I can't imagine whether someone is a vegetarian or not makes the slightest difference as to whether they are worthy to be Prime Minister. Seriously - I note one of Starmer's most prominent critics on this is also one of the loudest supporters of the Prime Minister so that tells you all you need to know.
I'm still staggered at this notion that a middle-aged electrician from Orpington and his mates have stumbled on the greatest deception of the modern age - like something out of Chitty Chitty Bang, thousands of children are being kept prisoner in tunnels under London.
Well, I've been a prisoner in a tunnel in London but fortunately the power came back on and the tube started moving after a couple of minutes.
What was that other movie, John Carpenter's "They Live" where aliens were in charge and using subliminal advertising to keep us all in line. I've never heard Donald Trump reference the tunnels under London where the children are - sorry, which children, where from and above all why?
What lockdown did cause (I'm sure I saw on this on the Internet so it must be true) was a fall off in global birth rates so clearly Covid-19 is a weapon designed to cause mass sterility (apparently). Designed by the Illuminati (of course), it's a way of covertly reducing human population (might be easier than nuclear war). Once we are down to manageable levels, the secret legions of One World Government will emerge and we will all have to yield to a single authority (bit like everyone having the same phone).
If you are referring to me I do not support Boris in the least and didn't vote conservative in 2019 either.
Are you sure? You need to be able to read the voting card
If you look at the advertising spending numbers at the moment, Biden is absolutely hammering Trump but it's not leading necessarily to an improved lead. Now that raises a number of questions - is TV advertising effective (Biden's spend is mainly TV whilst Trump is outspending Biden online)? will this spend eventually make a difference (it didn't for Clinton in 2016)?
I think we *have* been seeing better Biden performance in swing states recently, at least relative to the national lead. It's probably not promising for Biden if this is caused by advertising, because as the election approaches I'd expect the Trump side to ramp up spending as well.
Key point about Bloomberg's 100 million for Florida.
Bloomberg spent big backing Dems in 2018 as well at it all came in a final 10 days advertising blitz. Bloomberg's team believes that what generates the largest effect at the polls.
I commented in the primaries if you were going to pick a state where they'd absolubtely lap Bloomberg up it'd be Florida. Could get a few of the Dade ex cuban back too. If there's one way to show you're not a commie it's using Bloomberg ads on the Telly.
On thread, can someone explain why winning 0 or 3 can both be more likely than winning 1 or 2. Baffled.
It would be true if there are a set of States likely to go the same way, rather than split one to either candidate. This is because, if the states have similar demographics, then you won't likely see a change in support in one independent of a change in support of the other.
It's also the case that 0 includes all of the tail of the distribution of a Biden landslide, where Biden wins states like Missouri and Montana, in addition to the 6 in the bet.
Pagan is once again pushing his own narrow viewpoint as being representative of everyone else, poor baby
Merely saying I have never met an omnivore yet that doesn't think vegetarians are a bit odd. Yes its anecdote but in the abscence of a poll with the question "Do you think vegetarians are odd?" Then its a moot point either way.
I'm one. I'd be a vegetarian but I don't have the self-discipline. Nor can I be arsed to cook a different meal for the family. So I quite admire them actually.
I wasn't claiming people think its wrong, merely odd. Just as I think some of my meat eating friends diets are distinctly odd. As usual though CHB missed my point which was that its not the vote winner he seems to assume in my view
You said 90% of people find vegetarians odd.
Evidence was provided this was nonsense.
You then changed your mind instead of being a man and admitting you got it wrong and said it was actually what you thought.
You're an utter embarrassment.
You clearly have difficulties with numbers. 90% is not the same as 9%.
The poll you provided said nothing of the sort, it said people didn't feel meat was necessary with every meal. That is a lot different to being a vegetarian. I don't eat meat with every meal that doesn't mean I am a vegetarian or stop me thinking they are a bit odd.
Once again you ignore the message however which is it's not a vote winner for Starmer like you think it is.
Another poll was provided which said 9% of people thought it was unacceptable.
It's not my fault you clearly haven't passed GCSE English, nor GCSE Maths. Your comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
I never claimed it was a vote winner, I said it makes him more relatable to say he misses bacon and chicken curry. I think it does.
I would be very willing to tutor you in my spare time but unfortunately I can't remove stupidity
Again thinking it is unacceptable is not the same as finding it odd. I don't regard vegetarianism as unacceptable I just think its a strange way to eat. Unacceptable is more the equivalent of it should be banned
Why do you think it's a strange way to eat?
Are physiology evolved for a mixed diet, we are designed to eat both meat and fish and vegetables. It is why vegans need to take supplements and possibly vegetarians not sure on that one but know vegans do as the girl who used to sit next to me in the office was vegan and had to take various supplements can't remember what for some vitamin and mineral deficiencies in the diet I believe.
I think it is a problem that was created by our technologies and it is a problem we should solve with science and technology too.
It is not a problem created by the eating of meat which humanity has done since we evolved from other mammals that also ate meat..
So you don't think our production of meat contributes to climate change
Production methods for meat add to the release of the greenhouse gas methane. The cows are fed an unnatural diet that they can't digest. They therefore produce (mainly by burping rather than farting) more methane as a result of incomplete digestion (as you do when you don't digest your food properly). Pastured cows don't produce too much methane - no animal is made not to be able to digest its food properly. So it has nothing to do with meat per se. And really, the push to make us all eat soy and other cash crops using the 'cows and methane' argument is a piece of disgusting hypocrisy by agribusiness, causing a problem themselves and then guilting people in to accepting their solution.
If you look at the advertising spending numbers at the moment, Biden is absolutely hammering Trump but it's not leading necessarily to an improved lead. Now that raises a number of questions - is TV advertising effective (Biden's spend is mainly TV whilst Trump is outspending Biden online)? will this spend eventually make a difference (it didn't for Clinton in 2016)?
I think we *have* been seeing better Biden performance in swing states recently, at least relative to the national lead. It's probably not promising for Biden if this is caused by advertising, because as the election approaches I'd expect the Trump side to ramp up spending as well.
