TCPoliticalBetting - what a peculiar post. Gordon Brown was elected unopposed, and it would have been a bit hard for Kinnock not to support his own candidacy.
At least a year before Blair went Kinnock was urging Blair to stand down and let Brown take over.
We aren't talking about breadline existence. If someone chooses to spend their money feeding cats or smoking cigarettes rather than staying warm or eating that is their choice. There are people being hit by the bedroom tax plus council tax changes who really are on the breadline, not choosing between their sad habits and eating or heating
@TIM, even for you that is odious and unnecessary.
@TC We aren't talking about breadline existence. If someone chooses to spend their money feeding cats or smoking cigarettes rather than staying warm or eating that is their choice. ....
Tim, since you clearly do not have a paid job (unless its Labour/Unions) based on the amount of time you are on here. You are either: a kept man, a trustafarian or on benefits. Which is it?
@JamesKelly - Reality is reality (Darling ran out of money to pay salaries and other current costs at the end of the third week in every month, and only a complete loon would think that sustainable), but my point was more about Labour's hypocrisy and the naivety of its supporters.
Edit: Still, I'm pleased to see you say that an independent Scotland would follow the Nordic path of sound public finances, running surpluses in the good times, and investing oil revenues rather than wasting them on welfare. Excellent stuff.
Richard, we can only hope that the SNP will manage things better than westminster.
From the moment I read the full IPCC report on the day of its release I knew it was a crock of shit, and began to become a sceptic (I'd been a believer until then). Crap pseudo-science pedalled around to keep people in funded posts.
With me it was when they started calling it climate change instead of global warming. I thought ello ello something funny going on and then you swot up on it a bit and WTF!
"Conservatives are preparing for an appalling set of county council election results in May, with one closely involved cabinet member predicting that "terrible will be a great result for us".
Tell me what you think about someone smoking 20 a day claiming they haven't enough money to eat.
I thought you were against benefit claimants being paid with a card they couldn't use to buy smokes, booze or Sky TV? Guess this now means you are now in favour? Can we expect the Labour party to change their view on this?
"Conservatives are preparing for an appalling set of county council election results in May, with one closely involved cabinet member predicting that "terrible will be a great result for us".
"Rather than deciding whether manmade global warming is happening or not (it probably is, though it's only one factor out of many, and not necessarily the most significant), we'd be better off discussing whether it's a good thing or not, and whether we'd be better off adapting to it or trying to reverse it."
Agreed. "East Anglia - better as land or sea?" is a question that just hasn't been explored in enough depth yet.
It's also high time we had a good think about whether a global thermonuclear war would be all bad.
I have no problem with the cautionary principle as applied to climate change, and for the govt to mitigate against its risks. What I would like is for the investment to be in better flood defencesin places like East Anglia etc rather than implementing Kyoto when no one else is doing it. If Kyoto was implemented in full it would only delay the warming for a few years, better sea defences will last for decades or more. In addition civil engineering provides a lot of jobs and investment in infrastructure. Carbon taxes just offshore jobs and investment.
At least a year before Blair went Kinnock was urging Blair to stand down and let Brown take over.
Probably because he was one of the few people privy to the private discussions and assurances both of them gave to each other on the when and the how of Blair's standing down. Kinnock was the one who fathered New Labour after all so he became the mediator between Blair and Brown when things got icy. As they so frequently did.
I once drafted an article entitled "thermonuclear war - the pensions implications" before thinking better of trying to get it published in one of the trade rags.
"... we can only hope that the SNP will manage things better than westminster"
Indeed, Mr. G., and it is hard to imagine they produce anything even worse that the Westminster crowd have managed in the past seventy years or so. However, I wouldn't bet on it, especially from whence they would be starting.
Tell me what you think about someone smoking 20 a day claiming they haven't enough money to eat.
