Sensible piece. The Greens are not going away, the issue they profess to be key to them is seen as increasingly relevant after all, and local to me Greens have put in loads of effort and work very hard on things between elections, but the prospects of going anywhere remain low.
UKIP went for the saturation strategy and nearly broke through, but it didn't really matter as they achieved their aim because of that pressure. The Greens could shoot for the same and be content at that success despite electoral failing. But they can succeed in advancing Green issues even without that strategy so the tip toe approach to seats up to now is fine, even though still unlikely to succeed.
Bottom line is as Green issues resonate more the big two get Greener, so the Greens themselves wont be needed as a winning electoral force.
Are they content to just be a pressure group or do they actually want to do other things, non-Green, which the others will not? Cause the former is working and they can be proud, but the other is a damn hard slog.
NEW: Keir Starmer has abandoned his controversial electoral college reforms overnight.
A spokesman says he will still bring other measures to "better connect us with working people and re-orient us toward the voters who can take us to power".
The other thing I have noticed from the last few days in and out of central London is a big move back to the office, led by young people who are DONE with WFH
General opinion: "WFH was fun for a while, but it's lonely, humourless and boring, and you don't meet any new friends or lovers"
They'd quite like the option of a day or two at home a week, but they are now keen to resume normal working life, despite the commute
I have wfh for years and, when I used to go into the city to meet people, I must admit it made me feel like I’d been missing out. Doesn’t matter now as a happily almost married man, but if I were 20 years younger and single, it would be no fun
Quite. If you're 23 or 27 and single and living in outer London who the F wants to stay at home all week?! Where's the fun in traipsing to the local Aldi for a sandwich? Then home again
38 or 45 with kids, spouse and a garden, entirely different, but even then some will want the escape of the office, city life, bars and restaurants, cool shops and a cheeky lunch
I spoke to a WeWork executive tonight (I had a sociable evening) and he said the attitude for them has entirely changed, WFH is not gonna last, on the scale we anticipated, because those who don't go in to the office will miss out on those chance meetings/opportunities/promotions
Those who go in will simply appear keener, and develop helpful human relationships, and they will get ahead. It is so much easier to sack someone you have never actually met. It is so much easier to promote someone you have actually met who has made you laugh, or told you some decent gossip. Someone you LIKE, because you've known them, touched them, had a drink with them. We are social animals
There will be more flexibility re commuting, but this person (whose very job depends on predicting work/life patterns) thinks WFH will wither, certainly for young people
Yes, tend to agree. I worked in London most of 94-09 and was single for a lot of it, so done my bit and don’t mind the quieter life now.
Also, how many young fathers really want to stay home 24/7 with a squalling brat or two? How many see the office as a blissful escape from the utter tedium of early parenting?
A lot. Not a happy fact. But a lot
I have 3 kids aged 12, 8 and 3. I have spent the last 18 months WFH included a job change a year ago. I have not met anyone from work face to face in that time.
What I find the hardest is the instant switch between work and kids with no break. The moment I get the last kid off in the morning it is the few minutes back home and then straight to work. Then at the end of the day you close your laptop screen and straight into kids meals, activities etc. There is no time at all to yourself when not working. I am quite exhausted by it and there isn't much end in sight for me. My role is European and until I can travel properly again then things won't change.
I would like to see some work colleagues again in the flesh but wouldn't ever want to go back to being in 4 or 5 days/week. I completely understand it being different for the young workers. What will be interesting is how it is balanced between the (older) management wanting to be at home a few days each week and the youngsters who are in most days.
I have wfh'd for the last 4 years and have a young family. In an ideal world I would still prefer working in the office with occasional home working. I also dislike the 'instant switch'. Even building a garden office didn't really overcome the problem, my son still hovers around. It is nice, but I preferred the clear separation that existed before.
I have really enjoyed the end of lockdown and actually meeting people again for work, shaking hands etc.
The problem with working in the office is really dead time commuting time, at one point in my career I was commuting for 4 hours a day (Although that is something peculiar to the south east). Ideally a healthy commute is a 20 minute walk, something like that. I've never successfully built that in to my wfh routine.
Roddy Dunlop QC put it best. It is the difference between working from home and living in the office.
I managed this well in the first lockdown but have found it increasingly difficult and have tried to find reasons. Reading both your posts explains it well. Its that over time the barriers between working and being at home gradually dissolve so you never feel that you are properly at work or completely able to relax. I had been looking at the garden shed idea so I am disappointed you have found that hasn't worked either.
Over the last 2 weeks I have been out in court every day prosecuting. It has been a psychological relief. I am really not sure what the long term solution is going to be.
Husband has been hybrid working for years, as have many in his chambers. The garden office does work provided you are very disciplined about keeping the children out of it. But - like many others - he also made time to go to work-social events and to go and meet people as often as he could when he wasn't at a hearing precisely in order to avoid the loneliness factor etc.
I found working from home very much harder when I had a regular office job and rarely did it - partly because the nature of the job meant it was not practical and partly because I hated feeling that home was not separate from work. I enjoyed my commute because it was one of the few times I had entirely to myself when I could read or watch something on iPlayer and it helped mark a break between work and home.
It is different since becoming self-employed but the children are grown up so there are not the same pressures. It will be interesting to see how this new project works out from that perspective. Some face to face time will be needed but many of the people I will need to interact with are also working from home too. But since I will not be an employee and there is an end date to it, it is different to being an employee trying to climb the corporate ladder. Permanent WFH is hard I think for those starting out.
My daughter started working for a public sector body last October so she will soon have been there a year but she is yet to have a day working in the office (she did go in for some filming of a promotional video). She has met her work colleagues for drinks once but otherwise knows them through an online social chat that they have each morning. It has been incredibly hard for her.
She is a much better people person than me but this has upsides and downsides. On the one hand she has made the screen chat work to a certain extent and has built relationships. On the other she misses the social interaction even more than I would. She really wants to be in the Office and to build a social life around her new friends. It feels as if her life is on hold in some respects.
My son has just started his first job; four days WFH, one in the office at the moment. He’s way more focused than I am, and it works for him for now, FWIW. I suspect office/home of 4/1 or 3/2 will become standard after the pandemic is fully over.
Everyone basically sat in isolation in their homes all week is not a great look for the future . It might be convinient , it might allow a bit more time in bed , it might even be more "efficient" but it is utterly without soul .
On WFH even without kids I dislike the 'Instant switch' people have talked about. I just dont like my work intruding on my personal space is all. Thats not wholly rational when theres no real impact, but it's there.
Why are you surprised? It's the magazine that supported Andrew Wakefield.
Interestingly, when it wrote about prostate cancer, only 4 days ago, or to the effect of Covid on men's health, it referred to men. Not one of their body parts. But it is apparently ok for a medical magazine to describe women as little more than holes.
Someone suggested not entirely seriously "chicks without dicks" might be an alternative....
It would be laughable were it not so insulting and dehumanising. It's the same contemptuous attitude as that used by some Texas politician when recently interviewed about the Texas abortion law who referred to pregnant women as "host bodies".
Both reduce women to body parts and bodily functions.
How can any sane person think this acceptable?
Absolutely agree. (Though one might make a similar point about trans individuals.)
On topic - great header @Quincel - I know they are separate parties, but I wonder if the performance of the Scottish Greens in government (more like mangos - green on the outside, yellow on the inside) will have any impact south of the border?
What performance, numpties who butt lick the SNP, unprincipled charlatans who are anything but green.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
NEW: Keir Starmer has abandoned his controversial electoral college reforms overnight.
A spokesman says he will still bring other measures to "better connect us with working people and re-orient us toward the voters who can take us to power".
I don't think he's stupid himself, but I'm not sure that he has the instinct yet for how to read a group. He should have been getting enough advice from all wings of the party to realise this was a non-starter beforehand. Instead it sounds as if he's misguidedly allowed himself to be driven by one faction only, with one-sided advice, and so into the ground. He needs to develop both better strategic and political antennae pretty quickly, if that can be done.
Off topic, petrol update. Just had calls from my other half, in tears initially, trying to find petrol. She set off at 7am this morning to go to an event, 50 miles away, and needed petrol. The first 6 petrol stations were no good - 2 closed, 4 with horrendous queues. At 7.30, she was about to give up and come home. I directed her to a nearby Asda - bit of a queue, but no problem at all, so she's happy now and on her way. But astonishing that so many people decided to go to fill up their cars so early on a Saturday morning.
Conclusions: a) there is no petrol shortage b) there is panic buying ('fuelled' by the media, BP/Shell, and the government) c) the great British public (some of them) are bonkers.
Not sure how the government is to blame for panic buying.
I get that people want to fill up because they might not be able to tomorrow, but what I don’t get is the queuing. Unless you absolutely need to fill up now, why bother?
Do you think Nadine (minister in this government for whatever bollox she’s minister for) has made the fuel supply problem & associated panic better or worse with this tweet?
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
Plus hopefully all the idiots will still have full tanks as they aren’t actually driving anywhere, so won’t need to fill up again, just in case...
On topic, and thanks for the header, there was an interesting discussion on R5 yesterday. They had the standard right wing think tank person and someone from the Guardian to represent the leftish point of view (I sometimes struggle to decide if Labour or the Guardian is actually representing leftish views in this country).
What was interesting was that the Guardian writer was far more enthusiastic about Boris's speech in the UN (apart from the Kermit joke) than the think tank chap. She acknowledged that when Boris put his enthusiasm behind something he could be genuinely influential and get things done. Of course this was all laced with comments about him having the concentration span of a goldfish and his inclination to move on all too rapidly to his next enthusiasm but she emphasised that right now he was in the right place and "we should all be rowing in behind him" on this.
Whether you agree with this or not it seems to me that this is the quintessential problem for the Greens: are they a pressure group trying to influence government policy or are they a real political party? I think that they are more effective as the former and they clearly have influenced the national discussion. Voting green is not a wasted vote in this scenario, not at all. It is an indication that the mainstream politicians should pay attention.
It is also an indication of the problem for Starmer. Someone who is ideologically promiscuous as Boris (is ideologically really needed) will have no problem in seizing an agenda like this, even if it does not fit with traditional emphasis on the economy and business of Tories such as think tank guy. Creating a distinctive position that might seize the imagination of the public is going to be very difficult for Starmer.
I agree with all that, but it could be a problem for Boris as well. Over on Conservative Home, there is constant moaning about all the "green crap" that the government is going along with. More Conservatives than Labourites do not support the green agenda in the slightest, and some may turn on Boris.
The anti-Green brigade have a couple of interesting points to make, which over time will become collectively more important.
Broadly they are:
The science may be wrong The science may be right but the benefits may be much greater than believed The solution to problems since 1800 have been more not less management and technology; this one is the same
and the killer, not sufficiently appreciated yet:
If the forecasts are correct it is going to happen anyway, with the maximum difference being + or - a few years. After all the hype of the last few decades, more CO2 goes into the air this year than ever before. It is obvious that this will not stop soon enough.
BTW it is obvious from the lifestyle of elites, political and other, that they do not believe their own rhetoric.
I expect us to see a lot more about how we don't need to stop global warming but adapt to it. And the elite are perfectly content for there to be sacrifices. Just not by them.
NEW: Keir Starmer has abandoned his controversial electoral college reforms overnight.
A spokesman says he will still bring other measures to "better connect us with working people and re-orient us toward the voters who can take us to power".
On topic, and thanks for the header, there was an interesting discussion on R5 yesterday. They had the standard right wing think tank person and someone from the Guardian to represent the leftish point of view (I sometimes struggle to decide if Labour or the Guardian is actually representing leftish views in this country).
What was interesting was that the Guardian writer was far more enthusiastic about Boris's speech in the UN (apart from the Kermit joke) than the think tank chap. She acknowledged that when Boris put his enthusiasm behind something he could be genuinely influential and get things done. Of course this was all laced with comments about him having the concentration span of a goldfish and his inclination to move on all too rapidly to his next enthusiasm but she emphasised that right now he was in the right place and "we should all be rowing in behind him" on this.
Whether you agree with this or not it seems to me that this is the quintessential problem for the Greens: are they a pressure group trying to influence government policy or are they a real political party? I think that they are more effective as the former and they clearly have influenced the national discussion. Voting green is not a wasted vote in this scenario, not at all. It is an indication that the mainstream politicians should pay attention.
It is also an indication of the problem for Starmer. Someone who is ideologically promiscuous as Boris (is ideologically really needed) will have no problem in seizing an agenda like this, even if it does not fit with traditional emphasis on the economy and business of Tories such as think tank guy. Creating a distinctive position that might seize the imagination of the public is going to be very difficult for Starmer.
I agree with all that, but it could be a problem for Boris as well. Over on Conservative Home, there is constant moaning about all the "green crap" that the government is going along with. More Conservatives than Labourites do not support the green agenda in the slightest, and some may turn on Boris.
The anti-Green brigade have a couple of interesting points to make, which over time will become collectively more important.
Broadly they are:
The science may be wrong The science may be right but the benefits may be much greater than believed The solution to problems since 1800 have been more not less management and technology; this one is the same
and the killer, not sufficiently appreciated yet:
If the forecasts are correct it is going to happen anyway, with the maximum difference being + or - a few years. After all the hype of the last few decades, more CO2 goes into the air this year than ever before. It is obvious that this will not stop soon enough.
BTW it is obvious from the lifestyle of elites, political and other, that they do not believe their own rhetoric.
The final point is a banker, sadly. We accept that it is beyond our capability by OOM to stop the East Coast falling into the sea, or to prevent a single earthquake or neutralise a single volcano, so how do we expect to intervene in a pan-world catastrophe, even of our making?
"The science may be wrong" is receding in the rear view mirror though. In the lifetime of PB climate change has changed from being mainly predictions to largely observed present facts. And the benefits argument is very iffy too. The world is very complex and very interdependent so it's sort of like a house of cards - any change is highly likely to be for the worse.