Key point about Bloomberg's 100 million for Florida.
Bloomberg spent big backing Dems in 2018 as well at it all came in a final 10 days advertising blitz. Bloomberg's team believes that what generates the largest effect at the polls.
I commented in the primaries if you were going to pick a state where they'd absolubtely lap Bloomberg up it'd be FLorida. Could get a few of the Dade ex cuban back too. If there's one way to show you're not a commie it's using Bloomberg ads on the Telly.
Yes, but you would have to have the slots available. TV advertising is not an infinite resource. There are a limited amount of slots that have meaningful impact. Slightly different with online. If you are the Trump campaign, you will probably be already thinking about which slots to buy.
Florida in 2018 was not exactly proof that the big splash at the end works. The Republicans took the Senate seat, keep the Governorship although did lose 2 House seats.
Pagan is once again pushing his own narrow viewpoint as being representative of everyone else, poor baby
Merely saying I have never met an omnivore yet that doesn't think vegetarians are a bit odd. Yes its anecdote but in the abscence of a poll with the question "Do you think vegetarians are odd?" Then its a moot point either way.
I'm one. I'd be a vegetarian but I don't have the self-discipline. Nor can I be arsed to cook a different meal for the family. So I quite admire them actually.
I wasn't claiming people think its wrong, merely odd. Just as I think some of my meat eating friends diets are distinctly odd. As usual though CHB missed my point which was that its not the vote winner he seems to assume in my view
You said 90% of people find vegetarians odd.
Evidence was provided this was nonsense.
You then changed your mind instead of being a man and admitting you got it wrong and said it was actually what you thought.
You're an utter embarrassment.
You clearly have difficulties with numbers. 90% is not the same as 9%.
The poll you provided said nothing of the sort, it said people didn't feel meat was necessary with every meal. That is a lot different to being a vegetarian. I don't eat meat with every meal that doesn't mean I am a vegetarian or stop me thinking they are a bit odd.
Once again you ignore the message however which is it's not a vote winner for Starmer like you think it is.
Another poll was provided which said 9% of people thought it was unacceptable.
It's not my fault you clearly haven't passed GCSE English, nor GCSE Maths. Your comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
I never claimed it was a vote winner, I said it makes him more relatable to say he misses bacon and chicken curry. I think it does.
I would be very willing to tutor you in my spare time but unfortunately I can't remove stupidity
Again thinking it is unacceptable is not the same as finding it odd. I don't regard vegetarianism as unacceptable I just think its a strange way to eat. Unacceptable is more the equivalent of it should be banned
Why do you think it's a strange way to eat?
Are physiology evolved for a mixed diet, we are designed to eat both meat and fish and vegetables. It is why vegans need to take supplements and possibly vegetarians not sure on that one but know vegans do as the girl who used to sit next to me in the office was vegan and had to take various supplements can't remember what for some vitamin and mineral deficiencies in the diet I believe.
You think being a vegetarian makes you a legend? That a prospective PM saying eating meat is wrong for the planet is the right thing to do or a vote winner?
This is worse than him kneeling. Awful, absolutely awful.
There's nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. He wasn't trying to convince others to be one, he was saying it was very difficult because he misses bacon sandwiches and curry. That's relatable
90% of the country tend to think vegetarians are a bit wierd. Being thought a bit odd possibly isn't a vote winner
Why is being vegetarian weird?
People are concerned they have insufficient steak in society.
That gives a whole new meaning to Tory cuts.
I thought we sorted out the Rump Parliament last year?
I think it is a problem that was created by our technologies and it is a problem we should solve with science and technology too.
It is not a problem created by the eating of meat which humanity has done since we evolved from other mammals that also ate meat..
So you don't think our production of meat contributes to climate change
Not significantly, no. I think it can be dealt with sustainably with with other technological developments.
Eliminating other emissions via things like research into clean transport, clean electricity generation, offsetting technologies are the solution not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I can't imagine whether someone is a vegetarian or not makes the slightest difference as to whether they are worthy to be Prime Minister. Seriously - I note one of Starmer's most prominent critics on this is also one of the loudest supporters of the Prime Minister so that tells you all you need to know.
I'm still staggered at this notion that a middle-aged electrician from Orpington and his mates have stumbled on the greatest deception of the modern age - like something out of Chitty Chitty Bang, thousands of children are being kept prisoner in tunnels under London.
Well, I've been a prisoner in a tunnel in London but fortunately the power came back on and the tube started moving after a couple of minutes.
What was that other movie, John Carpenter's "They Live" where aliens were in charge and using subliminal advertising to keep us all in line. I've never heard Donald Trump reference the tunnels under London where the children are - sorry, which children, where from and above all why?
What lockdown did cause (I'm sure I saw on this on the Internet so it must be true) was a fall off in global birth rates so clearly Covid-19 is a weapon designed to cause mass sterility (apparently). Designed by the Illuminati (of course), it's a way of covertly reducing human population (might be easier than nuclear war). Once we are down to manageable levels, the secret legions of One World Government will emerge and we will all have to yield to a single authority (bit like everyone having the same phone).
Pagan is once again pushing his own narrow viewpoint as being representative of everyone else, poor baby
Merely saying I have never met an omnivore yet that doesn't think vegetarians are a bit odd. Yes its anecdote but in the abscence of a poll with the question "Do you think vegetarians are odd?" Then its a moot point either way.
I'm one. I'd be a vegetarian but I don't have the self-discipline. Nor can I be arsed to cook a different meal for the family. So I quite admire them actually.
I wasn't claiming people think its wrong, merely odd. Just as I think some of my meat eating friends diets are distinctly odd. As usual though CHB missed my point which was that its not the vote winner he seems to assume in my view
You said 90% of people find vegetarians odd.
Evidence was provided this was nonsense.
You then changed your mind instead of being a man and admitting you got it wrong and said it was actually what you thought.
You're an utter embarrassment.