I thought you were against benefit claimants being paid with a card they couldn't use to buy smokes, booze or Sky TV? Guess this now means you are now in favour? Can we expect the Labour party to change their view on this?
@Peter, I was referring to Tim's fixation with plato. He introduced the cigarettes as a smokescreen( pardon the pun ) just to enable him to berate Plato for daring to have cats. You obviously don't follow the site much , he has lots of form on this and it is odious and nasty.
ps: If you think I support labour then I can only presume you are a newcomer.
ps, ps: I would have all benefits paid by vouchers that could not be exchanged for any of the items you quote.
Most of these county councils were fought in 2005 so a clear comparison with the GE is available. There will be no running away. Labour in mid-term need to do better than in 2005.
"... we can only hope that the SNP will manage things better than westminster"
Indeed, Mr. G., and it is hard to imagine they produce anything even worse that the Westminster crowd have managed in the past seventy years or so. However, I wouldn't bet on it, especially from whence they would be starting.
@Hurst, my expectations of politicians is set very low, best I can hope for is that they will be the best of a bad lot. Of more concern is that labour would get back in control and then we would be doomed.
Belief in the euro = Belief in manmade global warming.
Both are replacements for God in the human mind, hence their inability to yield to evidence or logic.
Discuss.
They're very different situations. We have to distinguish between the experts (be they economists or scientists) and the politicians. In the case of the Euro, the economists were always split, and have now turned decidedly negative, while the politicians carry on believing. In the case of manmade global warming, the scientists continue to come down strongly on one side. I'm also pretty sure that if my test, twenty years of flatness on the five year rolling average, happened, that the scientific profession would become rather split on the issue.
Fair enough. However it is noticeable that both theologies - the euro, AGW - are particularly virulent amongst the kind of people - liberal-left, middle class, educated, European (of course) - who have found themselves exiled from religious faith (for whatever reasons) and now have a God module in their brains which desperately needs filling.
Given that man is born to believe, these people will consequently believe in anything: from a single currency to animal rights to an apocalyptic eco-vision - just as long as it forms and shapes their lives in a way that God is meant to do, in mentally healthy people.
Marxism did the same for a previous generation.
EDIT: for the purposes of clarity, I am not a complete AGW skeptic. Indeed I used to be a believer, until my step grandfather (a schizophrenic pomologist from Canada, no kidding) showed me that the data was being skewed.
Now I am a confused agnostic on the issue, with a tendency towards suspicion of the warmists, because of the mindset I describe above.
I agree - although I'd argue the mindset you talk about isn't just European, although the continent is where it has an absolute lock on upper-middle class culture. It also exists in large amounts in parts of the US. Certain colleges, New York City etc. It can be particularly arrogant and dismissive, and it causes a lot of people to be naturally repelled by it. I completely understand that. However, you can't allow yourself to reject a viewpoint because some of the people that hold it are irritating.
Changing the subject completely: John Loony, who posts on here far less than he used to and I wish he would, has just done a series of tweets about the trade unions in the 80s. Made me feel quite nostalgic. The electricians having punch ups with the boiler makers, demarcation, differential grades, standing four-square behind someone or other, beer and sandwiches at No 10., smoke filled rooms, composite motions, the TUC being covered on national news and all the rest - quite brought a tear to my eye. Ah, when a sparks couldn't drill a hole through a piece of metal because that was the job of a plate-fitter and thousands of men would walk out (and lose a day's pay) if he tried - those were the days.
Sound like you need to invest in someone doing a thermal image check of your house. Perhaps you need to look at some form of insulation to flooring and underfloor heating, insulation of walls etc. With some older houses, it can cost tens of thousands to make them anywhere near efficient in retaining heat.
Yet in most cases this will be repaid in terms of lower energy bills. There are government schemes to do this via a low interest loan, and I would suggest those in such situations look into the the Green Deal.
As I see some comments on welfare reforms, I share the Italian situation if someone is interested.