On topic, there is a key difference between the Green vote this time and the last few elections in which us swung back to bigger parties - a large part of it is formed of ex Labour voters who are at war with its current leader. The spite between Sir Keir’s supporters & the Corbynites is real - look at the Twitter feeds of fans of each side obsessives. The 18-35 yo section of 2019 Labour voters are the only age group who consider the party to have got worse under the new leadership, and I’d say they’re most likely the Corbynite Greens
On topic, and thanks for the header, there was an interesting discussion on R5 yesterday. They had the standard right wing think tank person and someone from the Guardian to represent the leftish point of view (I sometimes struggle to decide if Labour or the Guardian is actually representing leftish views in this country).
What was interesting was that the Guardian writer was far more enthusiastic about Boris's speech in the UN (apart from the Kermit joke) than the think tank chap. She acknowledged that when Boris put his enthusiasm behind something he could be genuinely influential and get things done. Of course this was all laced with comments about him having the concentration span of a goldfish and his inclination to move on all too rapidly to his next enthusiasm but she emphasised that right now he was in the right place and "we should all be rowing in behind him" on this.
Whether you agree with this or not it seems to me that this is the quintessential problem for the Greens: are they a pressure group trying to influence government policy or are they a real political party? I think that they are more effective as the former and they clearly have influenced the national discussion. Voting green is not a wasted vote in this scenario, not at all. It is an indication that the mainstream politicians should pay attention.
It is also an indication of the problem for Starmer. Someone who is ideologically promiscuous as Boris (is ideologically really needed) will have no problem in seizing an agenda like this, even if it does not fit with traditional emphasis on the economy and business of Tories such as think tank guy. Creating a distinctive position that might seize the imagination of the public is going to be very difficult for Starmer.
I agree with all that, but it could be a problem for Boris as well. Over on Conservative Home, there is constant moaning about all the "green crap" that the government is going along with. More Conservatives than Labourites do not support the green agenda in the slightest, and some may turn on Boris.
The anti-Green brigade have a couple of interesting points to make, which over time will become collectively more important.
Broadly they are:
The science may be wrong The science may be right but the benefits may be much greater than believed The solution to problems since 1800 have been more not less management and technology; this one is the same
and the killer, not sufficiently appreciated yet:
If the forecasts are correct it is going to happen anyway, with the maximum difference being + or - a few years. After all the hype of the last few decades, more CO2 goes into the air this year than ever before. It is obvious that this will not stop soon enough.
BTW it is obvious from the lifestyle of elites, political and other, that they do not believe their own rhetoric.
I expect us to see a lot more about how we don't need to stop global warming but adapt to it. And the elite are perfectly content for there to be sacrifices. Just not by them.
One thing I can guarantee: the people refusing to make any changes to their lifestyle to combat the climate crisis will be the same ones who refuse to take in any climate refugees, saying it's nothing to do with us.
NEW: Keir Starmer has abandoned his controversial electoral college reforms overnight.
A spokesman says he will still bring other measures to "better connect us with working people and re-orient us toward the voters who can take us to power".
I don't think he's stupid himself, but I'm not sure that he has the instinct yet for how to read a group. He should have been getting enough advice from all wings of the party to realise this was a non-starter beforehand. Instead it sounds as if he's misguidedly allowed himself to be driven by one faction only, into the ground. He needs to develop both better strategic and political antennae pretty quickly, if that can be done.
It amused me when they were talking about abolishing the deputy leadership position for some virtuous reason - but when Corbyn tried it they screamed bloody murder.
It’s all factionalism and power politics. Two bald men fighting over a comb
Why are you surprised? It's the magazine that supported Andrew Wakefield.
Interestingly, when it wrote about prostate cancer, only 4 days ago, or to the effect of Covid on men's health, it referred to men. Not one of their body parts. But it is apparently ok for a medical magazine to describe women as little more than holes.
Someone suggested not entirely seriously "chicks without dicks" might be an alternative....
It would be laughable were it not so insulting and dehumanising. It's the same contemptuous attitude as that used by some Texas politician when recently interviewed about the Texas abortion law who referred to pregnant women as "host bodies".
Both reduce women to body parts and bodily functions.
The other thing I have noticed from the last few days in and out of central London is a big move back to the office, led by young people who are DONE with WFH
General opinion: "WFH was fun for a while, but it's lonely, humourless and boring, and you don't meet any new friends or lovers"
They'd quite like the option of a day or two at home a week, but they are now keen to resume normal working life, despite the commute
I have wfh for years and, when I used to go into the city to meet people, I must admit it made me feel like I’d been missing out. Doesn’t matter now as a happily almost married man, but if I were 20 years younger and single, it would be no fun
Quite. If you're 23 or 27 and single and living in outer London who the F wants to stay at home all week?! Where's the fun in traipsing to the local Aldi for a sandwich? Then home again
38 or 45 with kids, spouse and a garden, entirely different, but even then some will want the escape of the office, city life, bars and restaurants, cool shops and a cheeky lunch
I spoke to a WeWork executive tonight (I had a sociable evening) and he said the attitude for them has entirely changed, WFH is not gonna last, on the scale we anticipated, because those who don't go in to the office will miss out on those chance meetings/opportunities/promotions
Those who go in will simply appear keener, and develop helpful human relationships, and they will get ahead. It is so much easier to sack someone you have never actually met. It is so much easier to promote someone you have actually met who has made you laugh, or told you some decent gossip. Someone you LIKE, because you've known them, touched them, had a drink with them. We are social animals
There will be more flexibility re commuting, but this person (whose very job depends on predicting work/life patterns) thinks WFH will wither, certainly for young people
Yes, tend to agree. I worked in London most of 94-09 and was single for a lot of it, so done my bit and don’t mind the quieter life now.
Also, how many young fathers really want to stay home 24/7 with a squalling brat or two? How many see the office as a blissful escape from the utter tedium of early parenting?
A lot. Not a happy fact. But a lot
I have 3 kids aged 12, 8 and 3. I have spent the last 18 months WFH included a job change a year ago. I have not met anyone from work face to face in that time.
What I find the hardest is the instant switch between work and kids with no break. The moment I get the last kid off in the morning it is the few minutes back home and then straight to work. Then at the end of the day you close your laptop screen and straight into kids meals, activities etc. There is no time at all to yourself when not working. I am quite exhausted by it and there isn't much end in sight for me. My role is European and until I can travel properly again then things won't change.
I would like to see some work colleagues again in the flesh but wouldn't ever want to go back to being in 4 or 5 days/week. I completely understand it being different for the young workers. What will be interesting is how it is balanced between the (older) management wanting to be at home a few days each week and the youngsters who are in most days.
I have wfh'd for the last 4 years and have a young family. In an ideal world I would still prefer working in the office with occasional home working. I also dislike the 'instant switch'. Even building a garden office didn't really overcome the problem, my son still hovers around. It is nice, but I preferred the clear separation that existed before.
I have really enjoyed the end of lockdown and actually meeting people again for work, shaking hands etc.
The problem with working in the office is really dead time commuting time, at one point in my career I was commuting for 4 hours a day (Although that is something peculiar to the south east). Ideally a healthy commute is a 20 minute walk, something like that. I've never successfully built that in to my wfh routine.
Roddy Dunlop QC put it best. It is the difference between working from home and living in the office.
I managed this well in the first lockdown but have found it increasingly difficult and have tried to find reasons. Reading both your posts explains it well. Its that over time the barriers between working and being at home gradually dissolve so you never feel that you are properly at work or completely able to relax. I had been looking at the garden shed idea so I am disappointed you have found that hasn't worked either.
Over the last 2 weeks I have been out in court every day prosecuting. It has been a psychological relief. I am really not sure what the long term solution is going to be.
Indeed. Some people are super keen to push ahead with a revolution in working habits but that seems too exhaustive an option for the many getting home working fatigue. Clearly more flexibility (enforced from employers on the few totally uninterested but welcomed by many more) is coming, but it's good sight of downsides hasn't been totally lost.
NEW: Keir Starmer has abandoned his controversial electoral college reforms overnight.
A spokesman says he will still bring other measures to "better connect us with working people and re-orient us toward the voters who can take us to power".
He's not very savvy, and is prone to picking fights with the party's powerful and most foolish idealogues that he can't beat, but then he is quite a crisp performer at PMQs and being "truly pathetic" got him from state school to senior lawyer.
His biggest problem is that he is hated by the eye-swivellers and doesn't understand that he is surrounded by duplicitous backstabbers, which probably in itself makes him unsuitable for his current role.
I am interested as to why loyal Conservatives like yourself are as vexed by the man as you are. Particularly as your own Prime Minister isn't really a role model for hard work, propriety and competence.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
The problem is that many people aren't really panic buying, which is can be a very slippery concept , but are often simply people who need transport more urgently than most, and are acting as they believe it precautionarily due to that need, and responding to others' actions. The same often applies to empty supermarkets and shelves.
iain watson @iainjwatson I am told the #electoralcollege has been junked from @Keir_Starmer 's reforms but this morning @UKLabour 's NEC will discuss other changes to the leadership rules and parliamentary selections this morning
NEW: Keir Starmer has abandoned his controversial electoral college reforms overnight.
A spokesman says he will still bring other measures to "better connect us with working people and re-orient us toward the voters who can take us to power".
He's not very savvy, and is prone to picking fights with the party's powerful and most foolish idealogues that he can't beat, but then he is quite a crisp performer at PMQs and being "truly pathetic" got him from state school to senior lawyer.
His biggest problem is that he is hated by the eye-swivellers and doesn't understand that he is surrounded by duplicitous backstabbers, which probably in itself makes him unsuitable for his current role.
I am interested as to why loyal Conservatives like yourself are as vexed by the man as you are. Particularly as your own Prime Minister isn't really a role model for hard work, propriety and competence.
It makes them feel slightly better about their own choice ?
On topic, and thanks for the header, there was an interesting discussion on R5 yesterday. They had the standard right wing think tank person and someone from the Guardian to represent the leftish point of view (I sometimes struggle to decide if Labour or the Guardian is actually representing leftish views in this country).
What was interesting was that the Guardian writer was far more enthusiastic about Boris's speech in the UN (apart from the Kermit joke) than the think tank chap. She acknowledged that when Boris put his enthusiasm behind something he could be genuinely influential and get things done. Of course this was all laced with comments about him having the concentration span of a goldfish and his inclination to move on all too rapidly to his next enthusiasm but she emphasised that right now he was in the right place and "we should all be rowing in behind him" on this.
Whether you agree with this or not it seems to me that this is the quintessential problem for the Greens: are they a pressure group trying to influence government policy or are they a real political party? I think that they are more effective as the former and they clearly have influenced the national discussion. Voting green is not a wasted vote in this scenario, not at all. It is an indication that the mainstream politicians should pay attention.
It is also an indication of the problem for Starmer. Someone who is ideologically promiscuous as Boris (is ideologically really needed) will have no problem in seizing an agenda like this, even if it does not fit with traditional emphasis on the economy and business of Tories such as think tank guy. Creating a distinctive position that might seize the imagination of the public is going to be very difficult for Starmer.
I agree with all that, but it could be a problem for Boris as well. Over on Conservative Home, there is constant moaning about all the "green crap" that the government is going along with. More Conservatives than Labourites do not support the green agenda in the slightest, and some may turn on Boris.
The anti-Green brigade have a couple of interesting points to make, which over time will become collectively more important.
Broadly they are:
The science may be wrong The science may be right but the benefits may be much greater than believed The solution to problems since 1800 have been more not less management and technology; this one is the same
and the killer, not sufficiently appreciated yet:
If the forecasts are correct it is going to happen anyway, with the maximum difference being + or - a few years. After all the hype of the last few decades, more CO2 goes into the air this year than ever before. It is obvious that this will not stop soon enough.
BTW it is obvious from the lifestyle of elites, political and other, that they do not believe their own rhetoric.
The final point is a banker, sadly. We accept that it is beyond our capability by OOM to stop the East Coast falling into the sea, or to prevent a single earthquake or neutralise a single volcano, so how do we expect to intervene in a pan-world catastrophe, even of our making?
"The science may be wrong" is receding in the rear view mirror though. In the lifetime of PB climate change has changed from being mainly predictions to largely observed present facts. And the benefits argument is very iffy too. The world is very complex and very interdependent so it's sort of like a house of cards - any change is highly likely to be for the worse.
Although we have seen a number of adverse events from forest fires to droughts blamed on global warming these, to me, are not the real threat, unpleasant as they are. I fear that there will come an inflexion point where gradual change will very rapidly become radical and all too possibly irreversible change. At the moment we are not so much in the last chance saloon but playing the role of the alcoholic with a dodgy liver who thinks one more drink can't hurt.
My concern is that it may already be too late to stop this but even if I am wrong on this we need to stop rolling the dice.
On topic, and thanks for the header, there was an interesting discussion on R5 yesterday. They had the standard right wing think tank person and someone from the Guardian to represent the leftish point of view (I sometimes struggle to decide if Labour or the Guardian is actually representing leftish views in this country).
What was interesting was that the Guardian writer was far more enthusiastic about Boris's speech in the UN (apart from the Kermit joke) than the think tank chap. She acknowledged that when Boris put his enthusiasm behind something he could be genuinely influential and get things done. Of course this was all laced with comments about him having the concentration span of a goldfish and his inclination to move on all too rapidly to his next enthusiasm but she emphasised that right now he was in the right place and "we should all be rowing in behind him" on this.
Whether you agree with this or not it seems to me that this is the quintessential problem for the Greens: are they a pressure group trying to influence government policy or are they a real political party? I think that they are more effective as the former and they clearly have influenced the national discussion. Voting green is not a wasted vote in this scenario, not at all. It is an indication that the mainstream politicians should pay attention.
It is also an indication of the problem for Starmer. Someone who is ideologically promiscuous as Boris (is ideologically really needed) will have no problem in seizing an agenda like this, even if it does not fit with traditional emphasis on the economy and business of Tories such as think tank guy. Creating a distinctive position that might seize the imagination of the public is going to be very difficult for Starmer.