You clearly have difficulties with numbers. 90% is not the same as 9%.
The poll you provided said nothing of the sort, it said people didn't feel meat was necessary with every meal. That is a lot different to being a vegetarian. I don't eat meat with every meal that doesn't mean I am a vegetarian or stop me thinking they are a bit odd.
Once again you ignore the message however which is it's not a vote winner for Starmer like you think it is.
Another poll was provided which said 9% of people thought it was unacceptable.
It's not my fault you clearly haven't passed GCSE English, nor GCSE Maths. Your comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
I never claimed it was a vote winner, I said it makes him more relatable to say he misses bacon and chicken curry. I think it does.
I would be very willing to tutor you in my spare time but unfortunately I can't remove stupidity
Again thinking it is unacceptable is not the same as finding it odd. I don't regard vegetarianism as unacceptable I just think its a strange way to eat. Unacceptable is more the equivalent of it should be banned
Why do you think it's a strange way to eat?
Are physiology evolved for a mixed diet, we are designed to eat both meat and fish and vegetables. It is why vegans need to take supplements and possibly vegetarians not sure on that one but know vegans do as the girl who used to sit next to me in the office was vegan and had to take various supplements can't remember what for some vitamin and mineral deficiencies in the diet I believe.
If you look at the advertising spending numbers at the moment, Biden is absolutely hammering Trump but it's not leading necessarily to an improved lead. Now that raises a number of questions - is TV advertising effective (Biden's spend is mainly TV whilst Trump is outspending Biden online)? will this spend eventually make a difference (it didn't for Clinton in 2016)?
I think we *have* been seeing better Biden performance in swing states recently, at least relative to the national lead. It's probably not promising for Biden if this is caused by advertising, because as the election approaches I'd expect the Trump side to ramp up spending as well.
Key point about Bloomberg's 100 million for Florida.
Bloomberg spent big backing Dems in 2018 as well at it all came in a final 10 days advertising blitz. Bloomberg's team believes that what generates the largest effect at the polls.
I commented in the primaries if you were going to pick a state where they'd absolubtely lap Bloomberg up it'd be FLorida. Could get a few of the Dade ex cuban back too. If there's one way to show you're not a commie it's using Bloomberg ads on the Telly.
Yes, but you would have to have the slots available. TV advertising is not an infinite resource. There are a limited amount of slots that have meaningful impact. Slightly different with online. If you are the Trump campaign, you will probably be already thinking about which slots to buy.
Florida in 2018 was not exactly proof that the big splash at the end works. The Republicans took the Senate seat, keep the Governorship although did lose 2 House seats.
I am now of the view Biden will pick up Michigan and Pennsylvania and NE02 and hold all the Hillary states and Trump will hold all his other 2016 states too but Florida will be neck and neck and decide the EC, I think there is a serious possibility of election 2000 2 and hanging chads etc, particularly given America is so divided now
Surely in these sensitive times, where having a master branch on your software development stack os verboten, the concept of a white middle class individual "owning" players in a fantasy football league got to be racist / imperialistic.
Pagan is once again pushing his own narrow viewpoint as being representative of everyone else, poor baby
Merely saying I have never met an omnivore yet that doesn't think vegetarians are a bit odd. Yes its anecdote but in the abscence of a poll with the question "Do you think vegetarians are odd?" Then its a moot point either way.
I'm one. I'd be a vegetarian but I don't have the self-discipline. Nor can I be arsed to cook a different meal for the family. So I quite admire them actually.
I wasn't claiming people think its wrong, merely odd. Just as I think some of my meat eating friends diets are distinctly odd. As usual though CHB missed my point which was that its not the vote winner he seems to assume in my view
You said 90% of people find vegetarians odd.
Evidence was provided this was nonsense.
You then changed your mind instead of being a man and admitting you got it wrong and said it was actually what you thought.
You're an utter embarrassment.
You clearly have difficulties with numbers. 90% is not the same as 9%.
The poll you provided said nothing of the sort, it said people didn't feel meat was necessary with every meal. That is a lot different to being a vegetarian. I don't eat meat with every meal that doesn't mean I am a vegetarian or stop me thinking they are a bit odd.
Once again you ignore the message however which is it's not a vote winner for Starmer like you think it is.
Another poll was provided which said 9% of people thought it was unacceptable.
It's not my fault you clearly haven't passed GCSE English, nor GCSE Maths. Your comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
I never claimed it was a vote winner, I said it makes him more relatable to say he misses bacon and chicken curry. I think it does.
I would be very willing to tutor you in my spare time but unfortunately I can't remove stupidity
Again thinking it is unacceptable is not the same as finding it odd. I don't regard vegetarianism as unacceptable I just think its a strange way to eat. Unacceptable is more the equivalent of it should be banned
Why do you think it's a strange way to eat?
Are physiology evolved for a mixed diet, we are designed to eat both meat and fish and vegetables. It is why vegans need to take supplements and possibly vegetarians not sure on that one but know vegans do as the girl who used to sit next to me in the office was vegan and had to take various supplements can't remember what for some vitamin and mineral deficiencies in the diet I believe.
So to summarise, you're talking nonsense.
No I was saying why I find it strange, you deny your body the fuel it is designed for which is a mixed diet. Evolution designed us to eat meat and vegetables simple as that. If you restrict your diet to the point that you need supplements
I though the humanising element was the fact he said he missed bacon sandwiches and chicken curry, seemed relatable to me.
I couldn't give a toss if you're a vegetarian or not, odd the right believe in personal liberty only when it's something they agree with.
I have no qualms with him being a vegetarian. It is the "for the planet" bit I object to.
People starting to say that we should all become vegetarians "for the planet" can f**k right off. If you don't want to eat bacon then fine, I couldn't care less. If he'd said he is a vegetarian but its a personal choice and he doesn't expect others to be then I would not object, but instead he banged on about it being good for the planet.
People not eating meat I don't care about, but if you start to suggest that I shouldn't then that's where I have a problem.