It used to be:
If in the 2 years before your last day of work you have at least 52 weeks of contributions, you are entitled to unemployment benefits for a period going from 8 months to 1 year depending on your age (over 50 get the full year). How much did you get? It started at 60% of your salary (average of last 3 months) going down to 40% after 1 year.
If you don't match these requirements, you could have still got the mini unemployment benefit. You needed just 78 days of work in the last 52 weeks. This benefit would run for up to 6 months. You would get around 35-40% of your salary.
However, there was another route...the so called "mobility lists". They could have been used just by workers employed by firms with more than 15 workers. If placed on these lists, you would have got to benefits for 1 to 3 years depending on age. A further year is added if you are in the South of Italy. It starts at 80% of your salary going down as the time pass.
They become much used (and abused) in the last decade. Companies used to even pay you an extra to voluntary offer yourself for next firings....it became a sort of a pre pension in some cases. This causes some problems when the reform pension kicked in 2012 (because many people accepted these offers thinking they would have reached the magic 40 by the end of the mobility periord. In the meantime, they raised the pension requirements to 41-42+ years).
New reform ...it starts in 2012 but it will be fully effective by 2016:
the full unmployment period is raised to 10 (fired workers under 50 year old)-18 months (over 55). How much do you get? For low incomers (below 1,180 monthly euros), roughly 75% of your salary at the start, lowerd to 45% by the end of the 18 months. For those earning more than 1,180 euro, it's 75% of the 1180 + 25% of the difference between your average salary in the last year prior to the redundancy and 1180. Also in this case, it decreases by 30 points by the end of the period.
If you haven't worked for 52 weeks in the last 2 years prior of losing your current job but you have worked for at least 13 weeks in the last year, you can still get a "mini" benefit. How you long did you get it? For half of the time you worked in the previous 52 weeks (so if you have worked 14 weeks, it is 7 weeks of benefits). How much? Same % as above.
The lenght of ordinary unemployment benefits have been increased as you see. However, the mobility list period is decressing. By 2016 it should go down to 18 months just like a normal unemployment benefit.
Tell me what you think about someone smoking 20 a day claiming they haven't enough money to eat.
@TIM, I agree totally that food and heat should come before cigarettes, my issue was with the pet part of it.
ps: I do not smoke or have pets so no skin in the game.
I have some sympathy for Plato. Her finances clearly run rather tight, and internet and pets are close to her heart. It is easy to be caught out by an unusually long cold winter and it seems she has been.
In the longer term she may need a more financially sustainable arrangement, perhaps moving to a smaller accommodation, but at present she deserves sympathy. At the moment it is clear who is the nasty party on PB, droning on about "bedroom tax" yet mocking someone in a similar predicament.
I should have thought that the best you can hope for is that the Scottish Politicians get round the table and swear a binding oath to never, ever to repeat the mistakes that Westminster politicians have made since WW2.
I agree that if you go independent and Labour get in you will be totally screwed though.
And if you take it back further the rises and falls continue. It was kind-of-warm when the dinosaurs were around too
One of my friends works at the Hadley Centre in the MetO as is therefore funded by taxpayers money to run their model simulations. I think she's still speaking to me, but only just.
Avast, Mr Llama! "Theo" as in Theos meaning "God".
Dunno, Doc. Its all Greek to me. Maybe the word you were originally looking for is, "agnostic". Saves any confusion with Theo, who my wife reminds me, is the bloke who used to run the restaurant just by Putney Bridge.
And if you take it back further the rises and falls continue. It was kind-of-warm when the dinosaurs were around too
One of my friends works at the Hadley Centre in the MetO as is therefore funded by taxpayers money to run their model simulations. I think she's still speaking to me, but only just.
This debate can be very frustrating, because one has to repeat counterarguments to the same point again and again, never get a response, but then someone else pops up, doesn't read the thread and says "here's this new point!" and it's the same one again.