I agree with all that, but it could be a problem for Boris as well. Over on Conservative Home, there is constant moaning about all the "green crap" that the government is going along with. More Conservatives than Labourites do not support the green agenda in the slightest, and some may turn on Boris.
The anti-Green brigade have a couple of interesting points to make, which over time will become collectively more important.
Broadly they are:
The science may be wrong The science may be right but the benefits may be much greater than believed The solution to problems since 1800 have been more not less management and technology; this one is the same
and the killer, not sufficiently appreciated yet:
If the forecasts are correct it is going to happen anyway, with the maximum difference being + or - a few years. After all the hype of the last few decades, more CO2 goes into the air this year than ever before. It is obvious that this will not stop soon enough.
BTW it is obvious from the lifestyle of elites, political and other, that they do not believe their own rhetoric.
I expect us to see a lot more about how we don't need to stop global warming but adapt to it. And the elite are perfectly content for there to be sacrifices. Just not by them.
One thing I can guarantee: the people refusing to make any changes to their lifestyle to combat the climate crisis will be the same ones who refuse to take in any climate refugees, saying it's nothing to do with us.
From the perspective of one of the majority of Africans who have never been in a car or a plane or a building with running tap water or mains electricity the distinction between you and the people you're criticising is invisible.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
The problem is that many people aren't people aren't really panic buying, which is can be a slippery concept, but are often simply people who need transport more urgently than most, and acting as they believe it precautionarily. The same often applies to empty supermarkets and shelves.
Not really. Anyone who is buying petrol when they normally wouldn't is panic buying. One of the major reasons supermarket shelves were struggling early in the pandemic wasn't just panic buying, it was also that restaurants and takeaways were closed so suddenly food demand at supermarkets went up 20% as everyone was eating at home. That was a semi-permanent increase which is only now unwinding with some estimates that supermarkets will see a permanent increase of around 10% in food sales.
There is no such effect for petrol. It's idiots who think that the nation will somehow run out of petrol. It won't.
NEW: Keir Starmer has abandoned his controversial electoral college reforms overnight.
A spokesman says he will still bring other measures to "better connect us with working people and re-orient us toward the voters who can take us to power".
On the upside most normal people wont notice a thing not happening as much as it happening. On the downside, and I say this as someone who has been more sympathetic to Keir than most, it encourages his critics to see him as vulnerable.
They need a Clause 4 moment, namely making a break with hair shirt wearing, the public nuisance and the condescension. And to make a bold pact with big business and underline the financial upside of going green. Become a realistic alternative to right leaning under 50 workers just as much as Momentum. Tricky balance and I don’t see the outstanding talent on the horizon to do it.
What's the point of that? The party would no longer be the Greens at that point but would just be a better educated version of the LibDems; another party that finds it easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.
The Greens have always been very keen on direct action as well as electoral politics and that will never go away. This leadership contest is all about the Armalite vs Ballot Box strategies. I voted Omond/Womack as the party needs young, feminist, intersectionalist leadership.
Better be the right type of feminist, that's a minefield these days.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
There's no logic, is there?
The previous fuel crisis was real to some extent, because there was a protest.
This time there has been no material change in circumstances. If there was no need for a panic last week, there is no need for a panic this week.
The only thing that has changed is that the 24-hour news cycle got a bit bored.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
The problem is that many people aren't really panic buying, which is can be a very slippery concept , but are often simply people who need transport more urgently than most, and are acting as they believe it precautionarily due to that need, and responding to others' actions. The same often applies to empty supermarkets and shelves.
No one is panic buying. They are all being logical, in the face of other people panic buying. Just like 2020.
Ive been in the office every day this week despite very few people choosing to, mainly because the IT equipment is better so I’m more productive.
I now find that I can spend 2.5 hours driving back and forward to Edinburgh in a day and I still get more work done than I do in my office in the house. Its irrational but at work I have a work mindset, I get on with it. Here, the temptation of PB and many other distractions seems ever present.
Very well put. My procrastination is through the roof, then I need to evening work after dinner. All about headspace.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
The problem is that many people aren't really panic buying, which is can be a very slippery concept , but are often simply people who need transport more urgently than most, and are acting as they believe it precautionarily because of that, and responding to others' actions. The same often applies to empty supermarkets and shelves.
The site admins should shut down comments for the next thread and have a header containing just this link
NEW: Keir Starmer has abandoned his controversial electoral college reforms overnight.
A spokesman says he will still bring other measures to "better connect us with working people and re-orient us toward the voters who can take us to power".
He's not very savvy, and is prone to picking fights with the party's powerful and most foolish idealogues that he can't beat, but then he is quite a crisp performer at PMQs and being "truly pathetic" got him from state school to senior lawyer.
His biggest problem is that he is hated by the eye-swivellers and doesn't understand that he is surrounded by duplicitous backstabbers, which probably in itself makes him unsuitable for his current role.
I am interested as to why loyal Conservatives like yourself are as vexed by the man as you are. Particularly as your own Prime Minister isn't really a role model for hard work, propriety and competence.
I am vexed because we need a choice. Labour did not offer a choice in either 2017 or 2019. A real choice is not only democratic but forces the government of the day to be better, to be more responsive and less casual in their incompetence.
I think Starmer has a lot going for him as a person. He is intelligent, well meaning, responsible and public spirited. He promised so much more than Corbyn did. But he is proving to be very bad at politics and that means we do not have a choice. Again.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
The problem is that many people aren't people aren't really panic buying, which is can be a slippery concept, but are often simply people who need transport more urgently than most, and acting as they believe it precautionarily. The same often applies to empty supermarkets and shelves.
Not really. Anyone who is buying petrol when they normally wouldn't is panic buying. One of the major reasons supermarket shelves were struggling early in the pandemic wasn't just panic buying, it was also that restaurants and takeaways were closed so suddenly food demand at supermarkets went up 20% as everyone was eating at home. That was a semi-permanent increase which is only now unwinding with some estimates that supermarkets will see a permanent increase of around 10% in food sales.
There is no such effect for petrol. It's idiots who think that the nation will somehow run out of petrol. It won't.
I don't agree. "Panic" is an emotional perjorative that implies acting purely on the basis of irrationality, and is particularly beloved of governments and authorities in these situations. Many people have perfectly rational reasons for acting as they do in these contexts ; it's just that we usually need to find a balance for our collective welfare.
On topic, and thanks for the header, there was an interesting discussion on R5 yesterday. They had the standard right wing think tank person and someone from the Guardian to represent the leftish point of view (I sometimes struggle to decide if Labour or the Guardian is actually representing leftish views in this country).
What was interesting was that the Guardian writer was far more enthusiastic about Boris's speech in the UN (apart from the Kermit joke) than the think tank chap. She acknowledged that when Boris put his enthusiasm behind something he could be genuinely influential and get things done. Of course this was all laced with comments about him having the concentration span of a goldfish and his inclination to move on all too rapidly to his next enthusiasm but she emphasised that right now he was in the right place and "we should all be rowing in behind him" on this.
Whether you agree with this or not it seems to me that this is the quintessential problem for the Greens: are they a pressure group trying to influence government policy or are they a real political party? I think that they are more effective as the former and they clearly have influenced the national discussion. Voting green is not a wasted vote in this scenario, not at all. It is an indication that the mainstream politicians should pay attention.
It is also an indication of the problem for Starmer. Someone who is ideologically promiscuous as Boris (is ideologically really needed) will have no problem in seizing an agenda like this, even if it does not fit with traditional emphasis on the economy and business of Tories such as think tank guy. Creating a distinctive position that might seize the imagination of the public is going to be very difficult for Starmer.
I agree with all that, but it could be a problem for Boris as well. Over on Conservative Home, there is constant moaning about all the "green crap" that the government is going along with. More Conservatives than Labourites do not support the green agenda in the slightest, and some may turn on Boris.
The anti-Green brigade have a couple of interesting points to make, which over time will become collectively more important.
Broadly they are:
The science may be wrong The science may be right but the benefits may be much greater than believed The solution to problems since 1800 have been more not less management and technology; this one is the same
and the killer, not sufficiently appreciated yet:
If the forecasts are correct it is going to happen anyway, with the maximum difference being + or - a few years. After all the hype of the last few decades, more CO2 goes into the air this year than ever before. It is obvious that this will not stop soon enough.
BTW it is obvious from the lifestyle of elites, political and other, that they do not believe their own rhetoric.
I expect us to see a lot more about how we don't need to stop global warming but adapt to it. And the elite are perfectly content for there to be sacrifices. Just not by them.
Unfortunately most of the Greens do not practice what they preach, hypocritical numpties who want everyone else to stop doing things but under the impression they are special and they need to keep doing it to ensure the plebs get the message, most it is "do as I say " not "do as I do". Fcukw*ts mainly.
Why are you surprised? It's the magazine that supported Andrew Wakefield.
Interestingly, when it wrote about prostate cancer, only 4 days ago, or to the effect of Covid on men's health, it referred to men. Not one of their body parts. But it is apparently ok for a medical magazine to describe women as little more than holes.
Far more fun to get on the outrage bus than actually look into it further! The quote on the cover of the Lancet this week is a from this article concerning an exhibition on the cultural response to menstruation, taking place at The Vagina Museum in London. The quotation is from this paragraph:
"Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected—for example, the paucity in understanding of endometriosis and the way women's pain has been seen as more likely to have an emotional or psychological cause, a hangover from centuries of theorising about hysteria. This exhibition and the Vagina Museum as a whole aim to redress this lack of attention."
Ive been in the office every day this week despite very few people choosing to, mainly because the IT equipment is better so I’m more productive.
I now find that I can spend 2.5 hours driving back and forward to Edinburgh in a day and I still get more work done than I do in my office in the house. Its irrational but at work I have a work mindset, I get on with it. Here, the temptation of PB and many other distractions seems ever present.
Very well put. My procrastination is through the roof, then I need to evening work after dinner. All about headspace.
I am getting to the point that my procrastination is having to wait in line.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
The problem is that many people aren't people aren't really panic buying, which is can be a slippery concept, but are often simply people who need transport more urgently than most, and acting as they believe it precautionarily. The same often applies to empty supermarkets and shelves.
Not really. Anyone who is buying petrol when they normally wouldn't is panic buying. One of the major reasons supermarket shelves were struggling early in the pandemic wasn't just panic buying, it was also that restaurants and takeaways were closed so suddenly food demand at supermarkets went up 20% as everyone was eating at home. That was a semi-permanent increase which is only now unwinding with some estimates that supermarkets will see a permanent increase of around 10% in food sales.
There is no such effect for petrol. It's idiots who think that the nation will somehow run out of petrol. It won't.
I don't agree. "Panic" is an emotional perjorative that implies irrationality, particularly beloved of governments and authorities in these situations. Many people have perfectly rational reasons for acting as they do in these contexts ; it's just that we need to find a balance for our collective welfare.
It is irrational though. The UK is self-sufficient in petrol refining. There's literally no fucking chance of running out. There's no need to find a balance, people should stop being wankers.
As always, we need a note of caution when comparing and extrapolating the German and English and Scottish Greens - they're not from the same political spaces.
Until recently I'd have said the "professionalising" (which also seems inevitably to mean moving to the centre left, but putting green economics at the heart of every policy) route was a) most likely and b) likely to be most effective and c) most likely to appeal to me (declare your bias!).
But the arrival of so many Corbynite fellow travellers and the Extinction Rebellion faction (who seem to be most well meaning but exictable early middle aged white people who can't even generate much publicity from their ill-thought-through stunts) has probably put the kibosh on that.
They'll be back to the traditional arguing amongst themselves of the left, while the planet goes to hell.
Miss Cyclefree, it's crackers (likewise this 'chestfeeding' nonsense).
Never been in favour of bastardising the English language for political reasons. Womxn remains particularly insane.
This particular is an example of why the government doesnt need to try to manufacture 'woke' things to get outraged about, as they can overshoot and look silly and obsessive. Just wait for something moronic to show itself and see how normal people not their culture war strategist thinks about it, and then casually laugh at such things if that's hiw people react.
The other thing I have noticed from the last few days in and out of central London is a big move back to the office, led by young people who are DONE with WFH
General opinion: "WFH was fun for a while, but it's lonely, humourless and boring, and you don't meet any new friends or lovers"
They'd quite like the option of a day or two at home a week, but they are now keen to resume normal working life, despite the commute
I have wfh for years and, when I used to go into the city to meet people, I must admit it made me feel like I’d been missing out. Doesn’t matter now as a happily almost married man, but if I were 20 years younger and single, it would be no fun
Quite. If you're 23 or 27 and single and living in outer London who the F wants to stay at home all week?! Where's the fun in traipsing to the local Aldi for a sandwich? Then home again
38 or 45 with kids, spouse and a garden, entirely different, but even then some will want the escape of the office, city life, bars and restaurants, cool shops and a cheeky lunch
I spoke to a WeWork executive tonight (I had a sociable evening) and he said the attitude for them has entirely changed, WFH is not gonna last, on the scale we anticipated, because those who don't go in to the office will miss out on those chance meetings/opportunities/promotions
Those who go in will simply appear keener, and develop helpful human relationships, and they will get ahead. It is so much easier to sack someone you have never actually met. It is so much easier to promote someone you have actually met who has made you laugh, or told you some decent gossip. Someone you LIKE, because you've known them, touched them, had a drink with them. We are social animals
There will be more flexibility re commuting, but this person (whose very job depends on predicting work/life patterns) thinks WFH will wither, certainly for young people
Yes, tend to agree. I worked in London most of 94-09 and was single for a lot of it, so done my bit and don’t mind the quieter life now.
Also, how many young fathers really want to stay home 24/7 with a squalling brat or two? How many see the office as a blissful escape from the utter tedium of early parenting?
A lot. Not a happy fact. But a lot
I have 3 kids aged 12, 8 and 3. I have spent the last 18 months WFH included a job change a year ago. I have not met anyone from work face to face in that time.