Did he say you should become a vegetarian, or did he explain why he did? Those are two different things. I am a vegetarian for similar reasons to Starmer and will happily explain my reasoning if asked. Equally I will never tell other people how to live their life, and in fact buy meat and fish and cook it for my kids every week.
Pagan is once again pushing his own narrow viewpoint as being representative of everyone else, poor baby
Merely saying I have never met an omnivore yet that doesn't think vegetarians are a bit odd. Yes its anecdote but in the abscence of a poll with the question "Do you think vegetarians are odd?" Then its a moot point either way.
I'm one. I'd be a vegetarian but I don't have the self-discipline. Nor can I be arsed to cook a different meal for the family. So I quite admire them actually.
I wasn't claiming people think its wrong, merely odd. Just as I think some of my meat eating friends diets are distinctly odd. As usual though CHB missed my point which was that its not the vote winner he seems to assume in my view
You said 90% of people find vegetarians odd.
Evidence was provided this was nonsense.
You then changed your mind instead of being a man and admitting you got it wrong and said it was actually what you thought.
You're an utter embarrassment.
You clearly have difficulties with numbers. 90% is not the same as 9%.
The poll you provided said nothing of the sort, it said people didn't feel meat was necessary with every meal. That is a lot different to being a vegetarian. I don't eat meat with every meal that doesn't mean I am a vegetarian or stop me thinking they are a bit odd.
Once again you ignore the message however which is it's not a vote winner for Starmer like you think it is.
What are you on about? I'm sure Starmer doesn't think it's a vote winner either. He was just answering a question. Should he lie? I'd imagine his vegetarianism would be an entirely neutral matter with the voters.
Train numbers plummeted 95pc during lockdown and have recovered only to roughly 30pc of pre-Covid levels. Plans for flexible season tickets have been shunted into the sidings by the Treasury, industry insiders said.
Treasury officials are said to be concerned that three-day season tickets could end any hope of workers returning to the office five days a week, even once a coronavirus vaccine is found. This could leave taxpayers with an even bigger bill to run the railways.
God help us
Welcome to the world of the Nationalised Industry. Where the interests of
- The Treasury - Government policy - The suppliers/contractors - The workers - The users
....are looked after. In that order.
2 months to get a telephone was a *feature* of BT.
By only allowing BT to supply the physical phones, the "right" manufacturer got the job.
By not employing too many people to install phones, costs were kept down.
Additionally, by rationing phone installation, *excessive* phone usage was held down. Meaning that vast amounts of money didn't have to be *wasted* on increasing capacity in the network.
At the same time wages were good, to keep the unions happy, and the hours were.. light.
All good. Unless you wanted a phone.
Absolutely. The state can't do anything. Except for when I catch a local bus to the station and the bus is owned by the German State. As I leave I use my phone to switch off my heating which is provided by the French State. At the station the train is run by the German State. I browse the internet on the way to London and order stuff which will be delivered by the French State.
Nationalised industry can't do shit.
That is not what I said. Nationalised industries simply have a different set of priorities to the private owned industries. The phenomenon of Producer Interest is a long studied one.
Unless you make strenuous efforts to deal with this, you get all the joys of monopolies multiplied by the joys of absolute protection from comeback.
No, thats literally what you said. Its not the ownership of BT that was the issue, simply its focus. And as I have responsed to a different post privatised BT Openreach simply refused to engage with us on fibre. Carried out a demand survey in 2004, decided the answer was no. Estate built 2005/6. Installs loads of phone lines but insists the houses aren't there for fibre purposes. Can you complain? no - they are a monopoly.
Every other major European nation gets this. State owned commercial organisations. Deutsche Bahn is so successful that it now runs a significant proportion of our trains. We could have done the same - remember that BR's Intercity sector was at the time of privatisation the only profitable long distance rail operator *in the world*. Think what it could have become had it not been sawed up and transformed into loss-making franchises by dogmatic Tories?
The problem is a management mentality. Remember British Airways, long after privatisation, thinking that sabotage (literally) against competitors was OK. Since it was the national flag carrier. BT still think that They Are In Charge.
Pagan is once again pushing his own narrow viewpoint as being representative of everyone else, poor baby
Merely saying I have never met an omnivore yet that doesn't think vegetarians are a bit odd. Yes its anecdote but in the abscence of a poll with the question "Do you think vegetarians are odd?" Then its a moot point either way.
I'm one. I'd be a vegetarian but I don't have the self-discipline. Nor can I be arsed to cook a different meal for the family. So I quite admire them actually.
I wasn't claiming people think its wrong, merely odd. Just as I think some of my meat eating friends diets are distinctly odd. As usual though CHB missed my point which was that its not the vote winner he seems to assume in my view
You said 90% of people find vegetarians odd.
Evidence was provided this was nonsense.
You then changed your mind instead of being a man and admitting you got it wrong and said it was actually what you thought.
You're an utter embarrassment.
You clearly have difficulties with numbers. 90% is not the same as 9%.
The poll you provided said nothing of the sort, it said people didn't feel meat was necessary with every meal. That is a lot different to being a vegetarian. I don't eat meat with every meal that doesn't mean I am a vegetarian or stop me thinking they are a bit odd.
Once again you ignore the message however which is it's not a vote winner for Starmer like you think it is.
Another poll was provided which said 9% of people thought it was unacceptable.
It's not my fault you clearly haven't passed GCSE English, nor GCSE Maths. Your comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
I never claimed it was a vote winner, I said it makes him more relatable to say he misses bacon and chicken curry. I think it does.
I would be very willing to tutor you in my spare time but unfortunately I can't remove stupidity
Again thinking it is unacceptable is not the same as finding it odd. I don't regard vegetarianism as unacceptable I just think its a strange way to eat. Unacceptable is more the equivalent of it should be banned
Why do you think it's a strange way to eat?
Are physiology evolved for a mixed diet, we are designed to eat both meat and fish and vegetables. It is why vegans need to take supplements and possibly vegetarians not sure on that one but know vegans do as the girl who used to sit next to me in the office was vegan and had to take various supplements can't remember what for some vitamin and mineral deficiencies in the diet I believe.
