So man made climate change is a conspiracy to remove your three and a half litre penis extensions? A conspiracy perpetrated by the majority of scientists and politicians? Right.....I can see where you are coming from.
A huge majority of Welsh people do not want Scotland to vote for independence and think it would be bad for Wales, the results of an exclusive poll have revealed.
The results of the YouGov survey, which questioned more than 1,000 Welsh adults on how they would vote, found that 62% answered No when asked if Scotland should be independent, with just 16% saying Yes.
The results also showed nearly three-quarters either thought the decision would be bad for Wales (32%) or neither good or bad (41%), with just 10% saying it would be good for the principality.
Remarkably, 41% of Plaid Cymru voters at the last Westminster elections would say no to Scotland becoming independent, with 48% would be in favour.
Further poll details revealed only 12% support for Wales becoming independent, with nearly three-quarters polled (74%) against, while only 9% believed Wales would be economically better-off if independent, compared to 69% who believed Wales would be worse-off.
There was even less faith that independence would be good for personal finances, with just 6% saying it would leave them better off , 54% saying it would leave them worse off and just over one-in-five (21%) saying it would not make a difference.
Oh, and the "plateau"? Standard physics supplies an answer to that, putting more energy into a system does not necessarily raise temperature, it can fulfill the conservation of energy theory by being transmuted into more energetic weather patterns. Keep the Nobel prize, but send the cash to my bank account.
For all of the froth...abour, Tory, Republican, Democrat, whatever - our political class has utterly run out of ideas and cards to play. We will need to supplicate ourselves in front of the people who actually own and produce things and hold the resources we need just as they did before the elite got greedy and let Arabs, Russians and Chinese buy up everything at knock down prices.
I remember people saying that acid rain didn't exist, and when it became a "fact" that there was nothing we could do about it. CO2 is provably a factor in the "greenhouse" effect (along with several other substances). Skepticism is a useful scientific tool, however, when it goes against the vast majority of expert opinion, it is really up to you to prove it's non existence. Scientific consensus may be wrong, and you may indeed be lauded by future generations for your insight, or cursed for leaving a world that is a polluted and denuded husk. Believe in scientists, or a petrol head? I will go with the science.
It's not *based* on science. As the climategate emails proved beyond a reasonable doubt the base data was being manipulated. Even if the science was sound it's built on false foundations.
A small part of the base data was possibly manipulated. But even if it was, base data everywhere other than the UEA found the same thing and no evidence of manipulation exists.
"To look at it another way, is the improving economy really likely to switch many votes from Lab to Con" and suggests the answer is No.
Surely the question should be "...is the improving economy really likely to switch many votes from Lab to Lib Dem" to which the answer is maybe.
Lib Dems claimed to go into coalition to stabilise the financial position of a failing economy and to avoid having a minority Government which would find it hard to act decisively.
So far the Lib Dems have been puinished by the electorate for their decision. Why is this? Are the electorate unable to grasp the logic of the argument? Are the electorate so selfish that they resent the Lib Dems helping to keep spending increases down, if only modestly?
Surely there will be some 2010 Lib Dem voters who have moved to Labour who will consider voting Lib Dem again as the economy improves.
I remember people saying that acid rain didn't exist, and when it became a "fact" that there was nothing we could do about it. CO2 is provably a factor in the "greenhouse" effect (along with several other substances). Skepticism is a useful scientific tool, however, when it goes against the vast majority of expert opinion, it is really up to you to prove it's non existence. Scientific consensus may be wrong, and you may indeed be lauded by future generations for your insight, or cursed for leaving a world that is a polluted and denuded husk. Believe in scientists, or a petrol head? I will go with the science.
It's not *based* on science. As the climategate emails proved beyond a reasonable doubt the base data was being manipulated. Even if the science was sound it's built on false foundations.
A small part of the base data was possibly manipulated. But even if it was, base data everywhere other than the UEA found the same thing and no evidence of manipulation exists.
"A small part of the base data was possibly manipulated."
Mr. Smarmeron, you're correct that carbon dioxide, in a lab setting, can be shown to warm things. As can methane. We could vastly reduce methane emissions by slaughtering huge numbers of cattle, and replacing the land used for them with arable farming.
"... when it [scepticism] goes against the vast majority of expert opinion, it is really up to you to prove it's [global warming] non existence."
No, it isn't. People are advocating significant changes and prophesying doom upon all the world if they are not listened to. These same people have a recent history of failing to predict the global temperature, the most basic measure of whether or not they are even possibly right (the temperature can rise naturally).
If I predicted every F1 bet incorrectly over the last 5 years and then improved my self-assessment from 90% to 95% people would think me a raving idiot (and stop following my tips). The IPCC has done much the same, except, of course, I have a better track record on F1 than they do on global warming.
If you believe in someone just because they have a lab coat then you're no better than a member of the faithful awed by a vicar's dog collar. A scientific argument's strength or weakness does not rest on the people advocating it but the argument itself. If you have to resort to saying "A scientist believes it, so it must be true" it's a good sign the argument is too weak to stand on its own merit.
I'd say Miliband is criticised for what he does or doesn't do rather than his background. In fact there was a massive uproar when the Daily Mail wrote an article about his Dad so it shows how rare it is.
Saying the left argue from an emotional point of view is not claiming moral superiority. Being more pragmatic perhaps.
Come on help me out here, whenever the Tories enact any policy there's a concerted effort from the left to find someone vulnerable that is worse off and personalise the issue rather than look at the big picture.
Both sides personalise and both sides discuss the big picture too. Cameron spends half the time visiting a small business or whatever and saying how great it is that Paul and Sarah will be rewarded for their hard work. Then he says that the policy will help 20,000 people or whatever. Just like Labour find someone who is being really hard hit by the bedroom tax and then say that there are 40,000 people just like them. It's the same thing, and suggesting otherwise is ridiculous.