What I find the hardest is the instant switch between work and kids with no break. The moment I get the last kid off in the morning it is the few minutes back home and then straight to work. Then at the end of the day you close your laptop screen and straight into kids meals, activities etc. There is no time at all to yourself when not working. I am quite exhausted by it and there isn't much end in sight for me. My role is European and until I can travel properly again then things won't change.
I would like to see some work colleagues again in the flesh but wouldn't ever want to go back to being in 4 or 5 days/week. I completely understand it being different for the young workers. What will be interesting is how it is balanced between the (older) management wanting to be at home a few days each week and the youngsters who are in most days.
I have wfh'd for the last 4 years and have a young family. In an ideal world I would still prefer working in the office with occasional home working. I also dislike the 'instant switch'. Even building a garden office didn't really overcome the problem, my son still hovers around. It is nice, but I preferred the clear separation that existed before.
I have really enjoyed the end of lockdown and actually meeting people again for work, shaking hands etc.
The problem with working in the office is really dead time commuting time, at one point in my career I was commuting for 4 hours a day (Although that is something peculiar to the south east). Ideally a healthy commute is a 20 minute walk, something like that. I've never successfully built that in to my wfh routine.
Roddy Dunlop QC put it best. It is the difference between working from home and living in the office.
I managed this well in the first lockdown but have found it increasingly difficult and have tried to find reasons. Reading both your posts explains it well. Its that over time the barriers between working and being at home gradually dissolve so you never feel that you are properly at work or completely able to relax. I had been looking at the garden shed idea so I am disappointed you have found that hasn't worked either.
Over the last 2 weeks I have been out in court every day prosecuting. It has been a psychological relief. I am really not sure what the long term solution is going to be.
@DavidL The garden shed was definetly an improvement, so I wouldn't rule it out. I built mine myself for £2000 and it is perfectly adequate, but there are a few spiders around the place at this time of year. But it doesn't overcome the people issue. I would just rather be in the office with people and use WFH when I need to concentrate on something, and don't want to be interrupted. I also found that being in the office sort of helps to be able to read the situation, what your boss is thinking etc, who is doing well and who isn't etc. These are evolutionary survival instincts hard wired in to us.
A charming, touching interview with Greta Thunberg - ignore whatever you've thought about her up to now (positive or negiative) and ignore the stupid Guardian stunt that it starts with, and read it simply as an account of what it's like to be an autistic child with a cause, growing up in Sweden with its special features that we've discussed here before. It'll probably change your mind (I wasn't a fan and I still think she overdoes it, but I now like her):
Queues all around for petrol. Meanwhile on red light. Annoying. Going to have to join the madness.
Queues for petrol were causing traffic jams for miles along the A13 even late last evening. If this continues for a few days will slow down and delay deliveries significantly over the next week making the HGV shortage even worse.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
The problem is that many people aren't people aren't really panic buying, which is can be a slippery concept, but are often simply people who need transport more urgently than most, and acting as they believe it precautionarily. The same often applies to empty supermarkets and shelves.
Not really. Anyone who is buying petrol when they normally wouldn't is panic buying. One of the major reasons supermarket shelves were struggling early in the pandemic wasn't just panic buying, it was also that restaurants and takeaways were closed so suddenly food demand at supermarkets went up 20% as everyone was eating at home. That was a semi-permanent increase which is only now unwinding with some estimates that supermarkets will see a permanent increase of around 10% in food sales.
There is no such effect for petrol. It's idiots who think that the nation will somehow run out of petrol. It won't.
Here we go again. It's recursive. Idiots are just as effective as driver shortages at limiting the amount of fuel available. So even though the appropriate response to driver shortages is Keep calm, the appropriate response to driver shortages plus Idiots responding inappropriately to driver shortages is Take action.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 17m Breakthrough at Tulo: MP nominations threshold for leadership election and challenge raised, registered supporters ditched, deselection made harder. Electoral college: dead.
NEW: Keir Starmer has abandoned his controversial electoral college reforms overnight.
A spokesman says he will still bring other measures to "better connect us with working people and re-orient us toward the voters who can take us to power".
He's not very savvy, and is prone to picking fights with the party's powerful and most foolish idealogues that he can't beat, but then he is quite a crisp performer at PMQs and being "truly pathetic" got him from state school to senior lawyer.
His biggest problem is that he is hated by the eye-swivellers and doesn't understand that he is surrounded by duplicitous backstabbers, which probably in itself makes him unsuitable for his current role.
I am interested as to why loyal Conservatives like yourself are as vexed by the man as you are. Particularly as your own Prime Minister isn't really a role model for hard work, propriety and competence.
I am vexed because we need a choice. Labour did not offer a choice in either 2017 or 2019. A real choice is not only democratic but forces the government of the day to be better, to be more responsive and less casual in their incompetence.
I think Starmer has a lot going for him as a person. He is intelligent, well meaning, responsible and public spirited. He promised so much more than Corbyn did. But he is proving to be very bad at politics and that means we do not have a choice. Again.
LDs should be around 50% in the polls. Don’t really understand why they aren’t given the manifest unfitness to govern of both the main parties.
On topic, and thanks for the header, there was an interesting discussion on R5 yesterday. They had the standard right wing think tank person and someone from the Guardian to represent the leftish point of view (I sometimes struggle to decide if Labour or the Guardian is actually representing leftish views in this country).
What was interesting was that the Guardian writer was far more enthusiastic about Boris's speech in the UN (apart from the Kermit joke) than the think tank chap. She acknowledged that when Boris put his enthusiasm behind something he could be genuinely influential and get things done. Of course this was all laced with comments about him having the concentration span of a goldfish and his inclination to move on all too rapidly to his next enthusiasm but she emphasised that right now he was in the right place and "we should all be rowing in behind him" on this.
Whether you agree with this or not it seems to me that this is the quintessential problem for the Greens: are they a pressure group trying to influence government policy or are they a real political party? I think that they are more effective as the former and they clearly have influenced the national discussion. Voting green is not a wasted vote in this scenario, not at all. It is an indication that the mainstream politicians should pay attention.
It is also an indication of the problem for Starmer. Someone who is ideologically promiscuous as Boris (is ideologically really needed) will have no problem in seizing an agenda like this, even if it does not fit with traditional emphasis on the economy and business of Tories such as think tank guy. Creating a distinctive position that might seize the imagination of the public is going to be very difficult for Starmer.
I agree with all that, but it could be a problem for Boris as well. Over on Conservative Home, there is constant moaning about all the "green crap" that the government is going along with. More Conservatives than Labourites do not support the green agenda in the slightest, and some may turn on Boris.
The anti-Green brigade have a couple of interesting points to make, which over time will become collectively more important.
Broadly they are:
The science may be wrong The science may be right but the benefits may be much greater than believed The solution to problems since 1800 have been more not less management and technology; this one is the same
and the killer, not sufficiently appreciated yet:
If the forecasts are correct it is going to happen anyway, with the maximum difference being + or - a few years. After all the hype of the last few decades, more CO2 goes into the air this year than ever before. It is obvious that this will not stop soon enough.
BTW it is obvious from the lifestyle of elites, political and other, that they do not believe their own rhetoric.
The final point is a banker, sadly. We accept that it is beyond our capability by OOM to stop the East Coast falling into the sea, or to prevent a single earthquake or neutralise a single volcano, so how do we expect to intervene in a pan-world catastrophe, even of our making?
"The science may be wrong" is receding in the rear view mirror though. In the lifetime of PB climate change has changed from being mainly predictions to largely observed present facts. And the benefits argument is very iffy too. The world is very complex and very interdependent so it's sort of like a house of cards - any change is highly likely to be for the worse.
Its probably too late, though I don't expect total collapse. In Diamond's book on societal collapses he talked about where they never saw the problem coming, or where they did but didn't address it and why societies would seemingly make that choice. Role of elites was certainly in there.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
The problem is that many people aren't people aren't really panic buying, which is can be a slippery concept, but are often simply people who need transport more urgently than most, and acting as they believe it precautionarily. The same often applies to empty supermarkets and shelves.
Not really. Anyone who is buying petrol when they normally wouldn't is panic buying. One of the major reasons supermarket shelves were struggling early in the pandemic wasn't just panic buying, it was also that restaurants and takeaways were closed so suddenly food demand at supermarkets went up 20% as everyone was eating at home. That was a semi-permanent increase which is only now unwinding with some estimates that supermarkets will see a permanent increase of around 10% in food sales.
There is no such effect for petrol. It's idiots who think that the nation will somehow run out of petrol. It won't.
I know, I know, and it's really, really unfair because in the grand scheme of things it isn't Johnson's fault ( except he didn't see the pan European driver crisis heading towards him). It is the fault of newspapers and 24 hour rolling TV news.
But it happened on his watch and that is what counts.
On topic, and thanks for the header, there was an interesting discussion on R5 yesterday. They had the standard right wing think tank person and someone from the Guardian to represent the leftish point of view (I sometimes struggle to decide if Labour or the Guardian is actually representing leftish views in this country).
What was interesting was that the Guardian writer was far more enthusiastic about Boris's speech in the UN (apart from the Kermit joke) than the think tank chap. She acknowledged that when Boris put his enthusiasm behind something he could be genuinely influential and get things done. Of course this was all laced with comments about him having the concentration span of a goldfish and his inclination to move on all too rapidly to his next enthusiasm but she emphasised that right now he was in the right place and "we should all be rowing in behind him" on this.
Whether you agree with this or not it seems to me that this is the quintessential problem for the Greens: are they a pressure group trying to influence government policy or are they a real political party? I think that they are more effective as the former and they clearly have influenced the national discussion. Voting green is not a wasted vote in this scenario, not at all. It is an indication that the mainstream politicians should pay attention.
It is also an indication of the problem for Starmer. Someone who is ideologically promiscuous as Boris (is ideologically really needed) will have no problem in seizing an agenda like this, even if it does not fit with traditional emphasis on the economy and business of Tories such as think tank guy. Creating a distinctive position that might seize the imagination of the public is going to be very difficult for Starmer.
I agree with all that, but it could be a problem for Boris as well. Over on Conservative Home, there is constant moaning about all the "green crap" that the government is going along with. More Conservatives than Labourites do not support the green agenda in the slightest, and some may turn on Boris.
The anti-Green brigade have a couple of interesting points to make, which over time will become collectively more important.
Broadly they are:
The science may be wrong The science may be right but the benefits may be much greater than believed The solution to problems since 1800 have been more not less management and technology; this one is the same
and the killer, not sufficiently appreciated yet:
If the forecasts are correct it is going to happen anyway, with the maximum difference being + or - a few years. After all the hype of the last few decades, more CO2 goes into the air this year than ever before. It is obvious that this will not stop soon enough.
BTW it is obvious from the lifestyle of elites, political and other, that they do not believe their own rhetoric.
The final point is a banker, sadly. We accept that it is beyond our capability by OOM to stop the East Coast falling into the sea, or to prevent a single earthquake or neutralise a single volcano, so how do we expect to intervene in a pan-world catastrophe, even of our making?
"The science may be wrong" is receding in the rear view mirror though. In the lifetime of PB climate change has changed from being mainly predictions to largely observed present facts. And the benefits argument is very iffy too. The world is very complex and very interdependent so it's sort of like a house of cards - any change is highly likely to be for the worse.
Although we have seen a number of adverse events from forest fires to droughts blamed on global warming these, to me, are not the real threat, unpleasant as they are. I fear that there will come an inflexion point where gradual change will very rapidly become radical and all too possibly irreversible change. At the moment we are not so much in the last chance saloon but playing the role of the alcoholic with a dodgy liver who thinks one more drink can't hurt.
My concern is that it may already be too late to stop this but even if I am wrong on this we need to stop rolling the dice.
This may well be right, but as we are putting more CO2 into the air than ever right now, and a number of countries are increasing it, I don't know what stopping 'rolling the dice' involves.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
The problem is that many people aren't really panic buying, which is can be a very slippery concept , but are often simply people who need transport more urgently than most, and are acting as they believe it precautionarily due to that need, and responding to others' actions. The same often applies to empty supermarkets and shelves.
No one is panic buying. They are all being logical, in the face of other people panic buying. Just like 2020.
I filled up yesterday but only due to fact I was getting close to empty , garage was busy for sure.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
The problem is that many people aren't people aren't really panic buying, which is can be a slippery concept, but are often simply people who need transport more urgently than most, and acting as they believe it precautionarily. The same often applies to empty supermarkets and shelves.
Not really. Anyone who is buying petrol when they normally wouldn't is panic buying. One of the major reasons supermarket shelves were struggling early in the pandemic wasn't just panic buying, it was also that restaurants and takeaways were closed so suddenly food demand at supermarkets went up 20% as everyone was eating at home. That was a semi-permanent increase which is only now unwinding with some estimates that supermarkets will see a permanent increase of around 10% in food sales.
There is no such effect for petrol. It's idiots who think that the nation will somehow run out of petrol. It won't.
Here we go again. It's recursive. Idiots are just as effective as driver shortages at limiting the amount of fuel available. So even though the appropriate response to driver shortages is Keep calm, the appropriate response to driver shortages plus Idiots responding inappropriately to driver shortages is Take action.
Yes and when the rest of the lemmings walk off a cliff I'm sure it will be rational to take that same action.
There is no rational decision making here. It's the same as people buying boot loads of bog roll. We make it in the UK, it was never, ever going to run out. We refine petrol in the UK, it is never going to run out.
NEW: Keir Starmer has abandoned his controversial electoral college reforms overnight.
A spokesman says he will still bring other measures to "better connect us with working people and re-orient us toward the voters who can take us to power".
He's not very savvy, and is prone to picking fights with the party's powerful and most foolish idealogues that he can't beat, but then he is quite a crisp performer at PMQs and being "truly pathetic" got him from state school to senior lawyer.
His biggest problem is that he is hated by the eye-swivellers and doesn't understand that he is surrounded by duplicitous backstabbers, which probably in itself makes him unsuitable for his current role.
