reverse climate change.

    Of course. She is a monomaniac and balance is needed by those responsible for real world decisions. But so is the pressure or those decision makers will not be able to go far enough.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    kjh said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    So we are saying that Andy Burnham is the new David Miliband?

    I haven't seen him wielding any soft fruits, so no.
    Isnt banana a vegetable?
    The banana plant is a herb. I have no idea what defines a herb. The banana is the fruit of the herb. However frankly as far as day to day use is concerned I think people worrying about things like what rhubarb and tomatoes are have too much time on their hands, although I appreciate some get very worked up about it.
    I only commented in response to what the previous poster hadsaid. It was meant to be lighthearted but I can see that some people get on.my case because they get worked up about it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,183

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Dear Greta,

    You care about the environment. I get it. It is a justifiable concern, and the aim of reducing our impact on the environment is laudable.

    However: your criticism of politicians is a little off. Politics is about people, and people have many needs and concerns: jobs, health, wealth, safety, etc. A politician needs to weigh all these up, and come up with solutions that they hope will work to the satisfaction of the electorate. They are not pretending (at least, most): they are weighing up a vast mass of issues. What care does someone have for the environment if they cannot put food on the table? If they have just lost their job? If they have lost a child to an avoidable disease?

    The easiest way of saving the environment would be to stop all economic activity. Which, I am sure you will agree, would have rather negative consequences for many. The environment therefore becomes a compromise amongst many other requirements.

    I would also disagree that politicians have done nothing. All around the world, there are increasing amounts of renewable energy, and ever-more legislation to ban all sorts of things that are bad for the environment. You may believe they're not moving fast enough; you might disagree if moving faster meant your job, your livelihood, your welfare, was on the line.

    Progress can be made: the Montreal agreement to ban CFCs and stop damage to the Ozone Layer was a massive success. But that was a relatively easy problem to fix, and the technology to move over from those pernicious gasses was present. Climate change is a much thornier issue, and the technology isn't fully there - yet.

    People matter: not just the next generation, but everyone.

    Whilst I have as little time for self promoting emoting as anyone I am not sure I agree with that. Politicians weigh problems and consequences and try to find a solution that gets them re-elected. The purpose of this jamboree in Glasgow (apart from screwing up my travel arrangements, natch) is to both push this up the agenda and allow politicians to sell the consequences. This is important and pressure from the likes of Greta is an important part of the process.

    The problem I see is that these risks and balances are relevant to democracies. China and Russia not so much.
    It's carrot-and-stick; positive-and-negatives. What we see from Greta and her ilk is constant negativity (*). Whatever we do, it is not enough. However fast we move, it is not fast enough. No other consideration matters, except what she thinks matters.

    When governments do well, they should be congratulated. That's the carrot. Instead, she seems to ignore everything that has been done, even if she thinks it is not enough.

    (*) Can anyone point to positivity from her?
    She is a pressure group. Their function is to press. They are not expected to be balanced.

    I also think, FWIW, that our politicians have been very slow to appreciate both the seriousness of the situation and the scale of the changes needed. Not because they are stupid but because we have collectively and the parameters of what they can sell in democracies are ultimately set by us.
    AEP is in a bright mood today, in Telegraph, and sees a lot to be positive about climate, including Biden's massive $550bn programme. Essentially he argues that Paris set in motion unstoppable market and technology motions that are delivering.

    "Money moves faster than politicians"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/11/02/dogs-bark-cop-caravan-moves/

    Lordy. Maybe we should be panicking after all.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,191

    AEP is in a bright mood today

    Isn't that in Revelations as one of the signs of the apocalypse? 😱
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    As predicted last week, first Daily Mail article counting the private jets - 52 in Glasgow yesterday, including four that flew from Glasgow to Prestwick empty to park, as GLA was full. Four planes for Biden, landing in Edinburgh and going in a 85-vehicle convoy to Glasgow.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10152027/Hypocrite-airways-Jeff-Bezoss-48m-gulf-stream-leads-parade-400-private-jets.html

    I don't see an issue with this.

    Yes the crazy brigade of climate activists are saying we shouldn't fly, but as far as I'm aware Biden is not amongst them.

    If as I believe (and I think you do too) the future is dependant upon switching to clean technology aviation and not abandoning aviation, then what is wrong with the US President and his entourage flying to a summit designed to help us get there?
    Yes, it is typical denialism-lite. To not take what is going with climate change seriously because some attendees are less than perfect. Leaders always have camp followers.
    Though I do think its a valid argument to use with the crazies who do follow these events, the Gretas of this world, who are adamant we're not doing enough and that we shouldn't be travelling and this needs to all happen overnight.