Ok we're obviously never going to agree on this, but I'll give another example.
Labour hate the Tories completely and utterly, it is their main reason for existing. The Tories don't have the same hatred for Labour, they just consider them misguided and useless.
The whole legacy of Thatcher is viewed by the left through the prism of what sort of person she was rather than whether what she did worked or not.
Let's all just agree that Tories and right-wingers generally are *just better people* than those on the left.
Better lovers, too
I wish I could be the kind of person who could be on the right, but I am not good enough. I am, intrinsically, bad.
Don't be silly.
The left's problem is that those arguments they have lost - economic - continue being relevant to the country. Therefore they need to find grounds to attack the right while not admitting that they basically agree with them. This is where you get the 'cut with kindness' motif which soon devolves into 'good/bad' and 'motives' as lines of attack.
By contrast those arguments the right has lost - social change - cause ructions for a while but then settle down and are accepted and most people move on (eg abortion or gay marriage), so the right don't have to argue about it any more. Where there are people who continue to fight those social battles (for religious reasons, for example) you see the same personalisation and arguments based on motives. But these aren't mainstream voices
Labour's support has been gently drifting downwards, with peaks and troughs, since the start of 2013. I don't think it's current level of 35/37% is in any way solid.
I'd say the floor is more like 32/33%. Switchers from the Lib Dems might be secure. But, I don't think everyone who voted for the party in May 2010 is secure. A number of them have gone over to UKIP. And in terms of trust on the economy, Labour and the Conservatives were level-pegging at the last election. Now, the Conservatives are well ahead on that measure. I could easily imagine a small number of voters switching as a result.
Furthermore, polls show that not all disillusioned Lib Dems have gone to Labour. A sizeable chunk have gone Conservative. Those votes will show up somewhere.
A final point. I've been surprised by the degree of complacency shown by Labour supporters. Neither current polling, nor local election results, should give any confidence that they'll be forming the next government.
You a misreading complacency for a rational reading of the polling numbers .
Not a day goes by without me worrying about the nightmare of a Tory win.
Millions of Labour supporters feel the same.
Their thousands of volunteers will fight for every single vote.
The thing is, the Conservatives' poll numbers, at 43% or so, looked rock-solid in Autumn 2009. Then, they turned out not to be.
I don't think they did.
The Conservatives performed unimpressively in the 2009 local and EU elections in terms of vote share.
This was masked by the gains they made from Labour's disasterous performance.
The Conservatives peaked in the summer of 2008 but then suffered firstly from their weak reaction to the financial crisis and then through the general anger to the establishment parties which the expenses scandal caused.
@Morris_Dancer Scientific consensus can be disregarded because you don't like it, preferring instead the dwindling band of people who deny that it is even a possibility? Fair enough, there is always room for mavericks.
Oh, and the "plateau"? Standard physics supplies an answer to that, putting more energy into a system does not necessarily raise temperature, it can fulfill the conservation of energy theory by being transmuted into more energetic weather patterns. Keep the Nobel prize, but send the cash to my bank account.
"putting more energy into a system does not necessarily raise temperature"
That's what the original 100% guaranteed, all the scientists agree, 100% correct, we couldn't possibly be wrong global warming theory said.
I remember people saying that acid rain didn't exist, and when it became a "fact" that there was nothing we could do about it. CO2 is provably a factor in the "greenhouse" effect (along with several other substances). Skepticism is a useful scientific tool, however, when it goes against the vast majority of expert opinion, it is really up to you to prove it's non existence. Scientific consensus may be wrong, and you may indeed be lauded by future generations for your insight, or cursed for leaving a world that is a polluted and denuded husk. Believe in scientists, or a petrol head? I will go with the science.
It's not *based* on science. As the climategate emails proved beyond a reasonable doubt the base data was being manipulated. Even if the science was sound it's built on false foundations.
A small part of the base data was possibly manipulated. But even if it was, base data everywhere other than the UEA found the same thing and no evidence of manipulation exists.
Didn't NASA make an adjustment that skews their results up? I seem to remember something about the NZ boffins being caught out too.
We've been here before. If it is science, you can test it and you can predict.
Quantum mechanics predicts and is proved right - it is science.
Climate change ... increasing CO2 increased temperatures in the lab. It is one of a myriad factors involved in potential climate change. Does it predict and can it be tested?
One of our greatest scientists said ... "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
It may not be wrong, but if you can't predict, you can't say it's right.
Mr. Smarmeron, scientific consensus is irrelevant. Science isn't democracy or a beauty contest. Most votes doesn't make you the winner. Most people disagreed with Copernicus, at the time. What matters is if you're right or wrong, not how many people agree with you.
If these scientists are right why did they predict rising temperatures and get it wrong?
It's also a legitimate criticism that much of the data appears to be suspect.
Chaos theory, A butterfly flaps it's wings in the rain forest, and a hurricane hits Britain? Weather science is still in it's infancy despite the advent of "super computers", No model exactly predicts events such as weather patterns, but the probability of them being right improves year on year as the science improves.
So man made climate change is a conspiracy to remove your three and a half litre penis extensions? A conspiracy perpetrated by the majority of scientists and politicians? Right.....I can see where you are coming from.
The base data comes (or came as it might have changed since) from two institutions. The number of people involved was tiny. One of those institutions was discredited when it was shown their hockey stick software *always* produced a catastrophic hockey stick regardless of what data was fed into it. The other was discredited by the climategate emails.
Most of the people involved were basing everything on the data collated by a tiny number of people like an upside down pyramid so if the point of the pyramid was wrong the whole pyramid was wrong.