I am interested as to why loyal Conservatives like yourself are as vexed by the man as you are. Particularly as your own Prime Minister isn't really a role model for hard work, propriety and competence.
I am vexed because we need a choice. Labour did not offer a choice in either 2017 or 2019. A real choice is not only democratic but forces the government of the day to be better, to be more responsive and less casual in their incompetence.
I think Starmer has a lot going for him as a person. He is intelligent, well meaning, responsible and public spirited. He promised so much more than Corbyn did. But he is proving to be very bad at politics and that means we do not have a choice. Again.
David, Not sure where you saw the promise in Starmer, he has looked like a very empty suit forever, bland , grey and uninspiring. I see no hope with him an inveterate fence sitter.
On topic, and thanks for the header, there was an interesting discussion on R5 yesterday. They had the standard right wing think tank person and someone from the Guardian to represent the leftish point of view (I sometimes struggle to decide if Labour or the Guardian is actually representing leftish views in this country).
What was interesting was that the Guardian writer was far more enthusiastic about Boris's speech in the UN (apart from the Kermit joke) than the think tank chap. She acknowledged that when Boris put his enthusiasm behind something he could be genuinely influential and get things done. Of course this was all laced with comments about him having the concentration span of a goldfish and his inclination to move on all too rapidly to his next enthusiasm but she emphasised that right now he was in the right place and "we should all be rowing in behind him" on this.
Whether you agree with this or not it seems to me that this is the quintessential problem for the Greens: are they a pressure group trying to influence government policy or are they a real political party? I think that they are more effective as the former and they clearly have influenced the national discussion. Voting green is not a wasted vote in this scenario, not at all. It is an indication that the mainstream politicians should pay attention.
It is also an indication of the problem for Starmer. Someone who is ideologically promiscuous as Boris (is ideologically really needed) will have no problem in seizing an agenda like this, even if it does not fit with traditional emphasis on the economy and business of Tories such as think tank guy. Creating a distinctive position that might seize the imagination of the public is going to be very difficult for Starmer.
I agree with all that, but it could be a problem for Boris as well. Over on Conservative Home, there is constant moaning about all the "green crap" that the government is going along with. More Conservatives than Labourites do not support the green agenda in the slightest, and some may turn on Boris.
The anti-Green brigade have a couple of interesting points to make, which over time will become collectively more important.
Broadly they are:
The science may be wrong The science may be right but the benefits may be much greater than believed The solution to problems since 1800 have been more not less management and technology; this one is the same
and the killer, not sufficiently appreciated yet:
If the forecasts are correct it is going to happen anyway, with the maximum difference being + or - a few years. After all the hype of the last few decades, more CO2 goes into the air this year than ever before. It is obvious that this will not stop soon enough.
BTW it is obvious from the lifestyle of elites, political and other, that they do not believe their own rhetoric.
The final point is a banker, sadly. We accept that it is beyond our capability by OOM to stop the East Coast falling into the sea, or to prevent a single earthquake or neutralise a single volcano, so how do we expect to intervene in a pan-world catastrophe, even of our making?
"The science may be wrong" is receding in the rear view mirror though. In the lifetime of PB climate change has changed from being mainly predictions to largely observed present facts. And the benefits argument is very iffy too. The world is very complex and very interdependent so it's sort of like a house of cards - any change is highly likely to be for the worse.
Its probably too late, though I don't expect total collapse. In Diamond's book on societal collapses he talked about where they never saw the problem coming, or where they did but didn't address it and why societies would seemingly make that choice. Role of elites was certainly in there.
if the 'too late if science is correct' thesis is true - and a thing does not become untrue just because its conclusion is unacceptable- it will be interesting to think about the timing of those with power in saying so, and adapting policy accordingly. I don't think even Greta Thunberg is there yet, though some of her words suggest she isn't far off.
If it is obvious to PBers that this is probably true, it must at least cross their minds form time to time. As it has overtones with the politics of 'unstoppable 3 km meteor crashes us in 15 years, Pentagon now certain' it will be interesting to say the least.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
The problem is that many people aren't people aren't really panic buying, which is can be a slippery concept, but are often simply people who need transport more urgently than most, and acting as they believe it precautionarily. The same often applies to empty supermarkets and shelves.
Not really. Anyone who is buying petrol when they normally wouldn't is panic buying. One of the major reasons supermarket shelves were struggling early in the pandemic wasn't just panic buying, it was also that restaurants and takeaways were closed so suddenly food demand at supermarkets went up 20% as everyone was eating at home. That was a semi-permanent increase which is only now unwinding with some estimates that supermarkets will see a permanent increase of around 10% in food sales.
There is no such effect for petrol. It's idiots who think that the nation will somehow run out of petrol. It won't.
I know, I know, and it's really, really unfair because in the grand scheme of things it isn't Johnson's fault ( except he didn't see the pan European driver crisis heading towards him). It is the fault of newspapers and 24 hour rolling TV news.
But it happened on his watch and that is what counts.
It is his fault. The origins of it clearly go back to his Brexit deal. We now have a weekly crisis: local food supply difficulties, then soaring gas prices, and now petrol shortages. What will it be next week?
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 17m Breakthrough at Tulo: MP nominations threshold for leadership election and challenge raised, registered supporters ditched, deselection made harder. Electoral college: dead.
That's what they should have done from the beginning, and if Starmer had been listening to a proper range of people, including Rayner and parts of the left, as well as Mandelson and the Blairites in the first place, he wouldn't have had any problem. Hopefully he's learnt his lessons.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
The problem is that many people aren't people aren't really panic buying, which is can be a slippery concept, but are often simply people who need transport more urgently than most, and acting as they believe it precautionarily. The same often applies to empty supermarkets and shelves.
Not really. Anyone who is buying petrol when they normally wouldn't is panic buying. One of the major reasons supermarket shelves were struggling early in the pandemic wasn't just panic buying, it was also that restaurants and takeaways were closed so suddenly food demand at supermarkets went up 20% as everyone was eating at home. That was a semi-permanent increase which is only now unwinding with some estimates that supermarkets will see a permanent increase of around 10% in food sales.
There is no such effect for petrol. It's idiots who think that the nation will somehow run out of petrol. It won't.
There are several related questions:
Will the country run out of petrol? Happy to accept we won't Can we trust the government when they say we won't run out of petrol? Not really, they would probably say so anyway Can we calculate that we won't run out of petrol ourselves? A few on here could do so back of the envelope calcs or review others to get to a plausible conclusion, but most wouldn't be confident or accurate doing such estimation.
Given that, it is not irrational for them to rush to buy petrol, even if the country won't run out, as it is very hard for consumers to accurately know that.
If I had important journeys or a near empty car, I'd probably join the queues, and think it was cautiously rational to do so. Fortunately I don't so can spend the 2 hours I will save typing nonsense on here instead.
Why are you surprised? It's the magazine that supported Andrew Wakefield.
Interestingly, when it wrote about prostate cancer, only 4 days ago, or to the effect of Covid on men's health, it referred to men. Not one of their body parts. But it is apparently ok for a medical magazine to describe women as little more than holes.
Someone suggested not entirely seriously "chicks without dicks" might be an alternative....
Both reduce women to body parts and bodily functions.
I don't really want to get into trans discussions on here as I find this place generally reactive and intolerant.
However, it's worth noting that hardline feminists have boxed themselves into this corner (unwittingly maybe) by reducing true womanhood to, essentially, the sex of being born with a vagina.
Once you go down that line you are instantly defining gender (as a construct) and sex (as something innate) to the bits of the body which you select as defining.
If we all took a step back, turned down the heat, and that includes MTF transgendered women, and became a little more accepting of diversity we'd all find the situation a lot more pleasant. It might help if trans women accepted that whilst they are indeed women, and in some cases even more 'feminine', they are not the same kind of woman as those born with a vagina and womb. The trouble is that some feminists don't help matters by then stating that this is the only kind of woman there is and that terms like 'cis' are unnecessary. That sex and gender is very complex and not solely about body parts but identification, chromosomes, hormones, physicality and a host of other things is a good starting point. Unfortunately intolerance and lack of understanding is on the rise.
Gender, like sex, is very nuanced.
We really don't have to behave on here with the simplistic brain of Piers Morgan.
The latest articles are about their cartoonist standing down after 400 cartoons, and Campbell joining, then being summarily chucked out of, the Green Party (of England and Wales, I think). According to Campbell, for having the wrong views on the trans debate.
NEW: Keir Starmer has abandoned his controversial electoral college reforms overnight.
A spokesman says he will still bring other measures to "better connect us with working people and re-orient us toward the voters who can take us to power".
He's not very savvy, and is prone to picking fights with the party's powerful and most foolish idealogues that he can't beat, but then he is quite a crisp performer at PMQs and being "truly pathetic" got him from state school to senior lawyer.
His biggest problem is that he is hated by the eye-swivellers and doesn't understand that he is surrounded by duplicitous backstabbers, which probably in itself makes him unsuitable for his current role.
I am interested as to why loyal Conservatives like yourself are as vexed by the man as you are. Particularly as your own Prime Minister isn't really a role model for hard work, propriety and competence.
I am vexed because we need a choice. Labour did not offer a choice in either 2017 or 2019. A real choice is not only democratic but forces the government of the day to be better, to be more responsive and less casual in their incompetence.
I think Starmer has a lot going for him as a person. He is intelligent, well meaning, responsible and public spirited. He promised so much more than Corbyn did. But he is proving to be very bad at politics and that means we do not have a choice. Again.
LDs should be around 50% in the polls. Don’t really understand why they aren’t given the manifest unfitness to govern of both the main parties.
Can only speak for Scottish regional office ones, reason is they are even crappier than the Tories and Labour which I know is hard to believe. They could not run a bath.
It really didn’t help that this fuel nonsense happened on a Friday. I suspect the timing wasn’t coincidental.
Yes, BP went for maximum impact and the press took up the cause. They both got what they wanted. BP can now get some of those 5000 cheap workers and forget about payrises and training for tanker drivers, the media got more clicks.
Off topic, petrol update. Just had calls from my other half, in tears initially, trying to find petrol. She set off at 7am this morning to go to an event, 50 miles away, and needed petrol. The first 6 petrol stations were no good - 2 closed, 4 with horrendous queues. At 7.30, she was about to give up and come home. I directed her to a nearby Asda - bit of a queue, but no problem at all, so she's happy now and on her way. But astonishing that so many people decided to go to fill up their cars so early on a Saturday morning.
Conclusions: a) there is no petrol shortage b) there is panic buying ('fuelled' by the media, BP/Shell, and the government) c) the great British public (some of them) are bonkers.
If drivers don't deliver the full demand there will be, and are, shortages. Which is not the same as being no fuel. Queues for fuel are likely to feature for some time to come as people will make more trips to the fuel station to avoid running empty.
The government's visa move won't help resolve the issue.
NEW: Keir Starmer has abandoned his controversial electoral college reforms overnight.
A spokesman says he will still bring other measures to "better connect us with working people and re-orient us toward the voters who can take us to power".
He's not very savvy, and is prone to picking fights with the party's powerful and most foolish idealogues that he can't beat, but then he is quite a crisp performer at PMQs and being "truly pathetic" got him from state school to senior lawyer.
His biggest problem is that he is hated by the eye-swivellers and doesn't understand that he is surrounded by duplicitous backstabbers, which probably in itself makes him unsuitable for his current role.
I am interested as to why loyal Conservatives like yourself are as vexed by the man as you are. Particularly as your own Prime Minister isn't really a role model for hard work, propriety and competence.
I am vexed because we need a choice. Labour did not offer a choice in either 2017 or 2019. A real choice is not only democratic but forces the government of the day to be better, to be more responsive and less casual in their incompetence.
I think Starmer has a lot going for him as a person. He is intelligent, well meaning, responsible and public spirited. He promised so much more than Corbyn did. But he is proving to be very bad at politics and that means we do not have a choice. Again.
I am not sure your post adds up to your conclusion.
Starmer has been a disappointment, but I am not sure Rayner, Burnham and Co would cut the mustard for you either. Streeting on the other hand might be a different prospect, but the swivel eyed loons hate him note than Starmer.
NEW: Keir Starmer has abandoned his controversial electoral college reforms overnight.
A spokesman says he will still bring other measures to "better connect us with working people and re-orient us toward the voters who can take us to power".
He's not very savvy, and is prone to picking fights with the party's powerful and most foolish idealogues that he can't beat, but then he is quite a crisp performer at PMQs and being "truly pathetic" got him from state school to senior lawyer.
His biggest problem is that he is hated by the eye-swivellers and doesn't understand that he is surrounded by duplicitous backstabbers, which probably in itself makes him unsuitable for his current role.
I am interested as to why loyal Conservatives like yourself are as vexed by the man as you are. Particularly as your own Prime Minister isn't really a role model for hard work, propriety and competence.
I am vexed because we need a choice. Labour did not offer a choice in either 2017 or 2019. A real choice is not only democratic but forces the government of the day to be better, to be more responsive and less casual in their incompetence.
I think Starmer has a lot going for him as a person. He is intelligent, well meaning, responsible and public spirited. He promised so much more than Corbyn did. But he is proving to be very bad at politics and that means we do not have a choice. Again.
LDs should be around 50% in the polls. Don’t really understand why they aren’t given the manifest unfitness to govern of both the main parties.
Push and pull factors. Plenty don't like the big two but why go LD?
And that's not entirely their fault or solvable - most people aren't political wonks but they know our electoral system and they've seen periods of waxing support for parties outside the big two and how things end up. Absent a sea change, or people somehow expecting one, pull factors are always low
On topic, and thanks for the header, there was an interesting discussion on R5 yesterday. They had the standard right wing think tank person and someone from the Guardian to represent the leftish point of view (I sometimes struggle to decide if Labour or the Guardian is actually representing leftish views in this country).