Yes, there are natural causes of climate change. That doesn't mean the current changes are down to natural causes. Forest fires happen naturally. That doesn't mean we should assume they all are.
Changing the subject completely: John Loony, who posts on here far less than he used to and I wish he would, has just done a series of tweets about the trade unions in the 80s. Made me feel quite nostalgic. The electricians having punch ups with the boiler makers, demarcation, differential grades, standing four-square behind someone or other, beer and sandwiches at No 10., smoke filled rooms, composite motions, the TUC being covered on national news and all the rest - quite brought a tear to my eye. Ah, when a sparks couldn't drill a hole through a piece of metal because that was the job of a plate-fitter and thousands of men would walk out (and lose a day's pay) if he tried - those were the days.
My train of thought was sparked by the appearance on Election '83 of Gavin Lairrrrrrrrrrrrd, former general Secretary of the Eat-Poo Union, who famously referred to the "Labour Parrrrrrrrrrrty". I went to Wikipedia to remind myself which Union he was leader of, but he's not even on Wikipedia.
No matter for the reason, and perhaps it is sad to see that Gavin Laird has been expunged from what passes as popular modern history (i.e. Wiki), but some of the greats are still there, Frank Chapple, Vic Feather, etc..
Good to see you posting here, by the way. You should do it more often, we need your common sense view of matters political.
AUEW: Allied Union of Engineering Workers AEU: Allied Engineering Union AEEU: Allied Engineering & Electrical Union EETPU: Electrical, Electronic, Technical & Plumbing Union Eat Poo: Private eye's nicknmae for EETPU Desert Island Discs: The website where I found the answer to the Gavin Laird question
No matter for the reason, and perhaps it is sad to see that Gavin Laird has been expunged from what passes as popular modern history (i.e. Wiki), but some of the greats are still there, Frank Chapple, Vic Feather, etc..
Good to see you posting here, by the way. You should do it more often, we need your common sense view of matters political.
The only reason I don't post comments here as often as I used to, is time. During the Croydon North by-election I didn't have time to trawl through the threads every day, and I sort-of still don't. I have a backlog of real life to catch up on - books to read, DVDs to watch, that sort of thing. I bought billions of DVDs in the last few months in a futile attempt to keep HMV in business.
Socrates believe me if you would (you seem to like the idea of belief) when I say I've read this debate carefully on both sides.
I'd like to start by questioning the proposition which underlies your point: 'the current changes'. That's the starting point of the whole fallacy, quite apart from then apportioning causes.
The statistics behind global warming are beginning to look distinctly flakey, quite aside from bunging the word anthropogenic in front of it. A whole raft of different data sets are beginning to point to something a lot less clearcut than was being confidently pedalled five years ago. So confidently pedalled indeed that a standard GCSE textbook has the statement 'that the earth is getting warmer is not questioned.'
Avast, Mr Llama! "Theo" as in Theos meaning "God".
Dunno, Doc. Its all Greek to me. Maybe the word you were originally looking for is, "agnostic". Saves any confusion with Theo, who my wife reminds me, is the bloke who used to run the restaurant just by Putney Bridge.
Well, I think theosceptic sounds to me like a good counterpart of Eurosceptic. Belike and all that!
I see David Miliband is leaving his role as Sunderland Deputy Chairman because Paolo Di Canio is a Fascist. I have no time for Di Canio's views, although he says he is no racist, but it should be his management skills that should be the reason for his appointment and I doubt Miliband would have done the same with a communist or anarchist!
Reference to Cyril Smith 'rolling up his sleeves and getting stuck in' to the election campaign, despite reservations about the Liberal alliance with the SDP, perhaps has a slightly different context now given recent events.
Avast, Mr Llama! "Theo" as in Theos meaning "God".
Dunno, Doc. Its all Greek to me. Maybe the word you were originally looking for is, "agnostic". Saves any confusion with Theo, who my wife reminds me, is the bloke who used to run the restaurant just by Putney Bridge.