    Ok, you first.
    Sure, Greta can be annoyingly monomaniac on the subject of climate change, but consciousness raising and getting engagement with the topic is a very useful role. No one expects a teenager to have all the answers, including herself, but she has done a sterling job of raising publicity around the world.
    Yes. Less than a decade ago, we still had politicians like Boris Johnson cracking jokes about windmills and Anne-Marie Trevelyan denying the existence of climate change as well as a host of right-wing commentators making fun of "loony left" proposals to deal with global warming. Now, thanks in large part to campaigners like Greta, those who dismiss the seriousness of climate change are very much in the minority.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,837
    Surgery cancelled for a 3rd time, as I was about to head down to theatre. No beds.

    Sigh.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,023

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    As predicted last week, first Daily Mail article counting the private jets - 52 in Glasgow yesterday, including four that flew from Glasgow to Prestwick empty to park, as GLA was full. Four planes for Biden, landing in Edinburgh and going in a 85-vehicle convoy to Glasgow.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10152027/Hypocrite-airways-Jeff-Bezoss-48m-gulf-stream-leads-parade-400-private-jets.html

    I don't see an issue with this.

    Yes the crazy brigade of climate activists are saying we shouldn't fly, but as far as I'm aware Biden is not amongst them.

    If as I believe (and I think you do too) the future is dependant upon switching to clean technology aviation and not abandoning aviation, then what is wrong with the US President and his entourage flying to a summit designed to help us get there?
    Yes, it is typical denialism-lite. To not take what is going with climate change seriously because some attendees are less than perfect. Leaders always have camp followers.
    Though I do think its a valid argument to use with the crazies who do follow these events, the Gretas of this world, who are adamant we're not doing enough and that we shouldn't be travelling and this needs to all happen overnight.

    Ok, you first.
    Sure, Greta can be annoyingly monomaniac on the subject of climate change, but consciousness raising and getting engagement with the topic is a very useful role. No one expects a teenager to have all the answers, including herself, but she has done a sterling job of raising publicity around the world.
    Yes. Less than a decade ago, we still had politicians like Boris Johnson cracking jokes about windmills and Anne-Marie Trevelyan denying the existence of climate change as well as a host of right-wing commentators making fun of "loony left" proposals to deal with global warming. Now, thanks in large part to campaigners like Greta, those who dismiss the seriousness of climate change are very much in the minority.
    "those who dismiss the seriousness of climate change are very much in the minority."

    Are you sure?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,191
    edited November 2

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    As predicted last week, first Daily Mail article counting the private jets - 52 in Glasgow yesterday, including four that flew from Glasgow to Prestwick empty to park, as GLA was full. Four planes for Biden, landing in Edinburgh and going in a 85-vehicle convoy to Glasgow.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10152027/Hypocrite-airways-Jeff-Bezoss-48m-gulf-stream-leads-parade-400-private-jets.html

    I don't see an issue with this.

    Yes the crazy brigade of climate activists are saying we shouldn't fly, but as far as I'm aware Biden is not amongst them.

    If as I believe (and I think you do too) the future is dependant upon switching to clean technology aviation and not abandoning aviation, then what is wrong with the US President and his entourage flying to a summit designed to help us get there?
    Yes, it is typical denialism-lite. To not take what is going with climate change seriously because some attendees are less than perfect. Leaders always have camp followers.
    Though I do think its a valid argument to use with the crazies who do follow these events, the Gretas of this world, who are adamant we're not doing enough and that we shouldn't be travelling and this needs to all happen overnight.

    Ok, you first.
    Sure, Greta can be annoyingly monomaniac on the subject of climate change, but consciousness raising and getting engagement with the topic is a very useful role. No one expects a teenager to have all the answers, including herself, but she has done a sterling job of raising publicity around the world.
    Yes. Less than a decade ago, we still had politicians like Boris Johnson cracking jokes about windmills and Anne-Marie Trevelyan denying the existence of climate change as well as a host of right-wing commentators making fun of "loony left" proposals to deal with global warming. Now, thanks in large part to campaigners like Greta, those who dismiss the seriousness of climate change are very much in the minority.
    Boris personally took part in and was at the Paris accords years before anyone had ever heard of Greta.

    I don't think you can judge anything on the metric of "Boris cracking jokes". Even as PM he cracks jokes about everything.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,023

    Surgery cancelled for a 3rd time, as I was about to head down to theatre. No beds.

