"Her main message seems to be: listen to the scientists and act on their advice."
Why would politicians break the habit of a lifetime. Their basis for ignoring advice is that they look at the bigger picture - the electorate. Unfortunately, they don't do this either. They resemble Guardian readers in having an over-inflated opinion of their own judgement.
It is important for politicians to listen to scientists: and they have been listening: witness the large changes that have been already been made.
However scientists have one view; politicians need to weight up competing views and requirements. They often need to find a middle ground that minimises harm to areas other than the environment: scientists often aren't interested in that when they give their advice.
In addition, scientists aren't the only interested parties: they're also sometimes wrong.
As is often the case, cries of "The politicians aren't listening!" really mean "The politicians aren't doing what I want!"
Indeed. Scientists are scientists. they are not economists, or socialogists, or indeed politicans.
They can say what 'is' happening, and suggest solutions, but they can't and should not say 'what' to do. That's not their wheelhouse.
America's energy use is going up and up. Because news on climate related activity is so globalised, and in globalised news the actions of the US are first, 2nd fresh air with China and the EU in a photo for third... And if the US isn't doing much the rest ofs tarred with the ''nothing' brush.
That's a fair comment.
Which is why it's important for these protesters to congratulate/commend countries and organisations that are doing the right thing, even whilst encouraging them to do more.
Although I'd say there's a certain naive hatred of 'big industry/business' going on with many of these protesters as well. Witness an ex-colleague who cries about the evils of big business whilst working for a company whose sole income comes from some big-name big businesses. But those businesses are different because, well, reasons ...
I think too, there's a kind of romanticised view of what life was like in the pre-industrial world.
Danny Boyle exemplified that in his opening to the 2012 Olympics.
For the majority of the population it was pretty ghastly, tempered only by very strong religious belief.
The tempering of ghastly by religion didn’t work terribly well in places like Salem. Magnified if anything.
Salem was civilised, compared to Ancient Rome.
What's curious about the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is how massive intellectual advances went hand in hand with massive religious persecution and a big growth in the use of torture...
Is there anyone apart from Newton who came close to combining the two interests, though ?
John Calvin, Jean Bodin, James I, were extremely learned men who advocated the burning of witches and heretics.
Bodin is an interesting case. I'm not convinced either of the other two had much to do with 'massive intellectual advances'.
Mr. Fire, the climate changing is not something new. The climate has always changed.
We didn't have climate stasis before industrial activity began.
More importantly, there's actually a large overlap between what we should do if the global warming theory is right, and if it isn't (developing geothermal energy resources, likewise energy efficient devices and so on).
I find it very hard to trust a cult that demands obedience and calls itself science. You can have the credibility of science or the dogma of religion. Not both.
Mr. Fire, those in favour of man-made global warming as a theory also predicted an end to snow in the UK, a few years before we had the worst winter in a century. And then another very bad winter the year after. It doesn't persuade me of their predictive prowess.
I’ll-informed bloke off internet muddles up weather and climate. Again.
Thew fings worse than throwing in a spelling mistake whilst correcting someone
The major issue with Climate change policy is that the really negative consequences will be felt in 30-50 years time, well beyond the time horizon of current politicians who don’t look beyond the next election, and also many of the voters. Politicians should allocate a budget and let the experts get on with it.
She'll be proposing handcuffing someone to something before you know it Lot of colours being shown now the ludicrous Farage has a new recruiting sergeant
Yes lovely woman is our Ann , salt of the earth! I mean what can be more heartwarming than handcuffing a pregnant woman to a bed in prison to give birth ! Anyway she’ll fit in nicely with the rest of the hate peddling mob in the BP.
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?
She reminds me of the vampire kid from Let The Right One In. Her peely-wally sanctimony gets on my nerves and I'm a member of the Greens. Fuck knows what normal people who don't have six different types of vinegar in the kitchen think of her.
There is a thoughtful comment in The Times (highlight below):
“I think Greta comes across as a composed young woman but we are being asked to believe (i) she is an authority on climate change; (ii) to pretend that her Aspergers allows her to “see the truth”; (iii) that “nothing is being done” about climate change which is simply a lie; and (iv) take radical action with our economy that will impact the poorest and most vulnerable in our society - just the dull uninteresting sort of vulnerable (who don’t claim special protected status due to medical issues or sexuality) who might rely on a gas boiler or old banger to make life liveable.
There has been two weeks of climate change activism and not one practical solution and not one proposal that doesn’t involve “someone else” paying the price.”
I could come up with a dozen or more things that each and every one of us could be doing to reduce carbon emissions and help the environment without much effort. They are not instead of government action but as well as and if a majority of us did them it would make a difference, small maybe, but a difference and a whole lot better than doing nothing.
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
The major issue with Climate change policy is that the really negative consequences will be felt in 30-50 years time, well beyond the time horizon of current politicians who don’t look beyond the next election, and also many of the voters. Politicians should allocate a budget and let the experts get on with it.
Quite. There is no incentive to stop eating the burgers, if someone else suffers the heart attack.
Mr. Fire, the climate changing is not something new. The climate has always changed.
We didn't have climate stasis before industrial activity began.
More importantly, there's actually a large overlap between what we should do if the global warming theory is right, and if it isn't (developing geothermal energy resources, likewise energy efficient devices and so on).
I find it very hard to trust a cult that demands obedience and calls itself science. You can have the credibility of science or the dogma of religion. Not both.
You are correct that the climate has always been changing. What is alarming about the modern era is the *rate* it is changing, which is unprecedented.
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?
She reminds me of the vampire kid from Let The Right One In. Her peely-wally sanctimony gets on my nerves and I'm a member of the Greens. Fuck knows what normal people who don't have six different types of vinegar in the kitchen think of her.
There is a thoughtful comment in The Times (highlight below):
“I think Greta comes across as a composed young woman but we are being asked to believe (i) she is an authority on climate change; (ii) to pretend that her Aspergers allows her to “see the truth”; (iii) that “nothing is being done” about climate change which is simply a lie; and (iv) take radical action with our economy that will impact the poorest and most vulnerable in our society - just the dull uninteresting sort of vulnerable (who don’t claim special protected status due to medical issues or sexuality) who might rely on a gas boiler or old banger to make life liveable.
There has been two weeks of climate change activism and not one practical solution and not one proposal that doesn’t involve “someone else” paying the price.”
I could come up with a dozen or more things that each and every one of us could be doing to reduce carbon emissions and help the environment without much effort. They are not instead of government action but as well as and if a majority of us did them it would make a difference, small maybe, but a difference and a whole lot better than doing nothing.
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars.
My green plus points: no kids, no car. My green minus points: I fly quite a lot, eat a lot of meat, have a swimming pool.
Perhaps we could have individual carbon trading, with reducing limits over time.
She'll be proposing handcuffing someone to something before you know it Lot of colours being shown now the ludicrous Farage has a new recruiting sergeant
Yes lovely woman is our Ann , salt of the earth! I mean what can be more heartwarming than handcuffing a pregnant woman to a bed in prison to give birth ! Anyway she’ll fit in nicely with the rest of the hate peddling mob in the BP.