So to summarise, you're talking nonsense.
No I was saying why I find it strange, you deny your body the fuel it is designed for which is a mixed diet. Evolution designed us to eat meat and vegetables simple as that. If you restrict your diet to the point that you need supplements
Veganism isn't the same as vegetarianism, in your own post you admit you don't know.
This whole discussion was about vegetarianism, so I reiterate, you are talking nonsense.
You can't read, you can't add up and you clearly can't argue. It's a waste of my time educating you any further.
I think it is a problem that was created by our technologies and it is a problem we should solve with science and technology too.
It is not a problem created by the eating of meat which humanity has done since we evolved from other mammals that also ate meat..
So you don't think our production of meat contributes to climate change
Not significantly, no. I think it can be dealt with sustainably with with other technological developments.
Eliminating other emissions via things like research into clean transport, clean electricity generation, offsetting technologies are the solution not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Going back to relatively small scale rotation farming is the solution. As I said before, cows do not naturally produce inordinate amounts of methane - it would be absurd to imagine they would.
I think it is a problem that was created by our technologies and it is a problem we should solve with science and technology too.
It is not a problem created by the eating of meat which humanity has done since we evolved from other mammals that also ate meat..
So you don't think our production of meat contributes to climate change
Not significantly, no. I think it can be dealt with sustainably with with other technological developments.
Eliminating other emissions via things like research into clean transport, clean electricity generation, offsetting technologies are the solution not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Going back to relatively small scale rotation farming is the solution. As I said before, cows do not naturally produce inordinate amounts of methane - it would be absurd to imagine they would.
The ghost of Thomas Malthus probably nodded his head in agreement there.
I though the humanising element was the fact he said he missed bacon sandwiches and chicken curry, seemed relatable to me.
I couldn't give a toss if you're a vegetarian or not, odd the right believe in personal liberty only when it's something they agree with.
I have no qualms with him being a vegetarian. It is the "for the planet" bit I object to.
People starting to say that we should all become vegetarians "for the planet" can f**k right off. If you don't want to eat bacon then fine, I couldn't care less. If he'd said he is a vegetarian but its a personal choice and he doesn't expect others to be then I would not object, but instead he banged on about it being good for the planet.
People not eating meat I don't care about, but if you start to suggest that I shouldn't then that's where I have a problem.
It's an unfortunate fact that cattle produce methane and it would reduce warming of the climate if there were fewer cattle - so not no meat, but less meat, particularly beef, and less dairy.
However, there's some hope that the methane can be reduced by adjusting cattle diet, so perhaps clever people will rescue us from having to make a difficult change.
Starmer also says he does not want 'another divisive Scottish referendum' on independence
'Does not want' is by no means the same as ruling one out, which is what PM Johnson has said.
Well as the Tories have a majority of 80 until 2024 what he says only matters after then anyway
Thought at least one of those elected as a Tory had been expelled? Must say I originally thought the next election wouldn't be until 2024; now I'm not so sure.
Unless polls consistently come out showing a 20% +Tory lead for six months, very unlikely now, there will not be an election until 2024, that is guaranteed
Is It your belief that if the PM changes, they should seek their own mandate as May and Johnson both did?
No, Brown did not, Major did not and nor will should any successor for Boris, however as I have said I remain of the view Boris will stay Tory leader and PM until 2024
Brown was widely criticised for not and likely lost support in the polls as a result of not having an election.
Ironically enough he inherited a similar position to what Johnson's successor might.
Brown made the sensible decision, he had a comfortable majority of 66 and therefore would have been an idiot to risk that at an early election, especially as the polls were neck and neck after the 2007 party conferences, in the end he got another 3 years as PM before losing power (while still preventing an outright Tory majority in 2010).
May and Boris were in a different scenario as May only had a small majority of 12 and Boris had no majority at all, the Tories now have a majority of 80 so are far closer to the position Labour were under when Brown too over ie very little to gain and everything to lose from an early election
I recall a Boris Johnson (ring any bells?) criticising Brown strongly.
So what Boris would not be the new PM anyway, it would likely be Sunak and Boris is the elected PM already.
We Tories had to wait a full 5 years from when Cameron was elected Tory leader in 2005 until the next general election in 2010 so I am sure you Labour supporters can wait 4 years after Starmer was elected Labour leader until election 2024
The Labour fantasists think they're going to be in power tomorrow. The rest of 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and well into 2024 before they even get a chance are going to drag for them, I fear
Under the terms of the FTPA the next election is due on 2nd May 2024 - just over 3 years and 7 months from today.If we go back in time for the same period, we find ouselves in February 2017 in the middle of the Copeland by-election campaign and 7 months beyond Theresa May becoming PM. That still feels pretty recent to me.
Except that repeal of the FTPA is explicitly promised in the Conservative manifesto, and so can be implemented at any time, without obstruction from the Lords. There's no reason whatsoever why the next election can't be in the autumn of 2024. I'd even be tempted to go with December - it just feels lucky, for some reason...
Very unlikely to be later than October 2024.Moreover replacing the FTPA is somewhat problematic in that it might mean restoring the Royal Prerogative which was removed by the 2011Act.Apparently there is no precedent for that.
I'm sure we'll find a way. So in any case, September / October 2024 is entirely possible, and in my view likely.
That's four full years from today.
If it is then that's a bad sign. It means the PM isn't confident of winning an election sooner.
A PM that is confident normally goes sooner. See: 1983, 1987, 2001, 2005, 2017 (confidence was hubris) and 2019. A last minute election is because the PM has no confidence they will win even if they might. See: 1992, 1997, 2010 and 2015.
And yet 50% of the last-minute examples you quoted were victories! I always thought Labour were foolish to go early in the 2000s - they could have governed for 15 years, instead of 13, but instead voluntarily gave up almost 14% of their mandate.
Anyway, it's hardly last-minute in the circumstances: going in spring artificially truncates the government's term to 4.25 years, just because the last election was very unusually - by necessity - held in December.