Well, I think theosceptic sounds to me like a good counterpart of Eurosceptic. Belike and all that!
You should try things the other way around - EUgnostic.
@Socrates. The data I have can not strip out claimant numbers across multiple benefits because there is almost certainly overlap in the claimant population.
So all your assertions were
a.Initially based on pensions b.Groundless speculation because you didn't have the data.
Which is what I've been trying to tell you.
You clearly (a) have not understood the actual assertions I made, and (b) have not understood my post at 3:23. I realise you probably can't follow up on my suggestion for a friend to help you out, as you likely do not have any, but perhaps you still maintain some contact with family members?
always fun watching the smearbot getting batted around the room.
It's a bit simplistic to say people on benefits shouldn't smoke - smoking not only assists with the symptoms, both positive and negative, of Schizophrenia, it also seems to have a preventative aspect. Given that only about 10 percent of people with Schizophrenia are employed at any given moment, it seems pretty obvious a large proportion of them are going to be on benefits.
@foxinsoxuk. " At the moment it is clear who is the nasty party on PB, droning on about "bedroom tax" yet mocking someone in a similar predicament."
Plato possibly more than any other right wing poster on here is completely unsympathetic to those in difficult circumstances. Her lack of insight is so striking I thought she was being ironic. That Tim or anyone else should point this out is hardly surprising
It's a bit simplistic to say people on benefits shouldn't smoke - smoking not only assists with the symptoms, both positive and negative, of Schizophrenia, it also seems to have a preventative aspect. Given that only about 10 percent of people with Schizophrenia are employed at any given moment, it seems pretty obvious a large proportion of them are going to be on benefits.
Taxes on smoking are some of the most regressive, as smoking rates have negative correlation with income. Homeless men have smoking rates of 90%, and single mothers 50%.
OT. Liam Byrne is being impressive. He's certainly giving IDS a torrid time. He's making him look like the brutal Tory his critics always imagined him to be.
Um, this is Liam "There Is No Money Left" Byrne we're talking about, right?
Some real nasty vibes on here. Seriously, keeping a cat costs next to nothing. (for the record i consider them loathsome creatures and own a border collie like all right thinking people should). Lighten up.
I've noticed a feeling in some sections of society that the poor are fair game to mock; every thing they do is reviewed and tutted at for signs of mistakes. Like the people who abused a single mother on welfare for daring to spend $5 on a cheap bottle of plonk on a friday night and call for vouchers.
I've never faced the eat / heat choice, but I imagine it must be brutal on the soul. A bit of arohanui for our fellow man wouldn't go amiss.
Mr. Foxinsoxuk [hard to know which bit of that to consider a surname ]:
you could argue smoking's amongst the most socially responsible activities. It provides huge sums in taxation, more than covering the health costs, and has a habit of killing people off before they start drawing pensions.
Of course, it's not good from the individual's perspective (or those around them). It's almost like the reverse paradox of thrift.
I also remember hearing that smoking helped air traffic controllers stay relaxed, and that when the total workplace ban was introduced there was a very significant number of near misses because their performance was impaired by the absence of cigarettes.
Mr. Stone, border collies are especially delightful hounds.
Incidentally, they also help their owners live longer (I think this is true of dogs generally) because they necessarily involve more exercise, through walks, and stroking them lowers the heart rate.
It's a bit simplistic to say people on benefits shouldn't smoke - smoking not only assists with the symptoms, both positive and negative, of Schizophrenia, it also seems to have a preventative aspect. Given that only about 10 percent of people with Schizophrenia are employed at any given moment, it seems pretty obvious a large proportion of them are going to be on benefits.
Taxes on smoking are some of the most regressive, as smoking rates have negative correlation with income. Homeless men have smoking rates of 90%, and single mothers 50%.
Im not having that, why don't they give up? There is no upside in smoking at all.