She was indicative of the utter garbage Major had left to pick from 92 to 97 The BP are troublesome. I voted to leave but frankly if we can't do it without being moronic creatures of hate then let's stay, vote Heidi into number 10 and destroy the LabCon axis.
Mr. Fire, perhaps. Hard to say given the climate goes back billions of years and we have good records for a few centuries at the absolute most (yes, I know information can be inferred from things like ice cores. However, my understanding is that whilst trends etc can be identified the information that can be revealed is not as explicit when it comes to rate of change as we would like).
Mr. Jonathan, as Saint Morris the Green, I forgive you. Go forth, but only on foot for that way the lowest carbon emissions result.
I could come up with a dozen or more things that each and every one of us could be doing to reduce carbon emissions and help the environment without much effort. They are not instead of government action but as well as and if a majority of us did them it would make a difference, small maybe, but a difference and a whole lot better than doing nothing.
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
Mass protests demanding government action aren't usually designed to elaborate detailed proposals - there is really no shortage of fairly far-reaching action that governments can take that will be painful for lots of us, so the protests are aboutr shifting opinion and making such changes acceptable. It would be unexpected if banners had things like "Bring forward the 2050 deadline for carbon neutrality to 2038" or "Raise taxes by 1% to subsidise solar panels on all older housing".
Individual action is important too, and the protests help change attitudes for those as well. Changing cars frequently is not always environmentally advisable because of the climate cost of production - the trick is to take best advice when you do change. But if we leave the decisions only to individuals we won't really tackle the issue effectively.
I'm not in general a fan of direct action. But they've succeeded in making it a subject of popular debate again to an extent that hundreds of weighty papers with detailed recommendations (e.g. the EAT:Lancet report) really have not.
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?
She reminds me of the vampire kid from Let The Right One In. Her peely-wally sanctimony gets on my nerves and I'm a member of the Greens. Fuck knows what normal people who don't have six different types of vinegar in the kitchen think of her.
There is a thoughtful comment in The Times (highlight below):
“I think Greta comes across as a composed young woman but we are being asked to believe (i) she is an authority on climate change; (ii) to pretend that her Aspergers allows her to “see the truth”; (iii) that “nothing is being done” about climate change which is simply a lie; and (iv) take radical action with our economy that will impact the poorest and most vulnerable in our society - just the dull uninteresting sort of vulnerable (who don’t claim special protected status due to medical issues or sexuality) who might rely on a gas boiler or old banger to make life liveable.
There has been two weeks of climate change activism and not one practical solution and not one proposal that doesn’t involve “someone else” paying the price.”
I could come up with a dozen or more things that each and every one of us could be doing to reduce carbon emissions and help the environment without much effort. They are not instead of government action but as well as and if a majority of us did them it would make a difference, small maybe, but a difference and a whole lot better than doing nothing.
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars.
My green plus points: no kids, no car. My green minus points: I fly quite a lot, eat a lot of meat, have a swimming pool.
Perhaps we could have individual carbon trading, with reducing limits over time.
No kids, no car, very few flights, no pool, but touch my meat and I'll burn the Amazon to the ground
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?
She reminds me of the vampire kid from Let The Right One In. Her peely-wally sanctimony gets on my nerves and I'm a member of the Greens. Fuck knows what normal people who don't have six different types of vinegar in the kitchen think of her.
There is a thoughtful comment in The Times (highlight below):
“I think Greta comes across as a composed young woman but we are being asked to believe (i) she is an authority on climate change; (ii) to pretend that her Aspergers allows her to “see the truth”; (iii) that “nothing is being done” about climate change which is simply a lie; and (iv) take radical action with our economy that will impact the poorest and most vulnerable in our society - just the dull uninteresting sort of vulnerable (who don’t claim special protected status due to medical issues or sexuality) who might rely on a gas boiler or old banger to make life liveable.
There has been two weeks of climate change activism and not one practical solution and not one proposal that doesn’t involve “someone else” paying the price.”
I could come up with a dozen or more things that each and every one of us could be doing to reduce carbon emissions and help the environment without much effort. They are not instead of government action but as well as and if a majority of us did them it would make a difference, small maybe, but a difference and a whole lot better than doing nothing.
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
I think we are in broad agreement about politicians. It's their judgement that is the issue. We have many now without any background in a subject beyond working to put over one viewpoint.
That includes scientists who make their living from climate change research, arguing for more research money, without caring about how their proposed changes effect the economy and the rest of us.
Whereas I’m sure there is no self-interest involved for all the investors in Oil & Gas, the car industry etc who are sceptical of climate change.
That's a great example of whataboutery. Well dome, sir!
(I'm also not denying what you say, although some o&g companies are getting their act together.)
So a quarter of European Parliament elections voters, probably more, will be 'vile bigots' in your eyes? Diehard Remainers still wonder why they lost
The quarter aren’t supporting leaving the EU , those Eurosceptic parties after seeing the shambles in the UK have decided to not make the same mistake . As for vile bigots I stand by my comments , Widdecombe is a loathsome creature and will fit in nicely with Farage .
The Brexit Party candidates are a broad church from Widdecombe to a former revolutionary Communist party member, the main thing that unites them is Brexit
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
You can always back out of a suicide pact.
It is a question of pandering. Leavers are very clear on what they don’t want and clueless about what they do want. A lot have alighted on no deal for no other reason than it requires no thought.
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?
She reminds me of the vampire kid from Let The Right One In. Her peely-wally sanctimony gets on my nerves and I'm a member of the Greens. Fuck knows what normal people who don't have six different types of vinegar in the kitchen think of her.
There is a thoughtful comment in The Times (highlight below):
“I think Greta comes across as a composed young woman but we are being asked to believe (i) she is an authority on climate change; (ii) to pretend that her Aspergers allows her to “see the truth”; (iii) that “nothing is being done” about climate change which is simply a lie; and (iv) take radical action with our economy that will impact the poorest and most vulnerable in our society - just the dull uninteresting sort of vulnerable (who don’t claim special protected status due to medical issues or sexuality) who might rely on a gas boiler or old banger to make life liveable.
There has been two weeks of climate change activism and not one practical solution and not one proposal that doesn’t involve “someone else” paying the price.”
I could come up with a dozen or more things that each and every one of us could be doing to reduce carbon emissions and help the environment without much effort. They are not instead of government action but as well as and if a majority of us did them it would make a difference, small maybe, but a difference and a whole lot better than doing nothing.
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
I think we are in broad agreement about politicians. It's their judgement that is the issue. We have many now without any background in a subject beyond working to put over one viewpoint.
That includes scientists who make their living from climate change research, arguing for more research money, without caring about how their proposed changes effect the economy and the rest of us.
I think that most of them care rather a lot.
A concerted global effort would pretty well pay for itself over the course of three decades. The economic costs of not acting now, if the scientists are right, are vast. Even if the chance of their being correct were 10%, it would be a reasonable investment.