I think an extra 6 months beyond the 'expected' date to carry out the government's programme, given that the coronavirus emergency will dominate a year of its time at the absolute minimum, is entirely reasonable.
There is value in having the option of when to call the election in order to maximise your chances. Waiting until the last minute removes that option. It might be an awful time for you - events dear boy. There's a trade off between maximising your time in office and preserving a timing option.
It reminds me of the story of the considerate and honest judge who told the prisoner he had just condemned to death - "You will be hanged at 6am one morning in the next six days , i.e. up to next Monday morning, but I guarantee that you will not be left in the position of knowing for certain that you'll hang in the morning".
The condemned man calculated that he wouldn't be hanged on the Monday morning because he would know for certain the night before. He then calculated that he wouldn't be hanged on the Sunday morning either because, given that he couldn't be hanged on the Monday morning, he'd know the night before that he was going to hang on the Sunday morning which would break the judge's promise. He worked back through the week eliminating all the days and began to relax. Much to his surprise he was hanged on the Thursday morning.
I though the humanising element was the fact he said he missed bacon sandwiches and chicken curry, seemed relatable to me.
I couldn't give a toss if you're a vegetarian or not, odd the right believe in personal liberty only when it's something they agree with.
I have no qualms with him being a vegetarian. It is the "for the planet" bit I object to.
People starting to say that we should all become vegetarians "for the planet" can f**k right off. If you don't want to eat bacon then fine, I couldn't care less. If he'd said he is a vegetarian but its a personal choice and he doesn't expect others to be then I would not object, but instead he banged on about it being good for the planet.
People not eating meat I don't care about, but if you start to suggest that I shouldn't then that's where I have a problem.
Did he say you should become a vegetarian, or did he explain why he did? Those are two different things. I am a vegetarian for similar reasons to Starmer and will happily explain my reasoning if asked. Equally I will never tell other people how to live their life, and in fact buy meat and fish and cook it for my kids every week.
I applaud the principles behind Starmer's (and I presume your) decision to give up meat, but I'm afraid in terms of his perception that a vegetarian diet is healthier, he's flat out wrong. And in terms of his perception that it's better for the planet, he ain't particularly right either - at best he's being far too simplistic.
One of the worst things about his statement and many others by vegetarians is that they are sometimes 'tempted' by meat - what on earth do they think that 'temptation' is, if not their body asking them for something it needs? Looked at dispassionately, it is a willful abandonment of common sense.
Pagan is once again pushing his own narrow viewpoint as being representative of everyone else, poor baby
Merely saying I have never met an omnivore yet that doesn't think vegetarians are a bit odd. Yes its anecdote but in the abscence of a poll with the question "Do you think vegetarians are odd?" Then its a moot point either way.
I'm one. I'd be a vegetarian but I don't have the self-discipline. Nor can I be arsed to cook a different meal for the family. So I quite admire them actually.
I wasn't claiming people think its wrong, merely odd. Just as I think some of my meat eating friends diets are distinctly odd. As usual though CHB missed my point which was that its not the vote winner he seems to assume in my view
You said 90% of people find vegetarians odd.
Evidence was provided this was nonsense.
You then changed your mind instead of being a man and admitting you got it wrong and said it was actually what you thought.
You're an utter embarrassment.
You clearly have difficulties with numbers. 90% is not the same as 9%.
The poll you provided said nothing of the sort, it said people didn't feel meat was necessary with every meal. That is a lot different to being a vegetarian. I don't eat meat with every meal that doesn't mean I am a vegetarian or stop me thinking they are a bit odd.
Once again you ignore the message however which is it's not a vote winner for Starmer like you think it is.
Another poll was provided which said 9% of people thought it was unacceptable.
It's not my fault you clearly haven't passed GCSE English, nor GCSE Maths. Your comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
I never claimed it was a vote winner, I said it makes him more relatable to say he misses bacon and chicken curry. I think it does.
I would be very willing to tutor you in my spare time but unfortunately I can't remove stupidity
Again thinking it is unacceptable is not the same as finding it odd. I don't regard vegetarianism as unacceptable I just think its a strange way to eat. Unacceptable is more the equivalent of it should be banned
Why do you think it's a strange way to eat?
Are physiology evolved for a mixed diet, we are designed to eat both meat and fish and vegetables. It is why vegans need to take supplements and possibly vegetarians not sure on that one but know vegans do as the girl who used to sit next to me in the office was vegan and had to take various supplements can't remember what for some vitamin and mineral deficiencies in the diet I believe.
I have not eaten meat or fish for over 30 years, don't take any supplements and am in good health, certainly better health than most men in their mid-40s judging from their appearance. Humans are omnivores and can easily get by without meat as long as they eat a balanced diet. I don't understand why people find the existence of vegetarians so threatening. I doubt this is a vote winner for Starmer but it makes me like him more.
Pagan is once again pushing his own narrow viewpoint as being representative of everyone else, poor baby
Merely saying I have never met an omnivore yet that doesn't think vegetarians are a bit odd. Yes its anecdote but in the abscence of a poll with the question "Do you think vegetarians are odd?" Then its a moot point either way.
I'm one. I'd be a vegetarian but I don't have the self-discipline. Nor can I be arsed to cook a different meal for the family. So I quite admire them actually.
I wasn't claiming people think its wrong, merely odd. Just as I think some of my meat eating friends diets are distinctly odd. As usual though CHB missed my point which was that its not the vote winner he seems to assume in my view
You said 90% of people find vegetarians odd.
Evidence was provided this was nonsense.
You then changed your mind instead of being a man and admitting you got it wrong and said it was actually what you thought.
You're an utter embarrassment.
You clearly have difficulties with numbers. 90% is not the same as 9%.
The poll you provided said nothing of the sort, it said people didn't feel meat was necessary with every meal. That is a lot different to being a vegetarian. I don't eat meat with every meal that doesn't mean I am a vegetarian or stop me thinking they are a bit odd.