Single mothers that are hard up shouldn't be wasting money killing themselves when they could be using it to feed their children. Particularly if the money has been earned by someone else.
At the risk of speaking anecdotally, I used to smoke 20 a day for ten years and decided to give up in one months time on April 1st 2000 and just did. It was only difficult for about three days.
I don't normally get into discussions on climate or "climate change" as a lot of the propaganda from both sides seems to me to be inherently flawed.
At a simple level, I would argue that with seven billion human beings closely packed (in some areas) on the planet, small changes are likely to impact on millions of people and given the inability of many to function on a radically different lifestyle to the one they currently possess, that which disrupts the lifestyle is also likely to be traumatic.
For me, the bottom line is that IF our actions are either re-enforcing or counter-acting naturally occurring change mechanisms then there will be consequences the nature of which we cannot accurately predict. These may be benign and even advantageous for some areas but it seems inconceivable that there won't be those who suffer.
We aren't talking about breadline existence. If someone chooses to spend their money feeding cats or smoking cigarettes rather than staying warm or eating that is their choice. There are people being hit by the bedroom tax plus council tax changes who really are on the breadline, not choosing between their sad habits and eating or heating
@TIM, even for you that is odious and unnecessary.
Funny, to me it looked like par for the course from him.
"I've noticed a feeling in some sections of society that the poor are fair game to mock"
And no more so than on here. There's a solid block of right-wingers on here who make Norman Tebbit sound like a compassionate kitten which is why tonight's exchange is so bizarre and of course hypocritical
Mr. Stone, border collies are especially delightful hounds.
Incidentally, they also help their owners live longer (I think this is true of dogs generally) because they necessarily involve more exercise, through walks, and stroking them lowers the heart rate.
They are indeed, Morris.
The Australian variety is especially delightful - a little less effusive than the local variety, more laid back and philosophical.
It's a bit simplistic to say people on benefits shouldn't smoke - smoking not only assists with the symptoms, both positive and negative, of Schizophrenia, it also seems to have a preventative aspect. Given that only about 10 percent of people with Schizophrenia are employed at any given moment, it seems pretty obvious a large proportion of them are going to be on benefits.
Taxes on smoking are some of the most regressive, as smoking rates have negative correlation with income. Homeless men have smoking rates of 90%, and single mothers 50%.
Im not having that, why don't they give up? There is no upside in smoking at all.
Single mothers that are hard up shouldn't be wasting money killing themselves when they could be using it to feed their children. Particularly if the money has been earned by someone else.
At the risk of speaking anecdotally, I used to smoke 20 a day for ten years and decided to give up in one months time on April 1st 2000 and just did. It was only difficult for about three days.
<blockquote
Smoking and alcohol are powerful addictions, and addicts will often prioritise these over more rational spending decisions. I do not smoke, but smoking and its related behaviours are quite complex.
I think that both homeless men and single mothers get a certain camaraderie from shared smoking and it is often one of the few social interactions with others in the same situation. Understanding why they smoke can be an opening to rather more positive health and social interventions.
Comments
Theo-sceptic.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/01/conservatives-county-council-elections?CMP=twt_fd
8:08PM
@MalcolmG
Tell me what you think about someone smoking 20 a day claiming they haven't enough money to eat.
I thought you were against benefit claimants being paid with a card they couldn't use to buy smokes, booze or Sky TV? Guess this now means you are now in favour? Can we expect the Labour party to change their view on this?
Aaaargh, belike.
Indeed, Mr. G., and it is hard to imagine they produce anything even worse that the Westminster crowd have managed in the past seventy years or so. However, I wouldn't bet on it, especially from whence they would be starting.
ps: If you think I support labour then I can only presume you are a newcomer.
ps, ps: I would have all benefits paid by vouchers that could not be exchanged for any of the items you quote.
ps: I do not smoke or have pets so no skin in the game.