But we are acting now. You can argue that it's not enough (and I have some sympathy with that view), but you can't argue that we're doing nothing.
But as other posters say, we can do much ourselves. The actions of these protesters aren't really designed to win over the general public, and may well alienate them.
I'll give a really simple example. My son is four, and whenever we go to the supermarket wants to go to the magazine aisle to buy one or other CBeebies magazine: whether it's Go Jetters, Andy's Dinosaur Adventures or whatever. He's not interested in the magazine itself, but in the cheap plastic imported-from-China tat that comes in it.
It's blooming hard to resist the pester power, especially as the toys generally get put in a playbox after an hour.
(The only 'good' one of these came with an Alphablocks magazinr, which had phonics letters that we play with together.)
So fellow Man United fans, any pre match superstitions I should be following?
Has the shared desire to see Citeh fall over turned you into a temporary red devil?
Yah, although I expect Citeh to spank United tonight a bit like the Lib Dems were at GE2015, butI can Citeh fail to beat Leicester, Brendan Rodgers hands Liverpool the title has a nice ring to it.
Anyhoo I'm mentally prepared for Liverpool to lose one game all season and finish on 97 points and not win the title.
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
You can always back out of a suicide pact.
It is a question of pandering. Leavers are very clear on what they don’t want and clueless about what they do want. A lot have alighted on no deal for no other reason than it requires no thought.
Leavers are all united on Brexit, that needs to be delivered first, the future relationship with the EU can be determined later
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?
She reminds me of the vampire kid from Let The Right One In. Her peely-wally sanctimony gets on my nerves and I'm a member of the Greens. Fuck knows what normal people who don't have six different types of vinegar in the kitchen think of her.
There is a thoughtful comment in The Times (highlight below):
“I think Greta comes across as a composed young woman but we are being asked to believe (i) she is an authority on climate change; (ii) to pretend that her Aspergers allows her to “see the truth”; (iii) that “nothing is being done” about climate change which is simply a lie; and (iv) take radical action with our economy that will impact the poorest and most vulnerable in our society - just the dull uninteresting sort of vulnerable (who don’t claim special protected status due to medical issues or sexuality) who might rely on a gas boiler or old banger to make life liveable.
There has been two weeks of climate change activism and not one practical solution and not one proposal that doesn’t involve “someone else” paying the price.”
I could come up with a dozen or more things that each and every one of us could be doing to reduce carbon emissions and help the environment without much effort. They are not instead of government action but as well as and if a majority of us did them it would make a difference, small maybe, but a difference and a whole lot better than doing nothing.
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
Diesel cars are better than petrol from an AGW point of view, their problem is that they emit particulates which kill people (which, thinking about it, is itself one of the most eco friendly things you can do. The dead have no carbon footprint).
Mr. Fire, those in favour of man-made global warming as a theory also predicted an end to snow in the UK, a few years before we had the worst winter in a century. And then another very bad winter the year after. It doesn't persuade me of their predictive prowess.
I’ll-informed bloke off internet muddles up weather and climate. Again.
What's the difference, well-informed bloke off t'internet?
Mr. Meeks, if Remainers had supported the deal it would've passed...
Your point was that Leavers oppose things and don't know what they want. Remainers are in precisely the same boat.
It is not for Remainers to determine what nutty scheme Leavers want to back. This whole fiasco is their idea. A Brexit forced through with Remain votes would command no legitimacy.
Mr. Fire, the climate changing is not something new. The climate has always changed.
We didn't have climate stasis before industrial activity began.
More importantly, there's actually a large overlap between what we should do if the global warming theory is right, and if it isn't (developing geothermal energy resources, likewise energy efficient devices and so on).
I find it very hard to trust a cult that demands obedience and calls itself science. You can have the credibility of science or the dogma of religion. Not both.
You are correct that the climate has always been changing. What is alarming about the modern era is the *rate* it is changing, which is unprecedented.
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
You can always back out of a suicide pact.
It is a question of pandering. Leavers are very clear on what they don’t want and clueless about what they do want. A lot have alighted on no deal for no other reason than it requires no thought.
Leavers are all united on Brexit, that needs to be delivered first, the future relationship with the EU can be determined later
That’s simply not true. Deal or no deal? What comes next?
And a majority of a bare majority is a minority.
Now that Leavers have shown themselves, after exhaustive exploration, to be wholly clueless Remainers are justified in reopening the whole question.
FWIW I think Nigel Farage has done well to enlist Ann Widdecombe. She’s box office, something that his list to date has been sorely lacking.
Agree on that she is a media performer and even was runner up in the last celebrity big brother
She's box office in a "I'm ready for my close-up, Mr, De Mille" kind of way, a total has been, now playing it for laughs. When you examine her track record, she is actually a deeply unpleasant, bigoted reactionary...
on reflection a perfect fit for the shady Mr. Farage.
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
You can always back out of a suicide pact.
It is a question of pandering. Leavers are very clear on what they don’t want and clueless about what they do want. A lot have alighted on no deal for no other reason than it requires no thought.
Leavers are all united on Brexit, that needs to be delivered first, the future relationship with the EU can be determined later
So you undo 45 years of increasingly close co-operation in all sorts of industries, at all sorts of levels, plus similar co-operation in Government and quasi government departments and organisations and worry about the future later!
Mr. Meeks, if Remainers had supported the deal it would've passed...
Your point was that Leavers oppose things and don't know what they want. Remainers are in precisely the same boat.
Two former Brexit Secretaries and a former Foreign Secretary said Mrs May's deal is worse than remaining, why should Remainers back a deal so many prominent leavers oppose.
Mr. Fire, those in favour of man-made global warming as a theory also predicted an end to snow in the UK, a few years before we had the worst winter in a century. And then another very bad winter the year after. It doesn't persuade me of their predictive prowess.
I’ll-informed bloke off internet muddles up weather and climate. Again.
What's the difference, well-informed bloke off t'internet?
Difference between love and lust, surely. Love is permanent, lust is temporary.
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
You can always back out of a suicide pact.
It is a question of pandering. Leavers are very clear on what they don’t want and clueless about what they do want. A lot have alighted on no deal for no other reason than it requires no thought.
Leavers are all united on Brexit, that needs to be delivered first, the future relationship with the EU can be determined later
So you undo 45 years of increasingly close co-operation in all sorts of industries, at all sorts of levels, plus similar co-operation in Government and quasi government departments and organisations and worry about the future later!
Really???????
Something tells me HY is not one for deep thinking
FWIW I think Nigel Farage has done well to enlist Ann Widdecombe. She’s box office, something that his list to date has been sorely lacking.
Agree on that she is a media performer and even was runner up in the last celebrity big brother
She's box office in a "I'm ready for my close-up, Mr, De Mille" kind of way, a total has been, now playing it for laughs. When you examine her track record, she is actually a deeply unpleasant, bigoted reactionary...
on reflection a perfect fit for the shady Mr. Farage.