What was interesting was that the Guardian writer was far more enthusiastic about Boris's speech in the UN (apart from the Kermit joke) than the think tank chap. She acknowledged that when Boris put his enthusiasm behind something he could be genuinely influential and get things done. Of course this was all laced with comments about him having the concentration span of a goldfish and his inclination to move on all too rapidly to his next enthusiasm but she emphasised that right now he was in the right place and "we should all be rowing in behind him" on this.
Whether you agree with this or not it seems to me that this is the quintessential problem for the Greens: are they a pressure group trying to influence government policy or are they a real political party? I think that they are more effective as the former and they clearly have influenced the national discussion. Voting green is not a wasted vote in this scenario, not at all. It is an indication that the mainstream politicians should pay attention.
It is also an indication of the problem for Starmer. Someone who is ideologically promiscuous as Boris (is ideologically really needed) will have no problem in seizing an agenda like this, even if it does not fit with traditional emphasis on the economy and business of Tories such as think tank guy. Creating a distinctive position that might seize the imagination of the public is going to be very difficult for Starmer.
I agree with all that, but it could be a problem for Boris as well. Over on Conservative Home, there is constant moaning about all the "green crap" that the government is going along with. More Conservatives than Labourites do not support the green agenda in the slightest, and some may turn on Boris.
The anti-Green brigade have a couple of interesting points to make, which over time will become collectively more important.
Broadly they are:
The science may be wrong The science may be right but the benefits may be much greater than believed The solution to problems since 1800 have been more not less management and technology; this one is the same
and the killer, not sufficiently appreciated yet:
If the forecasts are correct it is going to happen anyway, with the maximum difference being + or - a few years. After all the hype of the last few decades, more CO2 goes into the air this year than ever before. It is obvious that this will not stop soon enough.
BTW it is obvious from the lifestyle of elites, political and other, that they do not believe their own rhetoric.
The final point is a banker, sadly. We accept that it is beyond our capability by OOM to stop the East Coast falling into the sea, or to prevent a single earthquake or neutralise a single volcano, so how do we expect to intervene in a pan-world catastrophe, even of our making?
"The science may be wrong" is receding in the rear view mirror though. In the lifetime of PB climate change has changed from being mainly predictions to largely observed present facts. And the benefits argument is very iffy too. The world is very complex and very interdependent so it's sort of like a house of cards - any change is highly likely to be for the worse.
Although we have seen a number of adverse events from forest fires to droughts blamed on global warming these, to me, are not the real threat, unpleasant as they are. I fear that there will come an inflexion point where gradual change will very rapidly become radical and all too possibly irreversible change. At the moment we are not so much in the last chance saloon but playing the role of the alcoholic with a dodgy liver who thinks one more drink can't hurt.
My concern is that it may already be too late to stop this but even if I am wrong on this we need to stop rolling the dice.
This may well be right, but as we are putting more CO2 into the air than ever right now, and a number of countries are increasing it, I don't know what stopping 'rolling the dice' involves.
The main threat to the global ecology right now is China. It is not only the largest emitter on the planet, it is also one of the fastest growing. But this is, in part, because we want to consume the products that they are producing for us in gargantuan quantities.
We need to focus not so much on recycling or even renewables but on reducing the consumption of goods. The throw away culture must be reversed. Washing machines, cars and phones need to last much, much longer and be easier to fix. The cost of items must include the cost of safe disposal and the reuse of the contents. We also have to accept that the days of flying where we want when we want are over and will remain so until we have planes using hydrogen fuel.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
Look on the bright side - we've created a strategic petrol/diesel reserve, in 31,700,000 individual fuel tanks.
So the government wants to relax rules for EU drivers to save Bozos skin after he led a campaign which told those same drivers to get lost and go back home.
And then the visas are time limited and the message will then be get lost now .
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 17m Breakthrough at Tulo: MP nominations threshold for leadership election and challenge raised, registered supporters ditched, deselection made harder. Electoral college: dead.
Indeed, you almost wonder if floating a return to the EC was a gambit to get this through as a compromise.
Perhaps KS is better at the internal politics than he looks.
NEW: Keir Starmer has abandoned his controversial electoral college reforms overnight.
A spokesman says he will still bring other measures to "better connect us with working people and re-orient us toward the voters who can take us to power".
He's not very savvy, and is prone to picking fights with the party's powerful and most foolish idealogues that he can't beat, but then he is quite a crisp performer at PMQs and being "truly pathetic" got him from state school to senior lawyer.
His biggest problem is that he is hated by the eye-swivellers and doesn't understand that he is surrounded by duplicitous backstabbers, which probably in itself makes him unsuitable for his current role.
I am interested as to why loyal Conservatives like yourself are as vexed by the man as you are. Particularly as your own Prime Minister isn't really a role model for hard work, propriety and competence.
I am vexed because we need a choice. Labour did not offer a choice in either 2017 or 2019. A real choice is not only democratic but forces the government of the day to be better, to be more responsive and less casual in their incompetence.
I think Starmer has a lot going for him as a person. He is intelligent, well meaning, responsible and public spirited. He promised so much more than Corbyn did. But he is proving to be very bad at politics and that means we do not have a choice. Again.
David, Not sure where you saw the promise in Starmer, he has looked like a very empty suit forever, bland , grey and uninspiring. I see no hope with him an inveterate fence sitter.
Not only that, but he was in Corbyn's shadow Cabinet for several years, and his only contribution was a completely unconvincing and useless non-policy on Brexit.
Also he is clearly one of those people who think that whatever the problem, more government is the solution, but then turns out to be completely crap when his solutions are tested.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
The problem is that many people aren't people aren't really panic buying, which is can be a slippery concept, but are often simply people who need transport more urgently than most, and acting as they believe it precautionarily. The same often applies to empty supermarkets and shelves.
Not really. Anyone who is buying petrol when they normally wouldn't is panic buying. One of the major reasons supermarket shelves were struggling early in the pandemic wasn't just panic buying, it was also that restaurants and takeaways were closed so suddenly food demand at supermarkets went up 20% as everyone was eating at home. That was a semi-permanent increase which is only now unwinding with some estimates that supermarkets will see a permanent increase of around 10% in food sales.
There is no such effect for petrol. It's idiots who think that the nation will somehow run out of petrol. It won't.
Here we go again. It's recursive. Idiots are just as effective as driver shortages at limiting the amount of fuel available. So even though the appropriate response to driver shortages is Keep calm, the appropriate response to driver shortages plus Idiots responding inappropriately to driver shortages is Take action.
Yes and when the rest of the lemmings walk off a cliff I'm sure it will be rational to take that same action.
There is no rational decision making here. It's the same as people buying boot loads of bog roll. We make it in the UK, it was never, ever going to run out. We refine petrol in the UK, it is never going to run out.
But it is selectively running out, isn’t it? Or only available after an hour in a queue. We don’t refine infinite quantities of it, so that doesn't stop it running out if demand exceeds supply. What is the parallel between securing a stock of a vital commodity, and jumping over a cliff? This is really, really not hard to understand: unless everyone cooperates, it is rational not to do so
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
Look on the bright side - we've created a strategic petrol/diesel reserve, in 31,700,000 individual fuel tanks.
Why are you surprised? It's the magazine that supported Andrew Wakefield.
Interestingly, when it wrote about prostate cancer, only 4 days ago, or to the effect of Covid on men's health, it referred to men. Not one of their body parts. But it is apparently ok for a medical magazine to describe women as little more than holes.
Someone suggested not entirely seriously "chicks without dicks" might be an alternative....
Both reduce women to body parts and bodily functions.
I don't really want to get into trans discussions on here as I find this place generally reactive and intolerant.
However, it's worth noting that hardline feminists have boxed themselves into this corner (unwittingly maybe) by reducing true womanhood to, essentially, the sex of being born with a vagina.
Once you go down that line you are instantly defining gender (as a construct) and sex (as something innate) to the bits of the body which you select as defining.
If we all took a step back, turned down the heat, and that includes MTF transgendered women, and became a little more accepting of diversity we'd all find the situation a lot more pleasant.
Gender, like sex, is very nuanced.
We really don't have to behave on here with the simplistic brain of Piers Morgan.
Methinks your view is odd. I also am not interested in trans discussions, but conflating sex and gender is causing the problems. It is extremely easy to define a MAN and a WOMAN , gender may for some be a bit different but they ought to get on with their lives and stop being offended all the time, just because some people disagree with them. All this American crap of using stupid made up words etc is pathetic. Far too many wimpy woke F**kwits about who are just desperate to be offended.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
The problem is that many people aren't really panic buying, which is can be a very slippery concept , but are often simply people who need transport more urgently than most, and are acting as they believe it precautionarily due to that need, and responding to others' actions. The same often applies to empty supermarkets and shelves.
No one is panic buying. They are all being logical, in the face of other people panic buying. Just like 2020.
I filled up yesterday but only due to fact I was getting close to empty
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
Look on the bright side - we've created a strategic petrol/diesel reserve, in 31,700,000 individual fuel tanks.
So how many extra thousands of tonnes is being dragged around our roads to no overall benefit?
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
The problem is that many people aren't people aren't really panic buying, which is can be a slippery concept, but are often simply people who need transport more urgently than most, and acting as they believe it precautionarily. The same often applies to empty supermarkets and shelves.
Not really. Anyone who is buying petrol when they normally wouldn't is panic buying. One of the major reasons supermarket shelves were struggling early in the pandemic wasn't just panic buying, it was also that restaurants and takeaways were closed so suddenly food demand at supermarkets went up 20% as everyone was eating at home. That was a semi-permanent increase which is only now unwinding with some estimates that supermarkets will see a permanent increase of around 10% in food sales.
There is no such effect for petrol. It's idiots who think that the nation will somehow run out of petrol. It won't.
I know, I know, and it's really, really unfair because in the grand scheme of things it isn't Johnson's fault ( except he didn't see the pan European driver crisis heading towards him). It is the fault of newspapers and 24 hour rolling TV news.
But it happened on his watch and that is what counts.
It is his fault. The origins of it clearly go back to his Brexit deal. We now have a weekly crisis: local food supply difficulties, then soaring gas prices, and now petrol shortages. What will it be next week?
Stephen Bush @stephenkb · 17m Breakthrough at Tulo: MP nominations threshold for leadership election and challenge raised, registered supporters ditched, deselection made harder. Electoral college: dead.
Indeed, you almost wonder if floating a return to the EC was a gambit to get this through as a compromise.
Perhaps KS is better at the internal politics than he looks.
I would like to think so, but on previous recent form, i would be quite sceptical of that. Either way, I hope he's learning fast.
On topic, and thanks for the header, there was an interesting discussion on R5 yesterday. They had the standard right wing think tank person and someone from the Guardian to represent the leftish point of view (I sometimes struggle to decide if Labour or the Guardian is actually representing leftish views in this country).
What was interesting was that the Guardian writer was far more enthusiastic about Boris's speech in the UN (apart from the Kermit joke) than the think tank chap. She acknowledged that when Boris put his enthusiasm behind something he could be genuinely influential and get things done. Of course this was all laced with comments about him having the concentration span of a goldfish and his inclination to move on all too rapidly to his next enthusiasm but she emphasised that right now he was in the right place and "we should all be rowing in behind him" on this.
Whether you agree with this or not it seems to me that this is the quintessential problem for the Greens: are they a pressure group trying to influence government policy or are they a real political party? I think that they are more effective as the former and they clearly have influenced the national discussion. Voting green is not a wasted vote in this scenario, not at all. It is an indication that the mainstream politicians should pay attention.
It is also an indication of the problem for Starmer. Someone who is ideologically promiscuous as Boris (is ideologically really needed) will have no problem in seizing an agenda like this, even if it does not fit with traditional emphasis on the economy and business of Tories such as think tank guy. Creating a distinctive position that might seize the imagination of the public is going to be very difficult for Starmer.
I agree with all that, but it could be a problem for Boris as well. Over on Conservative Home, there is constant moaning about all the "green crap" that the government is going along with. More Conservatives than Labourites do not support the green agenda in the slightest, and some may turn on Boris.
The anti-Green brigade have a couple of interesting points to make, which over time will become collectively more important.
Broadly they are:
The science may be wrong The science may be right but the benefits may be much greater than believed The solution to problems since 1800 have been more not less management and technology; this one is the same
and the killer, not sufficiently appreciated yet:
If the forecasts are correct it is going to happen anyway, with the maximum difference being + or - a few years. After all the hype of the last few decades, more CO2 goes into the air this year than ever before. It is obvious that this will not stop soon enough.
BTW it is obvious from the lifestyle of elites, political and other, that they do not believe their own rhetoric.
I expect us to see a lot more about how we don't need to stop global warming but adapt to it. And the elite are perfectly content for there to be sacrifices. Just not by them.
One thing I can guarantee: the people refusing to make any changes to their lifestyle to combat the climate crisis will be the same ones who refuse to take in any climate refugees, saying it's nothing to do with us.
From the perspective of one of the majority of Africans who have never been in a car or a plane or a building with running tap water or mains electricity the distinction between you and the people you're criticising is invisible.
No, because I know what climate change means for the ability of those Africans to feed themselves and I won't make a fuss when some of them end up here.
On topic, and thanks for the header, there was an interesting discussion on R5 yesterday. They had the standard right wing think tank person and someone from the Guardian to represent the leftish point of view (I sometimes struggle to decide if Labour or the Guardian is actually representing leftish views in this country).
What was interesting was that the Guardian writer was far more enthusiastic about Boris's speech in the UN (apart from the Kermit joke) than the think tank chap. She acknowledged that when Boris put his enthusiasm behind something he could be genuinely influential and get things done. Of course this was all laced with comments about him having the concentration span of a goldfish and his inclination to move on all too rapidly to his next enthusiasm but she emphasised that right now he was in the right place and "we should all be rowing in behind him" on this.
Whether you agree with this or not it seems to me that this is the quintessential problem for the Greens: are they a pressure group trying to influence government policy or are they a real political party? I think that they are more effective as the former and they clearly have influenced the national discussion. Voting green is not a wasted vote in this scenario, not at all. It is an indication that the mainstream politicians should pay attention.