(Also the argument is that temperatures did rise for a bit and then flat-lined not that the temps didn't rise at all. I assume the individuals involved thought the flat-lining was temporary but after "temporary" went past ten years someone cracked.)
Chaos theory, A butterfly flaps it's wings in the rain forest, and a hurricane hits Britain? Weather science is still in it's infancy despite the advent of "super computers", No model exactly predicts events such as weather patterns, but the probability of them being right improves year on year as the science improves.
The whole point of a scientific theory is its power of prediction.
If you are saying that something is complex and unpredictable, then it is not a scientific explanation.
So man made climate change is a conspiracy to remove your three and a half litre penis extensions? A conspiracy perpetrated by the majority of scientists and politicians? Right.....I can see where you are coming from.
Mr. Smarmeron, scientific consensus is irrelevant. Science isn't democracy or a beauty contest. Most votes doesn't make you the winner. Most people disagreed with Copernicus, at the time. What matters is if you're right or wrong, not how many people agree with you.
Thomas Huxley summed it up best:
"Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.”
Its the language of (some) AGW proponents that alarms me - those who are sceptical are called 'deniers' - that's the language of religion, not science.....
I remember people saying that acid rain didn't exist, and when it became a "fact" that there was nothing we could do about it. CO2 is provably a factor in the "greenhouse" effect (along with several other substances). Skepticism is a useful scientific tool, however, when it goes against the vast majority of expert opinion, it is really up to you to prove it's non existence. Scientific consensus may be wrong, and you may indeed be lauded by future generations for your insight, or cursed for leaving a world that is a polluted and denuded husk. Believe in scientists, or a petrol head? I will go with the science.
It's not *based* on science. As the climategate emails proved beyond a reasonable doubt the base data was being manipulated. Even if the science was sound it's built on false foundations.
A small part of the base data was possibly manipulated. But even if it was, base data everywhere other than the UEA found the same thing and no evidence of manipulation exists.
"A small part of the base data was possibly manipulated."
progress
You've been conned by a multi-billion dollar lobbying camapaign run by the Heartland Institute,who are a front organisation for ALEC.Whereever you find ALEC you will always find the Koch Bros..That's how "big oil" and other fossil fuel suppliers work. The UEA were a victim of a political conspiracy.
@Morris_Dancer Most of the sailors agreed with Copernicus, it just wasn't a healthy option to state it openly. The Establishment at the time took a dim view of criticism. but in the fulness of time, even the deniers stopped burning people for pointing out the obvious. There is hope for me yet.
Chaos theory, A butterfly flaps it's wings in the rain forest, and a hurricane hits Britain? Weather science is still in it's infancy despite the advent of "super computers", No model exactly predicts events such as weather patterns, but the probability of them being right improves year on year as the science improves.
Yes, climate is a chaotic model with dramatic half-understood external inputs - inputs like that big yellow thing in the sky.
I remember people saying that acid rain didn't exist, and when it became a "fact" that there was nothing we could do about it. CO2 is provably a factor in the "greenhouse" effect (along with several other substances). Skepticism is a useful scientific tool, however, when it goes against the vast majority of expert opinion, it is really up to you to prove it's non existence. Scientific consensus may be wrong, and you may indeed be lauded by future generations for your insight, or cursed for leaving a world that is a polluted and denuded husk. Believe in scientists, or a petrol head? I will go with the science.
It's not *based* on science. As the climategate emails proved beyond a reasonable doubt the base data was being manipulated. Even if the science was sound it's built on false foundations.
A small part of the base data was possibly manipulated. But even if it was, base data everywhere other than the UEA found the same thing and no evidence of manipulation exists.
"A small part of the base data was possibly manipulated."
progress
You've been conned by a multi-billion dollar lobbying camapaign run by the Heartland Institute,who are a front organisation for ALEC.Whereever you find ALEC you will always find the Koch Bros..That's how "big oil" and other fossil fuel suppliers work. The UEA were a victim of a political conspiracy.
Better add another layer of tinfoil. You never know who might be listening!
My ideas on how we rebuild is accepting the mess and redirecting efforts. The banks only stay afloat thanks to government cash, so start new banks using that cash. Business still wants things to invest in, so build a county with infrastructure that's fit for the future - homes, transport, fibre broadband, power generation. All pay out over the mid to long term, all are essential. Most towns and cities rely on aging civic infrastructure built several generations before, so if your town is run down and riddled with unemployment, pay people to rebuild it so that we get benefit from people working now and parks and civic spaces for generations to come. Have a national statement of what being British actually means - the explosion of people reliant on food banks is a national outrage. We may be facing difficulties but leaving people to starve is......
I'd vote for the party offering this prospectus or dare I say it New Deal. In a heartbeat. But sadly all our leaders are so terrified of markets that it won't happen until after a financial crisis that makes 2007 look like the teddy bears picnic.
A new deal - exactly this. Ed Milliband has referenced Attlee repeatedly, the mans whose government rebuilt the economy to create the post war settlement despite the country being economically knackered. I don't expect him to do a big reveal this far before the election so I do have hope that a grand renewal agenda is in the offing. Because otherwise it's bald men arguing over combs.
1. Should have formed a minority government, or let Brown struggle on til Labour utterly collapsed
2. Should have nailed the boundary changes to the AV referendum, and made each dependant on the other
3. Should have offered Salmond Devomax, securing the union and screwing Labour in Westminster
Cameron is a good statesman and an utterly useless politician, perhaps the worst political operator to reside in number 10 since Heath. The result will probably be a calamitously mediocre Miliband government, as bad as Hollande's in France, and maybe the breakup of the UK.
Salaam from Dubai airport.
Devo max was not offered as Tories were certain indy was only wanted by 30 to 35% of people. Problem is the don't knows in the middle were more receptive to a new start than anticipated, even with a daily dose on BBC of NO propaganda press releases repeated verbatim on BBC North Britainshire radio and on NorthBritainshire tonight.