Frankly another one who has totally lost their head under the influence of the Brexit virus.
Mr. Meeks, nothing screams legitimacy like MPs supporting the triggering of Article 50 then seeking to avoid the natural consequences of that.
Or asking the electorate what they want, promising to enact it, then trying to overturn it.
We certainly do live in interesting times.
What would you have Remain-supporting MPs do? For the most part they have been looking to implement a form of Brexit that would in their eyes do the minimum damage to the country. You might not agree with their assessment but claiming bad faith on no evidence is poor.
Meanwhile, Leavers have spent three years playing to the gallery, only to realise they haven’t learned the next Act.
On carbon emissions I think the lowest hanging fruit globally is the trend for (I noted this in China that I believe followed the USA for the ...fashion around 2003) absolutely frigid air conditioning in large department stores and suchlike. THEY, and I do mean 'they' (British air con where it is used seems much more reasonably set) are mad to set temperatures where you need a jumper on whence one enters the store !
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
You can always back out of a suicide pact.
It is a question of pandering. Leavers are very clear on what they don’t want and clueless about what they do want. A lot have alighted on no deal for no other reason than it requires no thought.
Leavers are all united on Brexit, that needs to be delivered first, the future relationship with the EU can be determined later
So you undo 45 years of increasingly close co-operation in all sorts of industries, at all sorts of levels, plus similar co-operation in Government and quasi government departments and organisations and worry about the future later!
Really???????
what co-operation in industry ? Weve had 45 years of running ours down theres not much left to cooperate on.
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?
She reminds me of the vampire kid from Let The Right One In. Her peely-wally sanctimony gets on my nerves and I'm a member of the Greens. Fuck knows what normal people who don't have six different types of vinegar in the kitchen think of her.
There is a thoughtful comment in The Times (highlight below):
“I think Greta comes across as a composed young woman but we are being asked to believe (i) she is an authority on climate change; (ii) to pretend that her Aspergers allows her to “see the truth”; (iii) that “nothing is being done” about climate change which is simply a lie; and (iv) take radical action with our economy that will impact the poorest and most vulnerable in our society - just the dull uninteresting sort of vulnerable (who don’t claim special protected status due to medical issues or sexuality) who might rely on a gas boiler or old banger to make life liveable.
There has been two weeks of climate change activism and not one practical solution and not one proposal that doesn’t involve “someone else” paying the price.”
I could come up with a dozen or more things that each and every one of us could be doing to reduce carbon emissions and help the environment without much effort. They are not instead of government action but as well as and if a majority of us did them it would make a difference, small maybe, but a difference and a whole lot better than doing nothing.
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
Diesel cars are better than petrol from an AGW point of view, their problem is that they emit particulates which kill people (which, thinking about it, is itself one of the most eco friendly things you can do. The dead have no carbon footprint).
Well yes, if global warming is your concern (And it seems to be for these protestors) then a diesel is superior to a petrol all day long and twice on sundays.
Mr. Meeks, I'm not advocating a course of action for Remainer MPs, I'm only pointing out your assertion that Leaver MPs (rather than both sides) are against everything is a one-eyed view of the situation coloured by your own bias.
Mr. Eagles, that might be the answer to your own question. If hardline Leavers oppose something then one might thing Remainer types might rather like it.
The March borrowing figures weren't great, but they were enough to see out a good year for the exchequer.
Borrowing has fallen to £24.7 billion (1.2% of GDP) which is the lowest since 2001 and £17.2 less than in the previous financial year, a reduction of 40%.
So a quarter of European Parliament elections voters, probably more, will be 'vile bigots' in your eyes? Diehard Remainers still wonder why they lost
The quarter aren’t supporting leaving the EU , those Eurosceptic parties after seeing the shambles in the UK have decided to not make the same mistake . As for vile bigots I stand by my comments , Widdecombe is a loathsome creature and will fit in nicely with Farage .
The Brexit Party candidates are a broad church from Widdecombe to a former revolutionary Communist party member, the main thing that unites them is Brexit
A broad church with all of the centre pews completely empty
Mr. Meeks, I'm not advocating a course of action for Remainer MPs, I'm only pointing out your assertion that Leaver MPs (rather than both sides) are against everything is a one-eyed view of the situation coloured by your own bias.
Mr. Eagles, that might be the answer to your own question. If hardline Leavers oppose something then one might thing Remainer types might rather like it.
It’s Leavers’ project. And they are clueless about what they actually want. They’ve had quite enough time to scratch around for an idea. Time to have a rethink from first principles.
Mr. Meeks, I'm not advocating a course of action for Remainer MPs, I'm only pointing out your assertion that Leaver MPs (rather than both sides) are against everything is a one-eyed view of the situation coloured by your own bias.
Mr. Eagles, that might be the answer to your own question. If hardline Leavers oppose something then one might thing Remainer types might rather like it.
If it seen as Remainers delivering their version of Brexit it will be seen as a Carthaginian peace.
We'd have left the EU had all the ERG and DUP voted with the government at MV 2.5.
I think we are in broad agreement about politicians. It's their judgement that is the issue. We have many now without any background in a subject beyond working to put over one viewpoint.
That includes scientists who make their living from climate change research, arguing for more research money, without caring about how their proposed changes effect the economy and the rest of us.
I think that most of them care rather a lot.
A concerted global effort would pretty well pay for itself over the course of three decades. The economic costs of not acting now, if the scientists are right, are vast. Even if the chance of their being correct were 10%, it would be a reasonable investment.
But we are acting now. You can argue that it's not enough (and I have some sympathy with that view), but you can't argue that we're doing nothing.
But as other posters say, we can do much ourselves. The actions of these protesters aren't really designed to win over the general public, and may well alienate them.
I'll give a really simple example. My son is four, and whenever we go to the supermarket wants to go to the magazine aisle to buy one or other CBeebies magazine: whether it's Go Jetters, Andy's Dinosaur Adventures or whatever. He's not interested in the magazine itself, but in the cheap plastic imported-from-China tat that comes in it.
It's blooming hard to resist the pester power, especially as the toys generally get put in a playbox after an hour.
(The only 'good' one of these came with an Alphablocks magazinr, which had phonics letters that we play with together.)
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
The March borrowing figures weren't great, but they were enough to see out a good year for the exchequer.
Borrowing has fallen to £24.7 billion (1.2% of GDP) which is the lowest since 2001 and £17.2 less than in the previous financial year, a reduction of 40%.
Incidentally two years ago I predicted that the gov't would balance the books by 2020, with only Brexit the main risk factor. That still seems right. Given Brexit I suspect 2019/2020 will finish in a similar place to 2018/19 but with higher receipts and higher spending.
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
Mr. Eagles, possibly, though I'd be more inclined to lay blame on May.
I also doubt that's the motivation of Remainers. They, like hardline Leavers, see that getting a 'pure' result (no deal departure or remaining after all) is credibly possible. So why settle for compromise when you can seek a 'real' victory?