It is also an indication of the problem for Starmer. Someone who is ideologically promiscuous as Boris (is ideologically really needed) will have no problem in seizing an agenda like this, even if it does not fit with traditional emphasis on the economy and business of Tories such as think tank guy. Creating a distinctive position that might seize the imagination of the public is going to be very difficult for Starmer.
I agree with all that, but it could be a problem for Boris as well. Over on Conservative Home, there is constant moaning about all the "green crap" that the government is going along with. More Conservatives than Labourites do not support the green agenda in the slightest, and some may turn on Boris.
The anti-Green brigade have a couple of interesting points to make, which over time will become collectively more important.
Broadly they are:
The science may be wrong The science may be right but the benefits may be much greater than believed The solution to problems since 1800 have been more not less management and technology; this one is the same
and the killer, not sufficiently appreciated yet:
If the forecasts are correct it is going to happen anyway, with the maximum difference being + or - a few years. After all the hype of the last few decades, more CO2 goes into the air this year than ever before. It is obvious that this will not stop soon enough.
BTW it is obvious from the lifestyle of elites, political and other, that they do not believe their own rhetoric.
The final point is a banker, sadly. We accept that it is beyond our capability by OOM to stop the East Coast falling into the sea, or to prevent a single earthquake or neutralise a single volcano, so how do we expect to intervene in a pan-world catastrophe, even of our making?
"The science may be wrong" is receding in the rear view mirror though. In the lifetime of PB climate change has changed from being mainly predictions to largely observed present facts. And the benefits argument is very iffy too. The world is very complex and very interdependent so it's sort of like a house of cards - any change is highly likely to be for the worse.
Although we have seen a number of adverse events from forest fires to droughts blamed on global warming these, to me, are not the real threat, unpleasant as they are. I fear that there will come an inflexion point where gradual change will very rapidly become radical and all too possibly irreversible change. At the moment we are not so much in the last chance saloon but playing the role of the alcoholic with a dodgy liver who thinks one more drink can't hurt.
My concern is that it may already be too late to stop this but even if I am wrong on this we need to stop rolling the dice.
This may well be right, but as we are putting more CO2 into the air than ever right now, and a number of countries are increasing it, I don't know what stopping 'rolling the dice' involves.
The main threat to the global ecology right now is China. It is not only the largest emitter on the planet, it is also one of the fastest growing. But this is, in part, because we want to consume the products that they are producing for us in gargantuan quantities.
We need to focus not so much on recycling or even renewables but on reducing the consumption of goods. The throw away culture must be reversed. Washing machines, cars and phones need to last much, much longer and be easier to fix. The cost of items must include the cost of safe disposal and the reuse of the contents. We also have to accept that the days of flying where we want when we want are over and will remain so until we have planes using hydrogen fuel.
Because CO2 stays around what we have already done is done. We can add to it faster or slower, but only zero addition followed by technological reduction would in the long run do what is needed. DavidL is right, but this still puts vast amounts of CO2 into the air; and secondly there is no viable politics to make it happen. So it will neither happen, nor, if it did, stop rolling the dice.
Why are you surprised? It's the magazine that supported Andrew Wakefield.
Interestingly, when it wrote about prostate cancer, only 4 days ago, or to the effect of Covid on men's health, it referred to men. Not one of their body parts. But it is apparently ok for a medical magazine to describe women as little more than holes.
Far more fun to get on the outrage bus than actually look into it further! The quote on the cover of the Lancet this week is a from this article concerning an exhibition on the cultural response to menstruation, taking place at The Vagina Museum in London. The quotation is from this paragraph:
"Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected—for example, the paucity in understanding of endometriosis and the way women's pain has been seen as more likely to have an emotional or psychological cause, a hangover from centuries of theorising about hysteria. This exhibition and the Vagina Museum as a whole aim to redress this lack of attention."
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
The problem is that many people aren't people aren't really panic buying, which is can be a slippery concept, but are often simply people who need transport more urgently than most, and acting as they believe it precautionarily. The same often applies to empty supermarkets and shelves.
Not really. Anyone who is buying petrol when they normally wouldn't is panic buying. One of the major reasons supermarket shelves were struggling early in the pandemic wasn't just panic buying, it was also that restaurants and takeaways were closed so suddenly food demand at supermarkets went up 20% as everyone was eating at home. That was a semi-permanent increase which is only now unwinding with some estimates that supermarkets will see a permanent increase of around 10% in food sales.
There is no such effect for petrol. It's idiots who think that the nation will somehow run out of petrol. It won't.
Here we go again. It's recursive. Idiots are just as effective as driver shortages at limiting the amount of fuel available. So even though the appropriate response to driver shortages is Keep calm, the appropriate response to driver shortages plus Idiots responding inappropriately to driver shortages is Take action.
Yes and when the rest of the lemmings walk off a cliff I'm sure it will be rational to take that same action.
There is no rational decision making here. It's the same as people buying boot loads of bog roll. We make it in the UK, it was never, ever going to run out. We refine petrol in the UK, it is never going to run out.
But it is selectively running out, isn’t it? Or only available after an hour in a queue. We don’t refine infinite quantities of it, so that doesn't stop it running out if demand exceeds supply. What is the parallel between securing a stock of a vital commodity, and jumping over a cliff? This is really, really not hard to understand: unless everyone cooperates, it is rational not to do so
And what happens when the petrol tanks of the cars are all full and the tankers are still delivering petrol? It's not like bog roll where people can literally fill up whole houses. People are going to drive at the normal rate they drive (stupidly it might go down), usage of petrol isn't going to increase and on Tuesday the pumps will still be open.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
The problem is that many people aren't really panic buying, which is can be a very slippery concept , but are often simply people who need transport more urgently than most, and are acting as they believe it precautionarily due to that need, and responding to others' actions. The same often applies to empty supermarkets and shelves.
No one is panic buying. They are all being logical, in the face of other people panic buying. Just like 2020.
I filled up yesterday but only due to fact I was getting close to empty
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
The problem is that many people aren't people aren't really panic buying, which is can be a slippery concept, but are often simply people who need transport more urgently than most, and acting as they believe it precautionarily. The same often applies to empty supermarkets and shelves.
Not really. Anyone who is buying petrol when they normally wouldn't is panic buying. One of the major reasons supermarket shelves were struggling early in the pandemic wasn't just panic buying, it was also that restaurants and takeaways were closed so suddenly food demand at supermarkets went up 20% as everyone was eating at home. That was a semi-permanent increase which is only now unwinding with some estimates that supermarkets will see a permanent increase of around 10% in food sales.
There is no such effect for petrol. It's idiots who think that the nation will somehow run out of petrol. It won't.
I know, I know, and it's really, really unfair because in the grand scheme of things it isn't Johnson's fault ( except he didn't see the pan European driver crisis heading towards him). It is the fault of newspapers and 24 hour rolling TV news.
But it happened on his watch and that is what counts.
It is his fault. The origins of it clearly go back to his Brexit deal. We now have a weekly crisis: local food supply difficulties, then soaring gas prices, and now petrol shortages. What will it be next week?
You can't mention the "B" word. It is done!
I think as someone pointed out earlier, with relaxing the NI protocol and visas for Lithuanian lorry drivers, it’s now ‘Let’s get Brexit undone’.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
Look on the bright side - we've created a strategic petrol/diesel reserve, in 31,700,000 individual fuel tanks.
And think of the unexpected tax-take bonanza …
Pithy irony.
Something for the fanbois to love and cherish nonetheless.
NEW: Keir Starmer has abandoned his controversial electoral college reforms overnight.
A spokesman says he will still bring other measures to "better connect us with working people and re-orient us toward the voters who can take us to power".
He's not very savvy, and is prone to picking fights with the party's powerful and most foolish idealogues that he can't beat, but then he is quite a crisp performer at PMQs and being "truly pathetic" got him from state school to senior lawyer.
His biggest problem is that he is hated by the eye-swivellers and doesn't understand that he is surrounded by duplicitous backstabbers, which probably in itself makes him unsuitable for his current role.
I am interested as to why loyal Conservatives like yourself are as vexed by the man as you are. Particularly as your own Prime Minister isn't really a role model for hard work, propriety and competence.
I am vexed because we need a choice. Labour did not offer a choice in either 2017 or 2019. A real choice is not only democratic but forces the government of the day to be better, to be more responsive and less casual in their incompetence.
I think Starmer has a lot going for him as a person. He is intelligent, well meaning, responsible and public spirited. He promised so much more than Corbyn did. But he is proving to be very bad at politics and that means we do not have a choice. Again.
I am not sure your post adds up to your conclusion.
Starmer has been a disappointment, but I am not sure Rayner, Burnham and Co would cut the mustard for you either. Streeting on the other hand might be a different prospect, but the swivel eyed loons hate him note than Starmer.
The lack of alternatives and the incredible weakness of the Shadow cabinet is a major part of the problem. When the government wants to pretend competence they can put the likes of Rishi out and that gives Boris indirect support. SKS is fighting something of a lone battle although Raynor is of more help to him than most.
Why are you surprised? It's the magazine that supported Andrew Wakefield.
Interestingly, when it wrote about prostate cancer, only 4 days ago, or to the effect of Covid on men's health, it referred to men. Not one of their body parts. But it is apparently ok for a medical magazine to describe women as little more than holes.
Someone suggested not entirely seriously "chicks without dicks" might be an alternative....
Both reduce women to body parts and bodily functions.
I don't really want to get into trans discussions on here as I find this place generally reactive and intolerant.
However, it's worth noting that hardline feminists have boxed themselves into this corner (unwittingly maybe) by reducing true womanhood to, essentially, the sex of being born with a vagina.
Once you go down that line you are instantly defining gender (as a construct) and sex (as something innate) to the bits of the body which you select as defining.
If we all took a step back, turned down the heat, and that includes MTF transgendered women, and became a little more accepting of diversity we'd all find the situation a lot more pleasant.
Gender, like sex, is very nuanced.
We really don't have to behave on here with the simplistic brain of Piers Morgan.
It is extremely easy to define a MAN and a WOMAN , .
It isn't.
And telling someone that their view is odd (when it's actually now the mainstream direction of society including in your country) really does not help a tolerant debate. Instead of shouting you might listen and learn.
Cyclefree, I scanned back and found your original message. 'Bodies with holes' or rather, 'bodies with vaginas' is basically how feminists who which to be trans exclusionary have headed in their reductionist attempt to block out MtF transgendered women. They really haven't helped their own cause on this. Mind you, nor have trans women either by being rather insensitive about female space.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
The problem is that many people aren't people aren't really panic buying, which is can be a slippery concept, but are often simply people who need transport more urgently than most, and acting as they believe it precautionarily. The same often applies to empty supermarkets and shelves.
Not really. Anyone who is buying petrol when they normally wouldn't is panic buying. One of the major reasons supermarket shelves were struggling early in the pandemic wasn't just panic buying, it was also that restaurants and takeaways were closed so suddenly food demand at supermarkets went up 20% as everyone was eating at home. That was a semi-permanent increase which is only now unwinding with some estimates that supermarkets will see a permanent increase of around 10% in food sales.
There is no such effect for petrol. It's idiots who think that the nation will somehow run out of petrol. It won't.
Here we go again. It's recursive. Idiots are just as effective as driver shortages at limiting the amount of fuel available. So even though the appropriate response to driver shortages is Keep calm, the appropriate response to driver shortages plus Idiots responding inappropriately to driver shortages is Take action.
Yes and when the rest of the lemmings walk off a cliff I'm sure it will be rational to take that same action.
There is no rational decision making here. It's the same as people buying boot loads of bog roll. We make it in the UK, it was never, ever going to run out. We refine petrol in the UK, it is never going to run out.
But it is selectively running out, isn’t it? Or only available after an hour in a queue. We don’t refine infinite quantities of it, so that doesn't stop it running out if demand exceeds supply. What is the parallel between securing a stock of a vital commodity, and jumping over a cliff? This is really, really not hard to understand: unless everyone cooperates, it is rational not to do so
And what happens when the petrol tanks of the cars are all full and the tankers are still delivering petrol? It's not like bog roll where people can literally fill up whole houses. People are going to drive at the normal rate they drive (stupidly it might go down), usage of petrol isn't going to increase and on Tuesday the pumps will still be open.
What we really need is Francis Maude to advise us to start stockpiling petrol in cans for storage in suburban garages.
Walked past the petrol station near my parents on the way there just now, a tanker was in the station (Esso) already a queue building on the main road. People are idiots. I wonder how many days this one will take to pass. I'm guessing by Tuesday when people see that the petrol pumps are still running they'll give up the idiotic panic buying.
Look on the bright side - we've created a strategic petrol/diesel reserve, in 31,700,000 individual fuel tanks.
And think of the unexpected tax-take bonanza …
Not really, the spending is only being brought forwards. People aren't suddenly going to drive more.
Ive been in the office every day this week despite very few people choosing to, mainly because the IT equipment is better so I’m more productive.
I now find that I can spend 2.5 hours driving back and forward to Edinburgh in a day and I still get more work done than I do in my office in the house. Its irrational but at work I have a work mindset, I get on with it. Here, the temptation of PB and many other distractions seems ever present.
Very well put. My procrastination is through the roof, then I need to evening work after dinner. All about headspace.
Perhaps easier for those straight out of university ? Who haven’t had time to get used to the work/life bifurcation. (Though unlikely to have the same quality of home office…)
Why are you surprised? It's the magazine that supported Andrew Wakefield.
Interestingly, when it wrote about prostate cancer, only 4 days ago, or to the effect of Covid on men's health, it referred to men. Not one of their body parts. But it is apparently ok for a medical magazine to describe women as little more than holes.
Someone suggested not entirely seriously "chicks without dicks" might be an alternative....
Both reduce women to body parts and bodily functions.
I don't really want to get into trans discussions on here as I find this place generally reactive and intolerant.