It used to be:
If in the 2 years before your last day of work you have at least 52 weeks of contributions, you are entitled to unemployment benefits for a period going from 8 months to 1 year depending on your age (over 50 get the full year).
How much did you get? It started at 60% of your salary (average of last 3 months) going down to 40% after 1 year.
If you don't match these requirements, you could have still got the mini unemployment benefit. You needed just 78 days of work in the last 52 weeks. This benefit would run for up to 6 months. You would get around 35-40% of your salary.
However, there was another route...the so called "mobility lists". They could have been used just by workers employed by firms with more than 15 workers. If placed on these lists, you would have got to benefits for 1 to 3 years depending on age. A further year is added if you are in the South of Italy. It starts at 80% of your salary going down as the time pass.
They become much used (and abused) in the last decade. Companies used to even pay you an extra to voluntary offer yourself for next firings....it became a sort of a pre pension in some cases. This causes some problems when the reform pension kicked in 2012 (because many people accepted these offers thinking they would have reached the magic 40 by the end of the mobility periord. In the meantime, they raised the pension requirements to 41-42+ years).
New reform ...it starts in 2012 but it will be fully effective by 2016:
the full unmployment period is raised to 10 (fired workers under 50 year old)-18 months (over 55).
How much do you get? For low incomers (below 1,180 monthly euros), roughly 75% of your salary at the start, lowerd to 45% by the end of the 18 months. For those earning more than 1,180 euro, it's 75% of the 1180 + 25% of the difference between your average salary in the last year prior to the redundancy and 1180. Also in this case, it decreases by 30 points by the end of the period.
If you haven't worked for 52 weeks in the last 2 years prior of losing your current job but you have worked for at least 13 weeks in the last year, you can still get a "mini" benefit. How you long did you get it? For half of the time you worked in the previous 52 weeks (so if you have worked 14 weeks, it is 7 weeks of benefits). How much? Same % as above.
The lenght of ordinary unemployment benefits have been increased as you see. However, the mobility list period is decressing. By 2016 it should go down to 18 months just like a normal unemployment benefit.
In the longer term she may need a more financially sustainable arrangement, perhaps moving to a smaller accommodation, but at present she deserves sympathy. At the moment it is clear who is the nasty party on PB, droning on about "bedroom tax" yet mocking someone in a similar predicament.
I should have thought that the best you can hope for is that the Scottish Politicians get round the table and swear a binding oath to never, ever to repeat the mistakes that Westminster politicians have made since WW2.
I agree that if you go independent and Labour get in you will be totally screwed though.
http://emergent-culture.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Temperature-range-chart.jpg
And if you take it back further the rises and falls continue. It was kind-of-warm when the dinosaurs were around too
One of my friends works at the Hadley Centre in the MetO as is therefore funded by taxpayers money to run their model simulations. I think she's still speaking to me, but only just.
Yes, there are natural causes of climate change. That doesn't mean the current changes are down to natural causes. Forest fires happen naturally. That doesn't mean we should assume they all are.
An unlikely ally?
Marcher Lord (@MarcherLord1)
01/04/2013 09:05
Beat #Poverty by simply giving up Scratchcards, iPhones, fags at £7 a pkt, sunbeds and tattoos.
Gavin Laird was General Secretary of the AEUW (Engineeting section).
Have you really joined the Conservative Party or should today's date be taken into account?
No matter for the reason, and perhaps it is sad to see that Gavin Laird has been expunged from what passes as popular modern history (i.e. Wiki), but some of the greats are still there, Frank Chapple, Vic Feather, etc..
Good to see you posting here, by the way. You should do it more often, we need your common sense view of matters political.
AEU: Allied Engineering Union
AEEU: Allied Engineering & Electrical Union
EETPU: Electrical, Electronic, Technical & Plumbing Union
Eat Poo: Private eye's nicknmae for EETPU
Desert Island Discs: The website where I found the answer to the Gavin Laird question
I'd like to start by questioning the proposition which underlies your point: 'the current changes'. That's the starting point of the whole fallacy, quite apart from then apportioning causes.