Mr. Meeks, Remain MPs voted to hold the referendum and to honour the result.
I may be reading too much into this, and respect May for going to Lyra McKee's funeral... but it's unlike her to miss PMQs or other chances for her to be held to account (/ripped to shreds) in the Commons. Is she in the process of giving up the fight?
On topic: while I don't dispute a word of Alistair's header for thinking voters, that is not Farage's target market, nor need it be in the current era. Especially with Widdecombe for box office, and a few well-chosen actual human beings on the list, I think he's well-placed to peel off disenchanted Tories, destroy Batten-flavoured UKIP and take a decent portion of the "screw you" vote. And that'll do him for this time round.. the doubts can wait for later.
Mr. Eagles, possibly, though I'd be more inclined to lay blame on May.
I also doubt that's the motivation of Remainers. They, like hardline Leavers, see that getting a 'pure' result (no deal departure or remaining after all) is credibly possible. So why settle for compromise when you can seek a 'real' victory?
Mr. Meeks, Remain MPs voted to hold the referendum and to honour the result.
But as Gove told the cabinet, No Deal does not honour the referendum result.
That includes scientists who make their living from climate change research, arguing for more research money, without caring about how their proposed changes effect the economy and the rest of us.
I think that most of them care rather a lot.
A concerted global effort would pretty well pay for itself over the course of three decades. The economic costs of not acting now, if the scientists are right, are vast. Even if the chance of their being correct were 10%, it would be a reasonable investment.
But we are acting now. You can argue that it's not enough (and I have some sympathy with that view), but you can't argue that we're doing nothing.
But as other posters say, we can do much ourselves. The actions of these protesters aren't really designed to win over the general public, and may well alienate them.
I'll give a really simple example. My son is four, and whenever we go to the supermarket wants to go to the magazine aisle to buy one or other CBeebies magazine: whether it's Go Jetters, Andy's Dinosaur Adventures or whatever. He's not interested in the magazine itself, but in the cheap plastic imported-from-China tat that comes in it.
It's blooming hard to resist the pester power, especially as the toys generally get put in a playbox after an hour.
(The only 'good' one of these came with an Alphablocks magazinr, which had phonics letters that we play with together.)
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
I think that's ill-conceived. Sure, the very worst of eco-moralism is a distraction, but plenty makes a difference capable of being measured. Recycling makes a big difference to landfills, public transport to traffic and air pollution, and so on.
I also think it sets a valuable marker down for government that these policies do and would have support.
If the challenge for the last decade was power generation, then the challenge for the next one is power consumption - much better homes in particular.
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
I disagree. The point is that: until we - the general public - are willing to make such small sacrifices, the mood to make the massive changes that you want are remote - as the public aren't with your program.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
So a quarter of European Parliament elections voters, probably more, will be 'vile bigots' in your eyes? Diehard Remainers still wonder why they lost
The quarter aren’t supporting leaving the EU , those Eurosceptic parties after seeing the shambles in the UK have decided to not make the same mistake . As for vile bigots I stand by my comments , Widdecombe is a loathsome creature and will fit in nicely with Farage .
The Brexit Party candidates are a broad church from Widdecombe to a former revolutionary Communist party member, the main thing that unites them is Brexit
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
You can always back out of a suicide pact.
It is a question of pandering. Leavers are very clear on what they don’t want and clueless about what they do want. A lot have alighted on no deal for no other reason than it requires no thought.
Leavers are all united on Brexit, that needs to be delivered first, the future relationship with the EU can be determined later
So you undo 45 years of increasingly close co-operation in all sorts of industries, at all sorts of levels, plus similar co-operation in Government and quasi government departments and organisations and worry about the future later!
Really???????
what co-operation in industry ? Weve had 45 years of running ours down theres not much left to cooperate on.
It might be owned from outside but there's still a fair bit actually working.
I think we are in broad agreement about politicians. It's their judgement that is the issue. We have many now without any background in a subject beyond working to put over one viewpoint.
That includes scientists who make their living from climate change research, arguing for more research money, without caring about how their proposed changes effect the economy and the rest of us.
I think that most of them care rather a lot.
A concerted global effort would pretty well pay for itself over the course of three decades. The economic costs of not acting now, if the scientists are right, are vast. Even if the chance of their being correct were 10%, it would be a reasonable investment.
But we are acting now. You can argue that it's not enough (and I have some sympathy with that view), but you can't argue that we're doing nothing.
But as other posters say, we can do much ourselves. The actions of these protesters aren't really designed to win over the general public, and may well alienate them.
I'll give a really simple example. My son is four, and whenever we go to the supermarket wants to go to the magazine aisle to buy one or other CBeebies magazine: whether it's Go Jetters, Andy's Dinosaur Adventures or whatever. He's not interested in the magazine itself, but in the cheap plastic imported-from-China tat that comes in it.
It's blooming hard to resist the pester power, especially as the toys generally get put in a playbox after an hour.
(The only 'good' one of these came with an Alphablocks magazinr, which had phonics letters that we play with together.)
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
7 of Europes top ten polluters are German coal powered plants, the german government is not about to stop them any time soon.
Mr. Eagles, possibly, though I'd be more inclined to lay blame on May.
I also doubt that's the motivation of Remainers. They, like hardline Leavers, see that getting a 'pure' result (no deal departure or remaining after all) is credibly possible. So why settle for compromise when you can seek a 'real' victory?
Mr. Meeks, Remain MPs voted to hold the referendum and to honour the result.
But as Gove told the cabinet, No Deal does not honour the referendum result.
Why does Leaving with No Deal not honour the referendum result? Disastrous unquestionably, but that wasn't foremost, apparently, in Leavers minds.
Mr. Eagles, possibly, though I'd be more inclined to lay blame on May.
I also doubt that's the motivation of Remainers. They, like hardline Leavers, see that getting a 'pure' result (no deal departure or remaining after all) is credibly possible. So why settle for compromise when you can seek a 'real' victory?
Mr. Meeks, Remain MPs voted to hold the referendum and to honour the result.
But as Gove told the cabinet, No Deal does not honour the referendum result.
Why does Leaving with No Deal not honour the referendum result? Disastrous unquestionably, but that wasn't foremost, apparently, in Leavers minds.
Gove told the cabinet that he and others repeatedly said during the referendum that No Deal was just Project Fear and that it wouldn't happen.
Promising the country one thing then delivering the exact opposite usually leads to doom, cf the Lib Dems and tuition fees, but especially if it leads to people losing their jobs.
I think Farage has played a blinder by recruiting Ann Widdecombe. The voters he's after will either a) appreciate her authoritarian streak or b) know her from various TV shows and think that rather groovy. ChUK made a mistake in rejecting Richard Dawkins in my view. He's a non-identity-politics liberal Remain intellectual - a niche that was crying out to be filled.
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
I disagree. The point is that: until we - the general public - are willing to make such small sacrifices, the mood to make the massive changes that you want are remote - as the public aren't with your program.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
Broken windows theory, look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves etc... if we all do our bit the collective will influence the establishment.