Once again you ignore the message however which is it's not a vote winner for Starmer like you think it is.
Another poll was provided which said 9% of people thought it was unacceptable.
It's not my fault you clearly haven't passed GCSE English, nor GCSE Maths. Your comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
I never claimed it was a vote winner, I said it makes him more relatable to say he misses bacon and chicken curry. I think it does.
I would be very willing to tutor you in my spare time but unfortunately I can't remove stupidity
Again thinking it is unacceptable is not the same as finding it odd. I don't regard vegetarianism as unacceptable I just think its a strange way to eat. Unacceptable is more the equivalent of it should be banned
Why do you think it's a strange way to eat?
Are physiology evolved for a mixed diet, we are designed to eat both meat and fish and vegetables. It is why vegans need to take supplements and possibly vegetarians not sure on that one but know vegans do as the girl who used to sit next to me in the office was vegan and had to take various supplements can't remember what for some vitamin and mineral deficiencies in the diet I believe.
So to summarise, you're talking nonsense.
No I was saying why I find it strange, you deny your body the fuel it is designed for which is a mixed diet. Evolution designed us to eat meat and vegetables simple as that. If you restrict your diet to the point that you need supplements
Veganism isn't the same as vegetarianism, in your own post you admit you don't know.
This whole discussion was about vegetarianism, so I reiterate, you are talking nonsense.
You can't read, you can't add up and you clearly can't argue. It's a waste of my time educating you any further.
Yes I said I didn't know because its a subject that has never come up with vegetarians I know whereas it has with the vegan.
I though the humanising element was the fact he said he missed bacon sandwiches and chicken curry, seemed relatable to me.
I couldn't give a toss if you're a vegetarian or not, odd the right believe in personal liberty only when it's something they agree with.
I have no qualms with him being a vegetarian. It is the "for the planet" bit I object to.
People starting to say that we should all become vegetarians "for the planet" can f**k right off. If you don't want to eat bacon then fine, I couldn't care less. If he'd said he is a vegetarian but its a personal choice and he doesn't expect others to be then I would not object, but instead he banged on about it being good for the planet.
People not eating meat I don't care about, but if you start to suggest that I shouldn't then that's where I have a problem.
Did he say you should become a vegetarian, or did he explain why he did? Those are two different things. I am a vegetarian for similar reasons to Starmer and will happily explain my reasoning if asked. Equally I will never tell other people how to live their life, and in fact buy meat and fish and cook it for my kids every week.
I applaud the principles behind Starmer's (and I presume your) decision to give up meat, but I'm afraid in terms of his perception that a vegetarian diet is healthier, he's flat out wrong. And in terms of his perception that it's better for the planet, he ain't particularly right either - at best he's being far too simplistic.
One of the worst things about his statement and many others by vegetarians is that they are sometimes 'tempted' by meat - what on earth do they think that 'temptation' is, if not their body asking them for something it needs? Looked at dispassionately, it is a willful abandonment of common sense.
Since I am not an elite athlete I think a balanced vegetarian diet is more than healthy enough for me. I am certain that my diet is more healthy than that of most non-vegetarians in this country as unlike most people you see these days I am not a fat knacker. It is undeniable that intensive meat production is bad for the environment. Although to be honest that was not my motivation for becoming vegetarian, it just seemed wrong to me to kill another living thing just to eat it.
You think being a vegetarian makes you a legend? That a prospective PM saying eating meat is wrong for the planet is the right thing to do or a vote winner?
This is worse than him kneeling. Awful, absolutely awful.
There's nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. He wasn't trying to convince others to be one, he was saying it was very difficult because he misses bacon sandwiches and curry. That's relatable
90% of the country tend to think vegetarians are a bit wierd. Being thought a bit odd possibly isn't a vote winner
Why is being vegetarian weird?
People are concerned they have insufficient steak in society.
The Venn diagram between those annoyed by the existence of vegetarians and those who accuse the "Left" of policing personal liberty would be interesting.
You think being a vegetarian makes you a legend? That a prospective PM saying eating meat is wrong for the planet is the right thing to do or a vote winner?
This is worse than him kneeling. Awful, absolutely awful.
There's nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. He wasn't trying to convince others to be one, he was saying it was very difficult because he misses bacon sandwiches and curry. That's relatable
90% of the country tend to think vegetarians are a bit wierd. Being thought a bit odd possibly isn't a vote winner
Why is being vegetarian weird?
People are concerned they have insufficient steak in society.
The Venn diagram between those annoyed by the existence of vegetarians and those who accuse the "Left" of policing personal liberty would be interesting.
Pagan is once again pushing his own narrow viewpoint as being representative of everyone else, poor baby
Merely saying I have never met an omnivore yet that doesn't think vegetarians are a bit odd. Yes its anecdote but in the abscence of a poll with the question "Do you think vegetarians are odd?" Then its a moot point either way.
I'm one. I'd be a vegetarian but I don't have the self-discipline. Nor can I be arsed to cook a different meal for the family. So I quite admire them actually.
I wasn't claiming people think its wrong, merely odd. Just as I think some of my meat eating friends diets are distinctly odd. As usual though CHB missed my point which was that its not the vote winner he seems to assume in my view
You said 90% of people find vegetarians odd.
Evidence was provided this was nonsense.
You then changed your mind instead of being a man and admitting you got it wrong and said it was actually what you thought.
You're an utter embarrassment.
You clearly have difficulties with numbers. 90% is not the same as 9%.
The poll you provided said nothing of the sort, it said people didn't feel meat was necessary with every meal. That is a lot different to being a vegetarian. I don't eat meat with every meal that doesn't mean I am a vegetarian or stop me thinking they are a bit odd.
Once again you ignore the message however which is it's not a vote winner for Starmer like you think it is.
Another poll was provided which said 9% of people thought it was unacceptable.
It's not my fault you clearly haven't passed GCSE English, nor GCSE Maths. Your comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
I never claimed it was a vote winner, I said it makes him more relatable to say he misses bacon and chicken curry. I think it does.