Had they known it was in bracket 40 to 55% on day, as it will be, then a minor option on Crown Estates and air guns would have been offered to influence that number a little downwards. Not much was needed to keep waverers onside; sadly they went for the all or nothing and then complained when Scots Govt cleverly offered a devomax-MAX option, close enough to keep some undecideds happy, with Trident an issue that was swaying voters on the ground.
Combined Green/SNP vote is around 50% again now, both for Scottish and Euro elections, as it was in 2011, so this indy vote will be close, particularly if a dreich day and lots of soft NO's stay at home. Postals will decide this, so a good ground campaign may make a difference.
"... I have a better track record on F1 than they [IPCC] do on global warming."
Spiffing comment, that captures the argument, nicely. Mind you, I have never been tempted to be on the IPCCs predictions.
"If you believe in someone just because they have a lab coat then you're no better than a member of the faithful awed by a vicar's dog collar."
Isn't that attitude very similar to a member of the Catholic Church in the days of Galileo. The consensus of the wise men is that the sun moves round the Earth, any evidence to the contrary is the wok of deniers and must be suppressed. I am also minded to consider the attitude of the Mayan's et al. "We must keep sacrificing people otherwise the end of the world will happen" said their wise men is all too similar to those that say if we don't keep cutting carbon emissions we will leave the planet "a polluted and denuded husk". More recently, in the discussions of the big bang and the development of the universe the scientific consensus was for many years that X was happening and only a few academics suggested that it was in fact Y. The latter group were eventually proved correct.
Thinking about it, look back through history in fields as diverse as astronomy and medicine, the "scientific consensus" has been proved wrong so often that it is astonishing that apparently sane and intelligent people will still go with it.
I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with religion. Religion is a matter of belief, and that's fine, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. It is however a massive error to base policy on religion masquerading as science.
People believe that scientists are unbiased. They are wrong.
A theory is proposed, it is tested, it begins to fail. Often the response is to tweak it to take account of the new facts. Only when the tweaks become ludicrously laboured do the true believers gradually fall away. It all takes time.
The Climate changers may be spot-on. They may not. You will not get a sudden rush to convert even if it is not. They will tweak and tweak.
Fred Hoyle was a great scientist. But he hated the Big Bang Theory (even though he coined the phrase) and stuck to his Steady State Theory despite all the evidence accumulating against it. It's human nature/
1. Should have formed a minority government, or let Brown struggle on til Labour utterly collapsed
2. Should have nailed the boundary changes to the AV referendum, and made each dependant on the other
3. Should have offered Salmond Devomax, securing the union and screwing Labour in Westminster
Cameron is a good statesman and an utterly useless politician, perhaps the worst political operator to reside in number 10 since Heath. The result will probably be a calamitously mediocre Miliband government, as bad as Hollande's in France, and maybe the breakup of the UK.
Salaam from Dubai airport.
Devo max was not offered as Tories were certain indy was only wanted by 30 to 35% of people. Problem is the don't knows in the middle were more receptive to a new start than anticipated, even with a daily dose on BBC of NO propaganda press releases repeated verbatim on BBC North Britainshire radio and on NorthBritainshire tonight.
Had they known it was in bracket 40 to 55% on day, as it will be, then a minor option on Crown Estates and air guns would have been offered to influence that number a little downwards. Not much was needed to keep waverers onside; sadly they went for the all or nothing and then complained when Scots Govt cleverly offered a devomax-MAX option, close enough to keep some undecideds happy, with Trident an issue that was swaying voters on the ground.
Combined Green/SNP vote is around 50% again now, both for Scottish and Euro elections, as it was in 2011, so this indy vote will be close, particularly if a dreich day and lots of soft NO's stay at home. Postals will decide this, so a good ground campaign may make a difference.
Hard to tell because SLAB default position is the Bain Principle. This is that Labour always oppose anything the SNP propose or support, even if it was a Labour proposal in the first place (like the infamous budget which they voted down for containing Labour proposals adopted by the SNP till it was pointed out it would paralyse the country).
What's for sure is that without a majority in either Parliament Labour had no say in the decision at the time, which was by Mr Cameron and his advisors in some unknown proportion (no doubt on the mistaken assumption they were getting one over on Mr Salmond).
1. Should have formed a minority government, or let Brown struggle on til Labour utterly collapsed
2. Should have nailed the boundary changes to the AV referendum, and made each dependant on the other
3. Should have offered Salmond Devomax, securing the union and screwing Labour in Westminster
Cameron is a good statesman and an utterly useless politician, perhaps the worst political operator to reside in number 10 since Heath. The result will probably be a calamitously mediocre Miliband government, as bad as Hollande's in France, and maybe the breakup of the UK.
Salaam from Dubai airport.
Devo max was not offered as Tories were certain indy was only wanted by 30 to 35% of people. Problem is the don't knows in the middle were more receptive to a new start than anticipated, even with a daily dose on BBC of NO propaganda press releases repeated verbatim on BBC North Britainshire radio and on NorthBritainshire tonight.
Had they known it was in bracket 40 to 55% on day, as it will be, then a minor option on Crown Estates and air guns would have been offered to influence that number a little downwards. Not much was needed to keep waverers onside; sadly they went for the all or nothing and then complained when Scots Govt cleverly offered a devomax-MAX option, close enough to keep some undecideds happy, with Trident an issue that was swaying voters on the ground.
Combined Green/SNP vote is around 50% again now, both for Scottish and Euro elections, as it was in 2011, so this indy vote will be close, particularly if a dreich day and lots of soft NO's stay at home. Postals will decide this, so a good ground campaign may make a difference.