Mr. Eagles, possibly, though I'd be more inclined to lay blame on May.
I also doubt that's the motivation of Remainers. They, like hardline Leavers, see that getting a 'pure' result (no deal departure or remaining after all) is credibly possible. So why settle for compromise when you can seek a 'real' victory?
Mr. Meeks, Remain MPs voted to hold the referendum and to honour the result.
But as Gove told the cabinet, No Deal does not honour the referendum result.
Why does Leaving with No Deal not honour the referendum result? Disastrous unquestionably, but that wasn't foremost, apparently, in Leavers minds.
We were told that a favourable deal could be knocked up in a morning with time enough for a Leaver or two to enjoy a celebratory lunch at one of Brussels' Michelin starred restaurants. Prue Leith recipes for sataying rats were not advertised in advance.
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
I disagree. The point is that: until we - the general public - are willing to make such small sacrifices, the mood to make the massive changes that you want are remote - as the public aren't with your program.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
Broken windows theory, look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves etc... if we all do our bit the collective will influence the establishment.
Farage is such a divisive figure. As Mr Meeks has pointed out (excellent analysis btw), Farage repels as many +/- a bit as he attracts. I had been coming around to the idea of a soft Brexit, but now I think there really is a good chance of remain, and every time I see that nasty little Putin sympathising crypto-fascist gurning on TV I want that outcome more and more.
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
I disagree. The point is that: until we - the general public - are willing to make such small sacrifices, the mood to make the massive changes that you want are remote - as the public aren't with your program.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
Broken windows theory, look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves etc... if we all do our bit the collective will influence the establishment.
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
You can always back out of a suicide pact.
It is a question of pandering. Leavers are very clear on what they don’t want and clueless about what they do want. A lot have alighted on no deal for no other reason than it requires no thought.
Leavers are all united on Brexit, that needs to be delivered first, the future relationship with the EU can be determined later
So you undo 45 years of increasingly close co-operation in all sorts of industries, at all sorts of levels, plus similar co-operation in Government and quasi government departments and organisations and worry about the future later!
Really???????
what co-operation in industry ? Weve had 45 years of running ours down theres not much left to cooperate on.
It might be owned from outside but there's still a fair bit actually working.
the bits owned from outside take their decisions outside without much involvement from us,
You know your religious history, would I be right in thinking that Pope Pius XII was the most anti-Semitic Bishop of Rome in history? Or is there someone else, I'm ruling out Antipopes and Avignon popes.
Mr. Eagles, possibly, though I'd be more inclined to lay blame on May.
I also doubt that's the motivation of Remainers. They, like hardline Leavers, see that getting a 'pure' result (no deal departure or remaining after all) is credibly possible. So why settle for compromise when you can seek a 'real' victory?
Mr. Meeks, Remain MPs voted to hold the referendum and to honour the result.
But as Gove told the cabinet, No Deal does not honour the referendum result.
Why does Leaving with No Deal not honour the referendum result? Disastrous unquestionably, but that wasn't foremost, apparently, in Leavers minds.
Gove told the cabinet that he and others repeatedly said during the referendum that No Deal was just Project Fear and that it wouldn't happen.
Promising the country one thing then delivering the exact opposite usually leads to doom, cf the Lib Dems and tuition fees, but especially if it leads to people losing their jobs.
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
I disagree. The point is that: until we - the general public - are willing to make such small sacrifices, the mood to make the massive changes that you want are remote - as the public aren't with your program.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
Broken windows theory, look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves etc... if we all do our bit the collective will influence the establishment.
There's room for both IMO.
I’m agreeing with you man!
I know you were, but I was adding a caveat to what I said.
I think Farage has played a blinder by recruiting Ann Widdecombe. The voters he's after will either a) appreciate her authoritarian streak or b) know her from various TV shows and think that rather groovy. ChUK made a mistake in rejecting Richard Dawkins in my view. He's a non-identity-politics liberal Remain intellectual - a niche that was crying out to be filled.
Yes I’d have liked to see Dawkins, he is as marmite as Farage though, and has a few quotes in his past that people would claim are islamaphobic
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
I disagree. The point is that: until we - the general public - are willing to make such small sacrifices, the mood to make the massive changes that you want are remote - as the public aren't with your program.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
The problem with the "democratic" approach is that it simply doesn't work. It supposes a degree of self-sacrifice that most people just don't have. We don't rely on people's sense of civic duty to, for example, refrain from littering, so why expect them to voluntarily refrain from other environmentally damaging actions?
What worries me is the tendency that some right-inclined people have to deny the existence of problems that cannot be solved without some form of collective action. It's delusional and dangerous.
I think we are in broad agreement about politicians. It's their judgement that is the issue. We have many now without any background in a subject beyond working to put over one viewpoint.
That includes scientists who make their living from climate change research, arguing for more research money, without caring about how their proposed changes effect the economy and the rest of us.
I think that most of them care rather a lot.
A concerted global effort would pretty well pay for itself over the course of three decades. The economic costs of not acting now, if the scientists are right, are vast. Even if the chance of their being correct were 10%, it would be a reasonable investment.
But we are acting now. You can argue that it's not enough (and I have some sympathy with that view), but you can't argue that we're doing nothing.
But as other posters say, we can do much ourselves. The actions of these protesters aren't really designed to win over the general public, and may well alienate them.
I'll give a really simple example. My son is four, and whenever we go to the supermarket wants to go to the magazine aisle to buy one or other CBeebies magazine: whether it's Go Jetters, Andy's Dinosaur Adventures or whatever. He's not interested in the magazine itself, but in the cheap plastic imported-from-China tat that comes in it.
It's blooming hard to resist the pester power, especially as the toys generally get put in a playbox after an hour.
(The only 'good' one of these came with an Alphablocks magazinr, which had phonics letters that we play with together.)
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
I could not disagree more.
Doing things for oneself is far preferable to coercive, centralised, control.
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
You can always back out of a suicide pact.
It is a question of pandering. Leavers are very clear on what they don’t want and clueless about what they do want. A lot have alighted on no deal for no other reason than it requires no thought.
Leavers are all united on Brexit, that needs to be delivered first, the future relationship with the EU can be determined later
So you undo 45 years of increasingly close co-operation in all sorts of industries, at all sorts of levels, plus similar co-operation in Government and quasi government departments and organisations and worry about the future later!
Really???????
what co-operation in industry ? Weve had 45 years of running ours down theres not much left to cooperate on.
It might be owned from outside but there's still a fair bit actually working.
the bits owned from outside take their decisions outside without much involvement from us,
Total nonsense. Industry is international. "We" (whoever we is) influence companies in masses of countries around the world, as well as having those dreaded furriners influence companies that reside here. It has ever been thus.You (like many who voted for Brexit) hanker after a time that never existed.
Mr. Eagles, possibly, though I'd be more inclined to lay blame on May.