I would be very willing to tutor you in my spare time but unfortunately I can't remove stupidity
Again thinking it is unacceptable is not the same as finding it odd. I don't regard vegetarianism as unacceptable I just think its a strange way to eat. Unacceptable is more the equivalent of it should be banned
Why do you think it's a strange way to eat?
Are physiology evolved for a mixed diet, we are designed to eat both meat and fish and vegetables. It is why vegans need to take supplements and possibly vegetarians not sure on that one but know vegans do as the girl who used to sit next to me in the office was vegan and had to take various supplements can't remember what for some vitamin and mineral deficiencies in the diet I believe.
So to summarise, you're talking nonsense.
No I was saying why I find it strange, you deny your body the fuel it is designed for which is a mixed diet. Evolution designed us to eat meat and vegetables simple as that. If you restrict your diet to the point that you need supplements
Veganism isn't the same as vegetarianism, in your own post you admit you don't know.
This whole discussion was about vegetarianism, so I reiterate, you are talking nonsense.
You can't read, you can't add up and you clearly can't argue. It's a waste of my time educating you any further.
Yes I said I didn't know because its a subject that has never come up with vegetarians I know whereas it has with the vegan.
I though the humanising element was the fact he said he missed bacon sandwiches and chicken curry, seemed relatable to me.
I couldn't give a toss if you're a vegetarian or not, odd the right believe in personal liberty only when it's something they agree with.
I have no qualms with him being a vegetarian. It is the "for the planet" bit I object to.
People starting to say that we should all become vegetarians "for the planet" can f**k right off. If you don't want to eat bacon then fine, I couldn't care less. If he'd said he is a vegetarian but its a personal choice and he doesn't expect others to be then I would not object, but instead he banged on about it being good for the planet.
People not eating meat I don't care about, but if you start to suggest that I shouldn't then that's where I have a problem.
Did he say you should become a vegetarian, or did he explain why he did? Those are two different things. I am a vegetarian for similar reasons to Starmer and will happily explain my reasoning if asked. Equally I will never tell other people how to live their life, and in fact buy meat and fish and cook it for my kids every week.
I applaud the principles behind Starmer's (and I presume your) decision to give up meat, but I'm afraid in terms of his perception that a vegetarian diet is healthier, he's flat out wrong. And in terms of his perception that it's better for the planet, he ain't particularly right either - at best he's being far too simplistic.
One of the worst things about his statement and many others by vegetarians is that they are sometimes 'tempted' by meat - what on earth do they think that 'temptation' is, if not their body asking them for something it needs? Looked at dispassionately, it is a willful abandonment of common sense.
Since I am not an elite athlete I think a balanced vegetarian diet is more than healthy enough for me. I am certain that my diet is more healthy than that of most non-vegetarians in this country as unlike most people you see these days I am not a fat knacker. It is undeniable that intensive meat production is bad for the environment. Although to be honest that was not my motivation for becoming vegetarian, it just seemed wrong to me to kill another living thing just to eat it.
You think being a vegetarian makes you a legend? That a prospective PM saying eating meat is wrong for the planet is the right thing to do or a vote winner?
This is worse than him kneeling. Awful, absolutely awful.
There's nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. He wasn't trying to convince others to be one, he was saying it was very difficult because he misses bacon sandwiches and curry. That's relatable
90% of the country tend to think vegetarians are a bit wierd. Being thought a bit odd possibly isn't a vote winner
Why is being vegetarian weird?
People are concerned they have insufficient steak in society.
Comments
You are the very living embodiment of Everton FC
Could get a few of the Dade ex cuban back too. If there's one way to show you're not a commie it's using Bloomberg ads on the Telly.
It's also the case that 0 includes all of the tail of the distribution of a Biden landslide, where Biden wins states like Missouri and Montana, in addition to the 6 in the bet.
Florida in 2018 was not exactly proof that the big splash at the end works. The Republicans took the Senate seat, keep the Governorship although did lose 2 House seats.
He's got to go.
Eliminating other emissions via things like research into clean transport, clean electricity generation, offsetting technologies are the solution not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I am a vegetarian for similar reasons to Starmer and will happily explain my reasoning if asked. Equally I will never tell other people how to live their life, and in fact buy meat and fish and cook it for my kids every week.
This whole discussion was about vegetarianism, so I reiterate, you are talking nonsense.
You can't read, you can't add up and you clearly can't argue. It's a waste of my time educating you any further.
We allowed some of our lawn to grow to see what wild flowers might appear. Limited success; one nice patch of yarrow is the highlight.
However, now I'm trying to mow it, it is a right bugger of a job. Two hours in, and still lots to do.
Good exercise, mind.
NEW THREAD
However, there's some hope that the methane can be reduced by adjusting cattle diet, so perhaps clever people will rescue us from having to make a difficult change.
It reminds me of the story of the considerate and honest judge who told the prisoner he had just condemned to death - "You will be hanged at 6am one morning in the next six days , i.e. up to next Monday morning, but I guarantee that you will not be left in the position of knowing for certain that you'll hang in the morning".
The condemned man calculated that he wouldn't be hanged on the Monday morning because he would know for certain the night before. He then calculated that he wouldn't be hanged on the Sunday morning either because, given that he couldn't be hanged on the Monday morning, he'd know the night before that he was going to hang on the Sunday morning which would break the judge's promise. He worked back through the week eliminating all the days and began to relax. Much to his surprise he was hanged on the Thursday morning.
One of the worst things about his statement and many others by vegetarians is that they are sometimes 'tempted' by meat - what on earth do they think that 'temptation' is, if not their body asking them for something it needs? Looked at dispassionately, it is a willful abandonment of common sense.
However here is vegetarian advice
https://www.rawpress.co/blog/im-vegetarian-what-supplements-should-i-take
As to you educating me, no thanks you are too much of a dimwit
What’s the code for PB fantasy league? Or is it by invitation only?
If he gets Labour back to power i agree with CHB LEG END!