From an Old Labour perspective the SNP is a scab herding enterprise, their aim is to set the working peoples of Scotland, Wales, England and Ireland at each other's throats so as to benefit the boss class.
I remember people saying that acid rain didn't exist, and when it became a "fact" that there was nothing we could do about it. CO2 is provably a factor in the "greenhouse" effect (along with several other substances). Skepticism is a useful scientific tool, however, when it goes against the vast majority of expert opinion, it is really up to you to prove it's non existence. Scientific consensus may be wrong, and you may indeed be lauded by future generations for your insight, or cursed for leaving a world that is a polluted and denuded husk. Believe in scientists, or a petrol head? I will go with the science.
It's not *based* on science. As the climategate emails proved beyond a reasonable doubt the base data was being manipulated. Even if the science was sound it's built on false foundations.
A small part of the base data was possibly manipulated. But even if it was, base data everywhere other than the UEA found the same thing and no evidence of manipulation exists.
"A small part of the base data was possibly manipulated."
progress
You've been conned by a multi-billion dollar lobbying camapaign run by the Heartland Institute,who are a front organisation for ALEC.Whereever you find ALEC you will always find the Koch Bros..That's how "big oil" and other fossil fuel suppliers work. The UEA were a victim of a political conspiracy.
And another factor as discussed recently (in a previous thread?) - devomax for Mr Miliband means pulling all the Labour MPs out of Westminster permanently for all except central matters such as defence and foreign policy. With the fair chance that as UK PM he'd have to rule over a restless subject nation which voted for a different political party. And I'm not talking about Scotland.
Mr. Llama, indeed. The human-centric approach "Of course the sun revolves around us. Gosh we're important" is similar to that of those who believe in man-made global warming. "Of course we're the ones determining the climate", which rather ignores the fact it has and always will change of its own accord.
We may be having an impact, but that's far from proven.
Mr. Divvie, I believe I have. Whilst I concur with his economic approach, broadly, and utterly disagree with Labour's, the use of deficit deniers propagates a distasteful use in language and should stop.
Mr. Smarmeron, the right of someone to worship what they like is fine, so long as they don't want to add hundreds of pounds to everybody's fuel bills to pay for it.
May I respectfully suggest that you do some reading and research into the Atlee government. You will, I am sure, find facts in the documents that you will not like. You may also, if you are honest to yourself, discover that Atlee and his government (PMs were very much first among equals in those days) didn't rebuild an economy, rather he set the seal on its long term decline.
I agree, there are a lot of people who will cling to something even when it becomes irrational. You only have to look at the countries finances to work that out.
Cameron trims sails of Chancellor by blocking his pick for promotion David Cameron overruled George Osborne on appointment of new female minister after resignation of Maria Miller, Conservative sources disclose
I did pick up on the new Sir Edrics story from twitter. I have it bookmarked and am looking forward to reading it this evening (when Herself will give me time and quiet to enjoy it, as I am sure I will).
****
For those who might have missed Mr. Dancer's first expose of the life of Sir Edric (Sir Edric's Temple, available on Amazon and Lulu for ridiculously small amounts of money) then let me say you have missed a treat. If you want a flavour think Tom Sharpe meets Flashman in a medieval setting.
But the Tory slogan at GE2015 has already been written - "Vote UKIP get Labour" Should knock UKIP to about 5%
How does voting UKIP get you Labour ???
Its also remeniscent of 2010's Conservative message of 'Vote Yellow Get Brown' which totally failed to stop people voting Yellow.
If the Conservatives want to win in 2015 they need to give reasons why people should actively vote Conservative - this is what they realised between 1979 and 1992.
There's something in that, but if you to ask what the most memorable campaign images from 1979 and 1992 were, I'd be surprised if they weren't "Labour isn't Working" and "Labour's Tax Bombshell".
Anyway, the Tories will campaign on the positive topic of the economy. The question is whether that will be enough to overcome Labour's very significant inbuilt advantage.
But in 1979 the Conservatives were trying to win votes directly from Labour and in 1992 they were trying to stop Labour winning votes directly from them.
UKIP voters now are people who have chosen to reject both Labour and the Conservatives.
So the Conservatives saying Labour is crap or Labour saying the Conservatives are crap wont impress UKIP voters as they already believe both are crap.
And the problem with campaigning on the economy is that the government debt will be highlighted.
Going to be difficult to explain how its increased by £600bn when people have been led to believe than 'austerity' has been 'paying it down'.
Mr. Richard, it may well reflect the rising negativity, mostly by the left (who swap votes to 'stop Tories') of politics. Both sides are just convincing lots of people they're crap, so people are looking elsewhere.
Also, 'paying down the deficit' is deliberately misleading, and nonsense. You don't 'pay down' (what happened to paying off? And why has writing losses off become writing-down?) a deficit, you reduce it. Of course, if the media had its brain in gear politicians of all colours couldn't get away with such nonsense.
On topic, if Cameron wants to keep his job he knows what to do:
"I have long advocated FPTP as a way to give the voters a clear choice between two alternatives, one of which will form a government. But the success of UKIP in last week's European elections shows that too many voters now reject the two main parties for this system to function effectively. The government will thereby be legislating for a change to Proportional Representation, in time for the next General Election in 2015"
On topic, if Cameron wants to keep his job he knows what to do:
"I have long advocated FPTP as a way to give the voters a clear choice between two alternatives, one of which will form a government. But the success of UKIP in last week's European elections shows that too many voters now reject the two main parties for this system to function effectively. The government will thereby be legislating for a change to Proportional Representation, in time for the next General Election in 2015"
He couldn't possibly get it through the Commons due to Labour lining up against it and a good chunk of Tory defectors. He'd be slammed by the press and other MPs for trying to make the change without a referendum and then he'd be slammed again for failing and look weak.