I also doubt that's the motivation of Remainers. They, like hardline Leavers, see that getting a 'pure' result (no deal departure or remaining after all) is credibly possible. So why settle for compromise when you can seek a 'real' victory?
Mr. Meeks, Remain MPs voted to hold the referendum and to honour the result.
But as Gove told the cabinet, No Deal does not honour the referendum result.
Why does Leaving with No Deal not honour the referendum result? Disastrous unquestionably, but that wasn't foremost, apparently, in Leavers minds.
Gove told the cabinet that he and others repeatedly said during the referendum that No Deal was just Project Fear and that it wouldn't happen.
Promising the country one thing then delivering the exact opposite usually leads to doom, cf the Lib Dems and tuition fees, but especially if it leads to people losing their jobs.
or Osborne and were all in this together
We were under George.
Under his watch the highest rate of tax was higher than except for 13 years of a Labour government (excluding the last few weeks.)
I think that's ill-conceived. Sure, the very worst of eco-moralism is a distraction, but plenty makes a difference capable of being measured. Recycling makes a big difference to landfills, public transport to traffic and air pollution, and so on.
I also think it sets a valuable marker down for government that these policies do and would have support.
If the challenge for the last decade was power generation, then the challenge for the next one is power consumption - much better homes in particular.
I couldn't agree more - and moreover, it is where the money is!
But the generation story isn't done yet - we need innovation in local generation, local storage (e.g. battery tech), highly remote generation and efficient bulk transmission and storage, energy security (what happens when we fix the remote generation and transmission story, and a significant proportion of our energy comes from North Africa and the ME again?)
UK, US, China were in pole position for this until Trump fell into the oil trap and we started immolating ourselves. China may be a slow, second mover, but I think they are going to come out ahead.
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
You can always back out of a suicide pact.
It is a question of pandering. Leavers are very clear on what they don’t want and clueless about what they do want. A lot have alighted on no deal for no other reason than it requires no thought.
Leavers are all united on Brexit, that needs to be delivered first, the future relationship with the EU can be determined later
So you undo 45 years of increasingly close co-operation in all sorts of industries, at all sorts of levels, plus similar co-operation in Government and quasi government departments and organisations and worry about the future later!
Really???????
what co-operation in industry ? Weve had 45 years of running ours down theres not much left to cooperate on.
It might be owned from outside but there's still a fair bit actually working.
the bits owned from outside take their decisions outside without much involvement from us,
Total nonsense. Industry is international. "We" (whoever we is) influence companies in masses of countries around the world, as well as having those dreaded furriners influence companies that reside here. It has ever been thus.You (like many who voted for Brexit) hanker after a time that never existed.
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
I disagree. The point is that: until we - the general public - are willing to make such small sacrifices, the mood to make the massive changes that you want are remote - as the public aren't with your program.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
The problem with the "democratic" approach is that it simply doesn't work. It supposes a degree of self-sacrifice that most people just don't have. We don't rely on people's sense of civic duty to, for example, refrain from littering, so why expect them to voluntarily refrain from other environmentally damaging actions?
What worries me is the tendency that some right-inclined people have to deny the existence of problems that cannot be solved without some form of collective action. It's delusional and dangerous.
So what you prefer is an anti-democratic, daddy-knows-best approach? Don't bother with what the people think, let's do it anyway (but only when it agrees with my politics)?
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
I disagree. The point is that: until we - the general public - are willing to make such small sacrifices, the mood to make the massive changes that you want are remote - as the public aren't with your program.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
The problem with the "democratic" approach is that it simply doesn't work. It supposes a degree of self-sacrifice that most people just don't have. We don't rely on people's sense of civic duty to, for example, refrain from littering, so why expect them to voluntarily refrain from other environmentally damaging actions?
What worries me is the tendency that some right-inclined people have to deny the existence of problems that cannot be solved without some form of collective action. It's delusional and dangerous.
So you want to subvert democracy...in an atmosphere where people have little to no respect for politicans and which are subjectable to popularism, and a potential (as we have sadly seen for violence)
Thats creating a receipe for bloodshed and revolution.
So a quarter of European Parliament elections voters, probably more, will be 'vile bigots' in your eyes? Diehard Remainers still wonder why they lost
The quarter aren’t supporting leaving the EU , those Eurosceptic parties after seeing the shambles in the UK have decided to not make the same mistake . As for vile bigots I stand by my comments , Widdecombe is a loathsome creature and will fit in nicely with Farage .
You seem a bit OTT in your description of Ann Widdecombe.
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
I disagree. The point is that: until we - the general public - are willing to make such small sacrifices, the mood to make the massive changes that you want are remote - as the public aren't with your program.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
The problem with the "democratic" approach is that it simply doesn't work. It supposes a degree of self-sacrifice that most people just don't have. We don't rely on people's sense of civic duty to, for example, refrain from littering, so why expect them to voluntarily refrain from other environmentally damaging actions?
What worries me is the tendency that some right-inclined people have to deny the existence of problems that cannot be solved without some form of collective action. It's delusional and dangerous.
So what you prefer is an anti-democratic, daddy-knows-best approach? Don't bother with what the people think, let's do it anyway (but only when it agrees with my politics)?
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
You can always back out of a suicide pact.
It is a question of pandering. Leavers are very clear on what they don’t want and clueless about what they do want. A lot have alighted on no deal for no other reason than it requires no thought.
Leavers are all united on Brexit, that needs to be delivered first, the future relationship with the EU can be determined later
So you undo 45 years of increasingly close co-operation in all sorts of industries, at all sorts of levels, plus similar co-operation in Government and quasi government departments and organisations and worry about the future later!
Really???????
what co-operation in industry ? Weve had 45 years of running ours down theres not much left to cooperate on.
It might be owned from outside but there's still a fair bit actually working.
the bits owned from outside take their decisions outside without much involvement from us,
Total nonsense. Industry is international. "We" (whoever we is) influence companies in masses of countries around the world, as well as having those dreaded furriners influence companies that reside here. It has ever been thus.You (like many who voted for Brexit) hanker after a time that never existed.
oh dear
furriners
and you were so hoping to make a serious point
Hehe. I thought it would be language you could relate to, and I also avoided using apostrophes.
Mr. Eagles, possibly, though I'd be more inclined to lay blame on May.
I also doubt that's the motivation of Remainers. They, like hardline Leavers, see that getting a 'pure' result (no deal departure or remaining after all) is credibly possible. So why settle for compromise when you can seek a 'real' victory?
Mr. Meeks, Remain MPs voted to hold the referendum and to honour the result.
But as Gove told the cabinet, No Deal does not honour the referendum result.
Why does Leaving with No Deal not honour the referendum result? Disastrous unquestionably, but that wasn't foremost, apparently, in Leavers minds.
Gove told the cabinet that he and others repeatedly said during the referendum that No Deal was just Project Fear and that it wouldn't happen.
Promising the country one thing then delivering the exact opposite usually leads to doom, cf the Lib Dems and tuition fees, but especially if it leads to people losing their jobs.
or Osborne and were all in this together
We were under George.