However, it's worth noting that hardline feminists have boxed themselves into this corner (unwittingly maybe) by reducing true womanhood to, essentially, the sex of being born with a vagina.
Once you go down that line you are instantly defining gender (as a construct) and sex (as something innate) to the bits of the body which you select as defining.
If we all took a step back, turned down the heat, and that includes MTF transgendered women, and became a little more accepting of diversity we'd all find the situation a lot more pleasant.
Gender, like sex, is very nuanced.
We really don't have to behave on here with the simplistic brain of Piers Morgan.
It is extremely easy to define a MAN and a WOMAN , .
It isn't.
And telling someone that their view is odd (when it's actually now the mainstream direction of society including in your country) really does not help a tolerant debate. Instead of shouting you might listen and learn.
Cyclefree, I scanned back and found your original message. 'Bodies with holes' or rather, 'bodies with vaginas' is basically how feminists who which to be trans exclusionary have headed in their reductionist attempt to block out MtF transgendered women. They really haven't helped their own cause on this. Mind you, nor have trans women either by being rather insensitive about female space.
You can make up as many imaginary sexes as you want but it is very very easy to define a man and a woman, the only two sexes there are. I certainly do not need a lecture from a numpty, I am well educated. You can spout any claptrap you like it does not change reality.
My summary take on the UK Greens is that they have marginalised themselves to such an extent that the mainstream is now about 80% of the way through eating their lunch, and they are now practically entirely irrelevant bar the twitching.
That they have spent the last X years denying that much is being done when much of our society has been substantially decarbonised says it all.
On topic, and thanks for the header, there was an interesting discussion on R5 yesterday. They had the standard right wing think tank person and someone from the Guardian to represent the leftish point of view (I sometimes struggle to decide if Labour or the Guardian is actually representing leftish views in this country).
What was interesting was that the Guardian writer was far more enthusiastic about Boris's speech in the UN (apart from the Kermit joke) than the think tank chap. She acknowledged that when Boris put his enthusiasm behind something he could be genuinely influential and get things done. Of course this was all laced with comments about him having the concentration span of a goldfish and his inclination to move on all too rapidly to his next enthusiasm but she emphasised that right now he was in the right place and "we should all be rowing in behind him" on this.
Whether you agree with this or not it seems to me that this is the quintessential problem for the Greens: are they a pressure group trying to influence government policy or are they a real political party? I think that they are more effective as the former and they clearly have influenced the national discussion. Voting green is not a wasted vote in this scenario, not at all. It is an indication that the mainstream politicians should pay attention.
It is also an indication of the problem for Starmer. Someone who is ideologically promiscuous as Boris (is ideologically really needed) will have no problem in seizing an agenda like this, even if it does not fit with traditional emphasis on the economy and business of Tories such as think tank guy. Creating a distinctive position that might seize the imagination of the public is going to be very difficult for Starmer.
I agree with all that, but it could be a problem for Boris as well. Over on Conservative Home, there is constant moaning about all the "green crap" that the government is going along with. More Conservatives than Labourites do not support the green agenda in the slightest, and some may turn on Boris.
The anti-Green brigade have a couple of interesting points to make, which over time will become collectively more important.
Broadly they are:
The science may be wrong The science may be right but the benefits may be much greater than believed The solution to problems since 1800 have been more not less management and technology; this one is the same
and the killer, not sufficiently appreciated yet:
If the forecasts are correct it is going to happen anyway, with the maximum difference being + or - a few years. After all the hype of the last few decades, more CO2 goes into the air this year than ever before. It is obvious that this will not stop soon enough.
BTW it is obvious from the lifestyle of elites, political and other, that they do not believe their own rhetoric.
I expect us to see a lot more about how we don't need to stop global warming but adapt to it. And the elite are perfectly content for there to be sacrifices. Just not by them.
One thing I can guarantee: the people refusing to make any changes to their lifestyle to combat the climate crisis will be the same ones who refuse to take in any climate refugees, saying it's nothing to do with us.
From the perspective of one of the majority of Africans who have never been in a car or a plane or a building with running tap water or mains electricity the distinction between you and the people you're criticising is invisible.
No, because I know what climate change means for the ability of those Africans to feed themselves and I won't make a fuss when some of them end up here.
My point was that your lifestyle modifications may not look that impressive to them. You are currently on pb as am I. That has a cost in electricity running devices and servers. Many Africans are not on the internet for hours a day. And so on.
So the government wants to relax rules for EU drivers to save Bozos skin after he led a campaign which told those same drivers to get lost and go back home.
And then the visas are time limited and the message will then be get lost now .
So the government wants to relax rules for EU drivers to save Bozos skin after he led a campaign which told those same drivers to get lost and go back home.
And then the visas are time limited and the message will then be get lost now .
Good morning
HMG new visa quota scheme was brought in post Brexit and applies worldwide, not just to the EU
It applies to specific need and has a minimum salary of £25,600
This is the brexit dividend which would not have been permissible under the EU freedom of movement and is working as designed for our post Brexit labour needs
Off topic, petrol update. Just had calls from my other half, in tears initially, trying to find petrol. She set off at 7am this morning to go to an event, 50 miles away, and needed petrol. The first 6 petrol stations were no good - 2 closed, 4 with horrendous queues. At 7.30, she was about to give up and come home. I directed her to a nearby Asda - bit of a queue, but no problem at all, so she's happy now and on her way. But astonishing that so many people decided to go to fill up their cars so early on a Saturday morning.
Conclusions: a) there is no petrol shortage b) there is panic buying ('fuelled' by the media, BP/Shell, and the government) c) the great British public (some of them) are bonkers.
Not sure how the government is to blame for panic buying.
I get that people want to fill up because they might not be able to tomorrow, but what I don’t get is the queuing. Unless you absolutely need to fill up now, why bother?
Because if the delivery driver shortage means only, random guess, 80% of normal fuel quantities can be delivered, it means there isn't the fuel available for 20% of journeys. It's rational not to want to be in that 20%. The difference between panic buying and sensible precaution is one of attitude.
Comments
UKIP went for the saturation strategy and nearly broke through, but it didn't really matter as they achieved their aim because of that pressure. The Greens could shoot for the same and be content at that success despite electoral failing. But they can succeed in advancing Green issues even without that strategy so the tip toe approach to seats up to now is fine, even though still unlikely to succeed.
Bottom line is as Green issues resonate more the big two get Greener, so the Greens themselves wont be needed as a winning electoral force.
Are they content to just be a pressure group or do they actually want to do other things, non-Green, which the others will not? Cause the former is working and they can be proud, but the other is a damn hard slog.
Never been in favour of bastardising the English language for political reasons. Womxn remains particularly insane.
(Though one might make a similar point about trans individuals.)
"The science may be wrong" is receding in the rear view mirror though. In the lifetime of PB climate change has changed from being mainly predictions to largely observed present facts. And the benefits argument is very iffy too. The world is very complex and very interdependent so it's sort of like a house of cards - any change is highly likely to be for the worse.
It’s all factionalism and power politics. Two bald men fighting over a comb
His biggest problem is that he is hated by the eye-swivellers and doesn't understand that he is surrounded by duplicitous backstabbers, which probably in itself makes him unsuitable for his current role.
I am interested as to why loyal Conservatives like yourself are as vexed by the man as you are. Particularly as your own Prime Minister isn't really a role model for hard work, propriety and competence.
iain watson @iainjwatson
I am told the #electoralcollege has been junked from @Keir_Starmer
's reforms but this morning
@UKLabour
's NEC will discuss other changes to the leadership rules and parliamentary selections this morning
My concern is that it may already be too late to stop this but even if I am wrong on this we need to stop rolling the dice.
There is no such effect for petrol. It's idiots who think that the nation will somehow run out of petrol. It won't.
The previous fuel crisis was real to some extent, because there was a protest.
This time there has been no material change in circumstances. If there was no need for a panic last week, there is no need for a panic this week.
The only thing that has changed is that the 24-hour news cycle got a bit bored.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
To understand it is to understand petrol shortages, climate change and almost every aspect of life worth understanding.
I think Starmer has a lot going for him as a person. He is intelligent, well meaning, responsible and public spirited. He promised so much more than Corbyn did. But he is proving to be very bad at politics and that means we do not have a choice. Again.
"Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected—for example, the paucity in understanding of endometriosis and the way women's pain has been seen as more likely to have an emotional or psychological cause, a hangover from centuries of theorising about hysteria. This exhibition and the Vagina Museum as a whole aim to redress this lack of attention."
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01962-0/fulltext
So clearly refers to women as women as do many other articles in the current edition.
Until recently I'd have said the "professionalising" (which also seems inevitably to mean moving to the centre left, but putting green economics at the heart of every policy) route was a) most likely and b) likely to be most effective and c) most likely to appeal to me (declare your bias!).
But the arrival of so many Corbynite fellow travellers and the Extinction Rebellion faction (who seem to be most well meaning but exictable early middle aged white people who can't even generate much publicity from their ill-thought-through stunts) has probably put the kibosh on that.
They'll be back to the traditional arguing amongst themselves of the left, while the planet goes to hell.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2021/sep/25/greta-thunberg-i-really-see-the-value-of-friendship-apart-from-the-climate-almost-nothing-else-matters
@stephenkb
·
17m
Breakthrough at Tulo: MP nominations threshold for leadership election and challenge raised, registered supporters ditched, deselection made harder. Electoral college: dead.
But it happened on his watch and that is what counts.
There is no rational decision making here. It's the same as people buying boot loads of bog roll. We make it in the UK, it was never, ever going to run out. We refine petrol in the UK, it is never going to run out.
If it is obvious to PBers that this is probably true, it must at least cross their minds form time to time. As it has overtones with the politics of 'unstoppable 3 km meteor crashes us in 15 years, Pentagon now certain' it will be interesting to say the least.
Will the country run out of petrol? Happy to accept we won't
Can we trust the government when they say we won't run out of petrol? Not really, they would probably say so anyway
Can we calculate that we won't run out of petrol ourselves? A few on here could do so back of the envelope calcs or review others to get to a plausible conclusion, but most wouldn't be confident or accurate doing such estimation.
Given that, it is not irrational for them to rush to buy petrol, even if the country won't run out, as it is very hard for consumers to accurately know that.
If I had important journeys or a near empty car, I'd probably join the queues, and think it was cautiously rational to do so. Fortunately I don't so can spend the 2 hours I will save typing nonsense on here instead.
However, it's worth noting that hardline feminists have boxed themselves into this corner (unwittingly maybe) by reducing true womanhood to, essentially, the sex of being born with a vagina.
Once you go down that line you are instantly defining gender (as a construct) and sex (as something innate) to the bits of the body which you select as defining.
If we all took a step back, turned down the heat, and that includes MTF transgendered women, and became a little more accepting of diversity we'd all find the situation a lot more pleasant. It might help if trans women accepted that whilst they are indeed women, and in some cases even more 'feminine', they are not the same kind of woman as those born with a vagina and womb. The trouble is that some feminists don't help matters by then stating that this is the only kind of woman there is and that terms like 'cis' are unnecessary. That sex and gender is very complex and not solely about body parts but identification, chromosomes, hormones, physicality and a host of other things is a good starting point. Unfortunately intolerance and lack of understanding is on the rise.
Gender, like sex, is very nuanced.
We really don't have to behave on here with the simplistic brain of Piers Morgan.
The latest articles are about their cartoonist standing down after 400 cartoons, and Campbell joining, then being summarily chucked out of, the Green Party (of England and Wales, I think). According to Campbell, for having the wrong views on the trans debate.
Is it no G'Gugvuntt's in the Green Party?
The government's visa move won't help resolve the issue.
You'll be amazed to hear that there was no truth whatsoever in the latter.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/573888-five-takeaways-from-the-arizonas-audit-results
Starmer has been a disappointment, but I am not sure Rayner, Burnham and Co would cut the mustard for you either. Streeting on the other hand might be a different prospect, but the swivel eyed loons hate him note than Starmer.
And that's not entirely their fault or solvable - most people aren't political wonks but they know our electoral system and they've seen periods of waxing support for parties outside the big two and how things end up. Absent a sea change, or people somehow expecting one, pull factors are always low
We need to focus not so much on recycling or even renewables but on reducing the consumption of goods. The throw away culture must be reversed. Washing machines, cars and phones need to last much, much longer and be easier to fix. The cost of items must include the cost of safe disposal and the reuse of the contents. We also have to accept that the days of flying where we want when we want are over and will remain so until we have planes using hydrogen fuel.
And then the visas are time limited and the message will then be get lost now .
Perhaps KS is better at the internal politics than he looks.
Also he is clearly one of those people who think that whatever the problem, more government is the solution, but then turns out to be completely crap when his solutions are tested.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
Far too many wimpy woke F**kwits about who are just desperate to be offended.
Something for the fanbois to love and cherish nonetheless.
And telling someone that their view is odd (when it's actually now the mainstream direction of society including in your country) really does not help a tolerant debate. Instead of shouting you might listen and learn.
Cyclefree, I scanned back and found your original message. 'Bodies with holes' or rather, 'bodies with vaginas' is basically how feminists who which to be trans exclusionary have headed in their reductionist attempt to block out MtF transgendered women. They really haven't helped their own cause on this. Mind you, nor have trans women either by being rather insensitive about female space.
Who haven’t had time to get used to the work/life bifurcation.
(Though unlikely to have the same quality of home office…)
You can spout any claptrap you like it does not change reality.
My summary take on the UK Greens is that they have marginalised themselves to such an extent that the mainstream is now about 80% of the way through eating their lunch, and they are now practically entirely irrelevant bar the twitching.
That they have spent the last X years denying that much is being done when much of our society has been substantially decarbonised says it all.
HMG new visa quota scheme was brought in post Brexit and applies worldwide, not just to the EU
It applies to specific need and has a minimum salary of £25,600
This is the brexit dividend which would not have been permissible under the EU freedom of movement and is working as designed for our post Brexit labour needs