Mr. Richard, it may well reflect the rising negativity, mostly by the left (who swap votes to 'stop Tories') of politics. Both sides are just convincing lots of people they're crap, so people are looking elsewhere.
Also, 'paying down the deficit' is deliberately misleading, and nonsense. You don't 'pay down' (what happened to paying off? And why has writing losses off become writing-down?) a deficit, you reduce it. Of course, if the media had its brain in gear politicians of all colours couldn't get away with such nonsense.
'Writing down' is an accounting term.
What happens is you 'write down down' the value of an asset, which causes the losses ('writing off' the value of an asset = writing down to zero)
1. Should have formed a minority government, or let Brown struggle on til Labour utterly collapsed
2. Should have nailed the boundary changes to the AV referendum, and made each dependant on the other
3. Should have offered Salmond Devomax, securing the union and screwing Labour in Westminster
Cameron is a good statesman and an utterly useless politician, perhaps the worst political operator to reside in number 10 since Heath. The result will probably be a calamitously mediocre Miliband government, as bad as Hollande's in France, and maybe the breakup of the UK.
Salaam from Dubai airport.
Devo max was not offered as Tories were certain indy was only wanted by 30 to 35% of people. Problem is the don't knows in the middle were more receptive to a new start than anticipated, even with a daily dose on BBC of NO propaganda press releases repeated verbatim on BBC North Britainshire radio and on NorthBritainshire tonight.
Had they known it was in bracket 40 to 55% on day, as it will be, then a minor option on Crown Estates and air guns would have been offered to influence that number a little downwards. Not much was needed to keep waverers onside; sadly they went for the all or nothing and then complained when Scots Govt cleverly offered a devomax-MAX option, close enough to keep some undecideds happy, with Trident an issue that was swaying voters on the ground.
Combined Green/SNP vote is around 50% again now, both for Scottish and Euro elections, as it was in 2011, so this indy vote will be close, particularly if a dreich day and lots of soft NO's stay at home. Postals will decide this, so a good ground campaign may make a difference.
From an Old Labour perspective the SNP is a scab herding enterprise, their aim is to set the working peoples of Scotland, Wales, England and Ireland at each other's throats so as to benefit the boss class.
Well, it depends who's trespassing on whose grounds. Think of the age of the earth. 19th century denial (or whatever) of the geological age of the earth was certainly very largely on religious grounds in terms of the primary interpretation of the Bible such as Genesis ch. 1. But refutation, or rather argument for a very great age, was based on scientific evidence - fieldwork, analysis, synthetic considerations of planetary evolution, and later on radioisotope evidence, much of which was produced by avowedly Christian scientists.
Likewise, today, certain Christian sects do not believe in Darwinian evolution - but bcome fair ground for rational, i.e. scientific, debate once they start to say that.
The wider world views/motivations/metaphysics of the main combatants in the age of the warth debate were of course consistent with their positions - but the scientific evidence could be discussed and analysed independent of the reasons in question. If I were to suggest that Tyrannosaurus lived 100 million years ago that would be independent of whether I was an atheist, Buddhist, or had shares in a company making plastic dinosaurs.
A bottle of good malt, an open fire, and comfortable armchairs, we could all come to an agreement eventually. But going "tribal" is pretty good fun as well.
Yep. Why should we believe the experts and scientists? Just because they know more than we do. Especially when it is convenient for us to not believe them and to continue our comforts a bit longer.
"... I have a better track record on F1 than they [IPCC] do on global warming."
Spiffing comment, that captures the argument, nicely. Mind you, I have never been tempted to be on the IPCCs predictions.
"If you believe in someone just because they have a lab coat then you're no better than a member of the faithful awed by a vicar's dog collar."
Isn't that attitude very similar to a member of the Catholic Church in the days of Galileo. The consensus of the wise men is that the sun moves round the Earth, any evidence to the contrary is the wok of deniers and must be suppressed. I am also minded to consider the attitude of the Mayan's et al. "We must keep sacrificing people otherwise the end of the world will happen" said their wise men is all too similar to those that say if we don't keep cutting carbon emissions we will leave the planet "a polluted and denuded husk". More recently, in the discussions of the big bang and the development of the universe the scientific consensus was for many years that X was happening and only a few academics suggested that it was in fact Y. The latter group were eventually proved correct.
Thinking about it, look back through history in fields as diverse as astronomy and medicine, the "scientific consensus" has been proved wrong so often that it is astonishing that apparently sane and intelligent people will still go with it.
I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with religion. Religion is a matter of belief, and that's fine, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. It is however a massive error to base policy on religion masquerading as science.
1. Should have formed a minority government, or let Brown struggle on til Labour utterly collapsed
2. Should have nailed the boundary changes to the AV referendum, and made each dependant on the other
3. Should have offered Salmond Devomax, securing the union and screwing Labour in Westminster
Cameron is a good statesman and an utterly useless politician, perhaps the worst political operator to reside in number 10 since Heath. The result will probably be a calamitously mediocre Miliband government, as bad as Hollande's in France, and maybe the breakup of the UK.
Salaam from Dubai airport.
Devo max was not offered as Tories were certain indy was only wanted by 30 to 35% of people. Problem is the don't knows in the middle were more receptive to a new start than anticipated, even with a daily dose on BBC of NO propaganda press releases repeated verbatim on BBC North Britainshire radio and on NorthBritainshire tonight.
Had they known it was in bracket 40 to 55% on day, as it will be, then a minor option on Crown Estates and air guns would have been offered to influence that number a little downwards. Not much was needed to keep waverers onside; sadly they went for the all or nothing and then complained when Scots Govt cleverly offered a devomax-MAX option, close enough to keep some undecideds happy, with Trident an issue that was swaying voters on the ground.