    Sigh.

    Go private.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    Mr. Thompson, Revelation*. A common error, but an error nonetheless.

    Mr. Enjineeya, aye, instead of we have archbishops pontificating (ahem) about the genocide, and an energy policy that's ever so green but risks the lights going out if it isn't windy enough, or is too windy.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,437

    kjh said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    So we are saying that Andy Burnham is the new David Miliband?

    I haven't seen him wielding any soft fruits, so no.
    Isnt banana a vegetable?
    The banana plant is a herb. I have no idea what defines a herb. The banana is the fruit of the herb. However frankly as far as day to day use is concerned I think people worrying about things like what rhubarb and tomatoes are have too much time on their hands, although I appreciate some get very worked up about it.
    I only commented in response to what the previous poster hadsaid. It was meant to be lighthearted but I can see that some people get on.my case because they get worked up about it.
    In case you thought I was, I wasn't having a go at you @SquareRoot . Bizarrely I think it is strange it's a herb and now I'm attempting to find out what defines a herb so I appreciate the post.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,574
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    So we are saying that Andy Burnham is the new David Miliband?

    I haven't seen him wielding any soft fruits, so no.
    Isnt banana a vegetable?
    The banana plant is a herb. I have no idea what defines a herb. The banana is the fruit of the herb. However frankly as far as day to day use is concerned I think people worrying about things like what rhubarb and tomatoes are have too much time on their hands, although I appreciate some get very worked up about it.
    I only commented in response to what the previous poster hadsaid. It was meant to be lighthearted but I can see that some people get on.my case because they get worked up about it.
    In case you thought I was, I wasn't having a go at you @SquareRoot . Bizarrely I think it is strange it's a herb and now I'm attempting to find out what defines a herb so I appreciate the post.
    As I said, it is short for herbaceous perennial, meaning no woody stem. A herb is something you use in sub-nutritious quantities for flavouring or medicine, which nobody does with bananas.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,833
    dixiedean said:

    Fpt

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Putin's entire speech at Valdai is worth reading, even if it has become known for these paragraphs and others

    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66975

    "We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal."

    "The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs."

    He is right. He is absolutely right

    Read it all. This is the best, smartest, most wisely wide-ranging speech I have heard from any global political leader in a decade. And this is PUTIN

    He's not right, he's right-wing. No surprise you're a Putin admirer tbh.
    I dislike Putin, generally. He kills his enemies. But then, so does the POTUS, with drones (and so does Boris). And sometimes your wiser enemies, or rivals, see you better then you see yourself. Putin nails this here. Wokeness is Bolshevism, right down to the determined destruction of the family unit

    Putin is a fascinating character, worthy of respect, along with due wariness and preparedness. He is certainly not some mad aggressive autocrat, he is not Hitler. He actually thinks
    I sense your D’Annunzio hard-on is raising its ugly head again.
    You're not an idiot, TUD. You and I disagree vehemently on Scottish Nationalism, but I believe we disagree on principled grounds. I do not want to see the UK dismembered, you believe Scotland has a national destiny which demands this. But we respectfully differ

    Read Putin's speech and tell me he has not correctly identified sicknesses within the West. I believe he has
    I'm afraid I do disagree with you (& Vlad) about the sickness within the West. The current spasm seems to me just a version of the usual messy collision of young and old, right and left, ancient and modern, even if exacerbated by 'events'. More sinister is the retreat into nationalism, faith, family and all that good shit, and there seem to be versions of this sprouting up all over the shop.

    I don't even get the family unit stuff. My parents divorced 50 years ago, each married & divorced again and both are now a-moldering in their graves. I daresay that may have had unfavourable consequences for all involved but I think a golden age of the family unit is barely within living memory if it ever existed at all.
    The family stuff is a mystery to me too. It is often asserted, but have yet to see it evidenced. Or even outlined as to the thinking behind it.
    Do wokey lefties have less stable families than righties? Do they not aspire to them?
    I believe there is some evidence that same-sex relationships tend to be shorter but have never cared enough to see whether that is distorted (ie mean / median).

    It only really matters - and it does matter - where children are involved. Here the evidence is clear: children benefit hugely from a stable two parent family unit but the gender of those parents does not have a statistically significant impact. Moreover the (single) study I saw (years ago) indicated that those same sex couples *who self-selected into a married relationship* had a very similar profile in terms of length/stability as opposite sex married relationships
This discussion has been closed.