The statistics behind global warming are beginning to look distinctly flakey, quite aside from bunging the word anthropogenic in front of it. A whole raft of different data sets are beginning to point to something a lot less clearcut than was being confidently pedalled five years ago. So confidently pedalled indeed that a standard GCSE textbook has the statement 'that the earth is getting warmer is not questioned.'
Well it is now.
LOL to coin a phrase.
Plato possibly more than any other right wing poster on here is completely unsympathetic to those in difficult circumstances. Her lack of insight is so striking I thought she was being ironic. That Tim or anyone else should point this out is hardly surprising
I saw them in time to get on the last three and made a few pounds. Much appreciated, Peter.
Bah. Over 10 days until China. It'll be interesting to see how the intra-team situations develop.
Yep, but it is Roger we are talking about too.
I've noticed a feeling in some sections of society that the poor are fair game to mock; every thing they do is reviewed and tutted at for signs of mistakes. Like the people who abused a single mother on welfare for daring to spend $5 on a cheap bottle of plonk on a friday night and call for vouchers.
I've never faced the eat / heat choice, but I imagine it must be brutal on the soul. A bit of arohanui for our fellow man wouldn't go amiss.
you could argue smoking's amongst the most socially responsible activities. It provides huge sums in taxation, more than covering the health costs, and has a habit of killing people off before they start drawing pensions.
Of course, it's not good from the individual's perspective (or those around them). It's almost like the reverse paradox of thrift.
I also remember hearing that smoking helped air traffic controllers stay relaxed, and that when the total workplace ban was introduced there was a very significant number of near misses because their performance was impaired by the absence of cigarettes.
Incidentally, they also help their owners live longer (I think this is true of dogs generally) because they necessarily involve more exercise, through walks, and stroking them lowers the heart rate.
BREAKING NEWS
Leeds United confirm that Neil Warnock has parted company with the club. More soon.
Single mothers that are hard up shouldn't be wasting money killing themselves when they could be using it to feed their children. Particularly if the money has been earned by someone else.
At the risk of speaking anecdotally, I used to smoke 20 a day for ten years and decided to give up in one months time on April 1st 2000 and just did. It was only difficult for about three days.
I don't normally get into discussions on climate or "climate change" as a lot of the propaganda from both sides seems to me to be inherently flawed.
At a simple level, I would argue that with seven billion human beings closely packed (in some areas) on the planet, small changes are likely to impact on millions of people and given the inability of many to function on a radically different lifestyle to the one they currently possess, that which disrupts the lifestyle is also likely to be traumatic.
For me, the bottom line is that IF our actions are either re-enforcing or counter-acting naturally occurring change mechanisms then there will be consequences the nature of which we cannot accurately predict. These may be benign and even advantageous for some areas but it seems inconceivable that there won't be those who suffer.
"I've noticed a feeling in some sections of society that the poor are fair game to mock"
And no more so than on here. There's a solid block of right-wingers on here who make Norman Tebbit sound like a compassionate kitten which is why tonight's exchange is so bizarre and of course hypocritical
Anyway, glad to be of service, especially as I did them in ew patents, and am feeling very mellow this evening.
The Australian variety is especially delightful - a little less effusive than the local variety, more laid back and philosophical.
They do cost a bit in lager tho.
Smoking and alcohol are powerful addictions, and addicts will often prioritise these over more rational spending decisions. I do not smoke, but smoking and its related behaviours are quite complex.
I think that both homeless men and single mothers get a certain camaraderie from shared smoking and it is often one of the few social interactions with others in the same situation. Understanding why they smoke can be an opening to rather more positive health and social interventions.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/7018/#Comment_7018
Thanks for the info. It is always interesting to see how these things are done in other countries.