Combined Green/SNP vote is around 50% again now, both for Scottish and Euro elections, as it was in 2011, so this indy vote will be close, particularly if a dreich day and lots of soft NO's stay at home. Postals will decide this, so a good ground campaign may make a difference.
From an Old Labour perspective the SNP is a scab herding enterprise, their aim is to set the working peoples of Scotland, Wales, England and Ireland at each other's throats so as to benefit the boss class.
Comments
A conspiracy perpetrated by the majority of scientists and politicians?
Right.....I can see where you are coming from.
The results of the YouGov survey, which questioned more than 1,000 Welsh adults on how they would vote, found that 62% answered No when asked if Scotland should be independent, with just 16% saying Yes.
The results also showed nearly three-quarters either thought the decision would be bad for Wales (32%) or neither good or bad (41%), with just 10% saying it would be good for the principality.
Remarkably, 41% of Plaid Cymru voters at the last Westminster elections would say no to Scotland becoming independent, with 48% would be in favour.
Further poll details revealed only 12% support for Wales becoming independent, with nearly three-quarters polled (74%) against, while only 9% believed Wales would be economically better-off if independent, compared to 69% who believed Wales would be worse-off.
There was even less faith that independence would be good for personal finances, with just 6% saying it would leave them better off , 54% saying it would leave them worse off and just over one-in-five (21%) saying it would not make a difference.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/wales-says-no-scottish-independence-7007185
Keep the Nobel prize, but send the cash to my bank account.
Carry-on son....
David Herdson says:
"To look at it another way, is the improving economy really likely to switch many votes from Lab to Con" and suggests the answer is No.
Surely the question should be "...is the improving economy really likely to switch many votes from Lab to Lib Dem" to which the answer is maybe.
Lib Dems claimed to go into coalition to stabilise the financial position of a failing economy and to avoid having a minority Government which would find it hard to act decisively.
So far the Lib Dems have been puinished by the electorate for their decision. Why is this? Are the electorate unable to grasp the logic of the argument? Are the electorate so selfish that they resent the Lib Dems helping to keep spending increases down, if only modestly?
Surely there will be some 2010 Lib Dem voters who have moved to Labour who will consider voting Lib Dem again as the economy improves.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/jellyfish-stings-david-cameron-pm-hurt-after-ignoring-advice-of-locals-while-on-holiday-9269324.html
Cue for unfunny cartoons by Steve Bell.
progress
"... when it [scepticism] goes against the vast majority of expert opinion, it is really up to you to prove it's [global warming] non existence."
No, it isn't. People are advocating significant changes and prophesying doom upon all the world if they are not listened to. These same people have a recent history of failing to predict the global temperature, the most basic measure of whether or not they are even possibly right (the temperature can rise naturally).
If I predicted every F1 bet incorrectly over the last 5 years and then improved my self-assessment from 90% to 95% people would think me a raving idiot (and stop following my tips). The IPCC has done much the same, except, of course, I have a better track record on F1 than they do on global warming.
If you believe in someone just because they have a lab coat then you're no better than a member of the faithful awed by a vicar's dog collar. A scientific argument's strength or weakness does not rest on the people advocating it but the argument itself. If you have to resort to saying "A scientist believes it, so it must be true" it's a good sign the argument is too weak to stand on its own merit.
The left's problem is that those arguments they have lost - economic - continue being relevant to the country. Therefore they need to find grounds to attack the right while not admitting that they basically agree with them. This is where you get the 'cut with kindness' motif which soon devolves into 'good/bad' and 'motives' as lines of attack.
By contrast those arguments the right has lost - social change - cause ructions for a while but then settle down and are accepted and most people move on (eg abortion or gay marriage), so the right don't have to argue about it any more. Where there are people who continue to fight those social battles (for religious reasons, for example) you see the same personalisation and arguments based on motives. But these aren't mainstream voices
Scientific consensus can be disregarded because you don't like it, preferring instead the dwindling band of people who deny that it is even a possibility?
Fair enough, there is always room for mavericks.
That's what the original 100% guaranteed, all the scientists agree, 100% correct, we couldn't possibly be wrong global warming theory said.
Quantum mechanics predicts and is proved right - it is science.
Climate change ... increasing CO2 increased temperatures in the lab. It is one of a myriad factors involved in potential climate change. Does it predict and can it be tested?
One of our greatest scientists said ... "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
It may not be wrong, but if you can't predict, you can't say it's right.
If these scientists are right why did they predict rising temperatures and get it wrong?
It's also a legitimate criticism that much of the data appears to be suspect.
I have the potential to be Prime Minister.
I'm not.
Chaos theory, A butterfly flaps it's wings in the rain forest, and a hurricane hits Britain?
Weather science is still in it's infancy despite the advent of "super computers", No model exactly predicts events such as weather patterns, but the probability of them being right improves year on year as the science improves.
Most of the people involved were basing everything on the data collated by a tiny number of people like an upside down pyramid so if the point of the pyramid was wrong the whole pyramid was wrong.
(Also the argument is that temperatures did rise for a bit and then flat-lined not that the temps didn't rise at all. I assume the individuals involved thought the flat-lining was temporary but after "temporary" went past ten years someone cracked.)
If you are saying that something is complex and unpredictable, then it is not a scientific explanation.
"Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.”
Its the language of (some) AGW proponents that alarms me - those who are sceptical are called 'deniers' - that's the language of religion, not science.....
The UEA were a victim of a political conspiracy.
"It was alright for a while, but then I got stung."
"Portuguese Man O' War?"
"Well I never saw him in uniform...."
Most of the sailors agreed with Copernicus, it just wasn't a healthy option to state it openly.
The Establishment at the time took a dim view of criticism. but in the fulness of time, even the deniers stopped burning people for pointing out the obvious.
There is hope for me yet.
'We was washed overboard Mr Horne!'