Under his watch the highest rate of tax was higher than except for 13 years of a Labour government (excluding the last few weeks.)
I don't know any cleric in the CofE who would use language of that sort. If she found her spiritual home in Catholicism, which is a sister church within Christianity, then that's the right path for her.
She may have done many terrible things but 'betraying' the Church of England isn't one of them.
p.s. Factoid alert. Did you know her brother Malcom was a CofE priest of some renown? A charismatic evangelical who used to speak about the 'Holy Ghost.' The renewal under his stewardship at Pip n' Jay Bristol was one of the first of its kind.
Comments
They can say what 'is' happening, and suggest solutions, but they can't and should not say 'what' to do. That's not their wheelhouse.
We didn't have climate stasis before industrial activity began.
More importantly, there's actually a large overlap between what we should do if the global warming theory is right, and if it isn't (developing geothermal energy resources, likewise energy efficient devices and so on).
I find it very hard to trust a cult that demands obedience and calls itself science. You can have the credibility of science or the dogma of religion. Not both.
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
I don't have a car. Travel infrequently. Haven't been on a plane in over a decade.
I'm 'purer' than the self-declared zealots of the new religion
My green plus points: no kids, no car.
My green minus points: I fly quite a lot, eat a lot of meat, have a swimming pool.
Perhaps we could have individual carbon trading, with reducing limits over time.
The BP are troublesome. I voted to leave but frankly if we can't do it without being moronic creatures of hate then let's stay, vote Heidi into number 10 and destroy the LabCon axis.
Mr. Jonathan, as Saint Morris the Green, I forgive you. Go forth, but only on foot for that way the lowest carbon emissions result.
Mr. Meeks, could be a new career for me
Individual action is important too, and the protests help change attitudes for those as well. Changing cars frequently is not always environmentally advisable because of the climate cost of production - the trick is to take best advice when you do change. But if we leave the decisions only to individuals we won't really tackle the issue effectively.
I'm not in general a fan of direct action. But they've succeeded in making it a subject of popular debate again to an extent that hundreds of weighty papers with detailed recommendations (e.g. the EAT:Lancet report) really have not.
(I'm also not denying what you say, although some o&g companies are getting their act together.)
It is a question of pandering. Leavers are very clear on what they don’t want and clueless about what they do want. A lot have alighted on no deal for no other reason than it requires no thought.
Everybody's keen on compromise, providing the other side does it.
But as other posters say, we can do much ourselves. The actions of these protesters aren't really designed to win over the general public, and may well alienate them.
I'll give a really simple example. My son is four, and whenever we go to the supermarket wants to go to the magazine aisle to buy one or other CBeebies magazine: whether it's Go Jetters, Andy's Dinosaur Adventures or whatever. He's not interested in the magazine itself, but in the cheap plastic imported-from-China tat that comes in it.
It's blooming hard to resist the pester power, especially as the toys generally get put in a playbox after an hour.
(The only 'good' one of these came with an Alphablocks magazinr, which had phonics letters that we play with together.)
Anyhoo I'm mentally prepared for Liverpool to lose one game all season and finish on 97 points and not win the title.
Your point was that Leavers oppose things and don't know what they want. Remainers are in precisely the same boat.
And a majority of a bare majority is a minority.
Now that Leavers have shown themselves, after exhaustive exploration, to be wholly clueless Remainers are justified in reopening the whole question.
on reflection a perfect fit for the shady Mr. Farage.
Really???????
Or asking the electorate what they want, promising to enact it, then trying to overturn it.
We certainly do live in interesting times.
Meanwhile, Leavers have spent three years playing to the gallery, only to realise they haven’t learned the next Act.
THEY, and I do mean 'they' (British air con where it is used seems much more reasonably set) are mad to set temperatures where you need a jumper on whence one enters the store !
Mr. Eagles, that might be the answer to your own question. If hardline Leavers oppose something then one might thing Remainer types might rather like it.
Borrowing has fallen to £24.7 billion (1.2% of GDP) which is the lowest since 2001 and £17.2 less than in the previous financial year, a reduction of 40%.
We'd have left the EU had all the ERG and DUP voted with the government at MV 2.5.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
I also doubt that's the motivation of Remainers. They, like hardline Leavers, see that getting a 'pure' result (no deal departure or remaining after all) is credibly possible. So why settle for compromise when you can seek a 'real' victory?
Mr. Meeks, Remain MPs voted to hold the referendum and to honour the result.
I may be reading too much into this, and respect May for going to Lyra McKee's funeral... but it's unlike her to miss PMQs or other chances for her to be held to account (/ripped to shreds) in the Commons. Is she in the process of giving up the fight?
On topic: while I don't dispute a word of Alistair's header for thinking voters, that is not Farage's target market, nor need it be in the current era. Especially with Widdecombe for box office, and a few well-chosen actual human beings on the list, I think he's well-placed to peel off disenchanted Tories, destroy Batten-flavoured UKIP and take a decent portion of the "screw you" vote. And that'll do him for this time round.. the doubts can wait for later.
I also think it sets a valuable marker down for government that these policies do and would have support.
If the challenge for the last decade was power generation, then the challenge for the next one is power consumption - much better homes in particular.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47783992
She betrayed the Church of England and now she's betrayed the Tory party.
She's going to hell for her homophobia and betrayal.
She's going to so pissed off when she finds out the Devil is an Anglican.
Promising the country one thing then delivering the exact opposite usually leads to doom, cf the Lib Dems and tuition fees, but especially if it leads to people losing their jobs.
You know your religious history, would I be right in thinking that Pope Pius XII was the most anti-Semitic Bishop of Rome in history? Or is there someone else, I'm ruling out Antipopes and Avignon popes.
Yes I’d have liked to see Dawkins, he is as marmite as Farage though, and has a few quotes in his past that people would claim are islamaphobic
What worries me is the tendency that some right-inclined people have to deny the existence of problems that cannot be solved without some form of collective action. It's delusional and dangerous.
Doing things for oneself is far preferable to coercive, centralised, control.
Under his watch the highest rate of tax was higher than except for 13 years of a Labour government (excluding the last few weeks.)
But the generation story isn't done yet - we need innovation in local generation, local storage (e.g. battery tech), highly remote generation and efficient bulk transmission and storage, energy security (what happens when we fix the remote generation and transmission story, and a significant proportion of our energy comes from North Africa and the ME again?)
UK, US, China were in pole position for this until Trump fell into the oil trap and we started immolating ourselves. China may be a slow, second mover, but I think they are going to come out ahead.
furriners
and you were so hoping to make a serious point
Thats creating a receipe for bloodshed and revolution.
the conservatives - the high tax party
She may have done many terrible things but 'betraying' the Church of England isn't one of them.
p.s. Factoid alert. Did you know her brother Malcom was a CofE priest of some renown? A charismatic evangelical who used to speak about the 'Holy Ghost.' The renewal under his stewardship at Pip n' Jay Bristol was one of the first of its kind.