'Drag yourselves up on deck?'
'No, just dressed casual'......
Mr. Briskin, Abby?
Spiffing comment, that captures the argument, nicely. Mind you, I have never been tempted to be on the IPCCs predictions.
"If you believe in someone just because they have a lab coat then you're no better than a member of the faithful awed by a vicar's dog collar."
Isn't that attitude very similar to a member of the Catholic Church in the days of Galileo. The consensus of the wise men is that the sun moves round the Earth, any evidence to the contrary is the wok of deniers and must be suppressed. I am also minded to consider the attitude of the Mayan's et al. "We must keep sacrificing people otherwise the end of the world will happen" said their wise men is all too similar to those that say if we don't keep cutting carbon emissions we will leave the planet "a polluted and denuded husk". More recently, in the discussions of the big bang and the development of the universe the scientific consensus was for many years that X was happening and only a few academics suggested that it was in fact Y. The latter group were eventually proved correct.
Thinking about it, look back through history in fields as diverse as astronomy and medicine, the "scientific consensus" has been proved wrong so often that it is astonishing that apparently sane and intelligent people will still go with it.
I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with religion. Religion is a matter of belief, and that's fine, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. It is however a massive error to base policy on religion masquerading as science.
There is a big difference.
"Religion is a matter of belief"
So is money, But that doesn't stop the majority believing it is real, or indeed many actively worshiping it.
People believe that scientists are unbiased. They are wrong.
A theory is proposed, it is tested, it begins to fail. Often the response is to tweak it to take account of the new facts. Only when the tweaks become ludicrously laboured do the true believers gradually fall away. It all takes time.
The Climate changers may be spot-on. They may not. You will not get a sudden rush to convert even if it is not. They will tweak and tweak.
Fred Hoyle was a great scientist. But he hated the Big Bang Theory (even though he coined the phrase) and stuck to his Steady State Theory despite all the evidence accumulating against it. It's human nature/
What's for sure is that without a majority in either Parliament Labour had no say in the decision at the time, which was by Mr Cameron and his advisors in some unknown proportion (no doubt on the mistaken assumption they were getting one over on Mr Salmond).
And another factor as discussed recently (in a previous thread?) - devomax for Mr Miliband means pulling all the Labour MPs out of Westminster permanently for all except central matters such as defence and foreign policy. With the fair chance that as UK PM he'd have to rule over a restless subject nation which voted for a different political party. And I'm not talking about Scotland.
We may be having an impact, but that's far from proven.
[Incidentally, you've probably seen it already but there's a short Sir Edric story up on my website: http://thaddeuswhite.weebly.com/1/post/2014/04/sir-edric-and-the-vampire-lord.html].
Mr. Divvie, I believe I have. Whilst I concur with his economic approach, broadly, and utterly disagree with Labour's, the use of deficit deniers propagates a distasteful use in language and should stop.
Mr. Smarmeron, the right of someone to worship what they like is fine, so long as they don't want to add hundreds of pounds to everybody's fuel bills to pay for it.
May I respectfully suggest that you do some reading and research into the Atlee government. You will, I am sure, find facts in the documents that you will not like. You may also, if you are honest to yourself, discover that Atlee and his government (PMs were very much first among equals in those days) didn't rebuild an economy, rather he set the seal on its long term decline.
I agree, there are a lot of people who will cling to something even when it becomes irrational.
You only have to look at the countries finances to work that out.
David Cameron overruled George Osborne on appointment of new female minister after resignation of Maria Miller, Conservative sources disclose
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10775663/Cameron-trims-sails-of-Chancellor-by-blocking-his-pick-for-promotion.html
https://twitter.com/AbbyMartin
I did pick up on the new Sir Edrics story from twitter. I have it bookmarked and am looking forward to reading it this evening (when Herself will give me time and quiet to enjoy it, as I am sure I will).
****
For those who might have missed Mr. Dancer's first expose of the life of Sir Edric (Sir Edric's Temple, available on Amazon and Lulu for ridiculously small amounts of money) then let me say you have missed a treat. If you want a flavour think Tom Sharpe meets Flashman in a medieval setting.
UKIP voters now are people who have chosen to reject both Labour and the Conservatives.
So the Conservatives saying Labour is crap or Labour saying the Conservatives are crap wont impress UKIP voters as they already believe both are crap.
And the problem with campaigning on the economy is that the government debt will be highlighted.
Going to be difficult to explain how its increased by £600bn when people have been led to believe than 'austerity' has been 'paying it down'.
Also, 'paying down the deficit' is deliberately misleading, and nonsense. You don't 'pay down' (what happened to paying off? And why has writing losses off become writing-down?) a deficit, you reduce it. Of course, if the media had its brain in gear politicians of all colours couldn't get away with such nonsense.
"I have long advocated FPTP as a way to give the voters a clear choice between two alternatives, one of which will form a government. But the success of UKIP in last week's European elections shows that too many voters now reject the two main parties for this system to function effectively. The government will thereby be legislating for a change to Proportional Representation, in time for the next General Election in 2015"
What happens is you 'write down down' the value of an asset, which causes the losses ('writing off' the value of an asset = writing down to zero)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-27062378
Poor lambs, working over the holidays
Likewise, today, certain Christian sects do not believe in Darwinian evolution - but bcome fair ground for rational, i.e. scientific, debate once they start to say that.
The wider world views/motivations/metaphysics of the main combatants in the age of the warth debate were of course consistent with their positions - but the scientific evidence could be discussed and analysed independent of the reasons in question. If I were to suggest that Tyrannosaurus lived 100 million years ago that would be independent of whether I was an atheist, Buddhist, or had shares in a company making plastic dinosaurs.
But going "tribal" is pretty good fun as well.
Full speed ahead, there are no icebergs here...