I don't think she leaves. She wouldn't get elected as a Republican in Arizona, but I think she knows she's in a Purple State, and that the electoral geography might not be as favourable to a generic Democrat in 2024, and she therefore is going to be extremely moderate.
It's almost certainly the correct choice.
Except she is losing support with Independents. This seems like a bad thing for her re-election chances.
Sure she's gaining with Republicans but how many of them will vote for her instead of the Trumpster come election day when Trump is on the ballot?
Lets see. I think she will underperform both the Dem nominee (Probably Biden) and the generic house vote in Az
I think she is genuinely at risk of being primaried at the moment.
I think there is a significant chunk of Dem activists who thought they were getting former Green party member, most Left Wing member of the Arizona Statehouse, Sinema elected to the Senate. Not, voted with Trump more often than Joe Manchin, Sinema.
The "moderate" stuff that always gets blocked is never anything the gods, guns and gays Trumpers particularly care about but infrastructure spending that polls well across the spectrum but which the Dems will get it in the neck for if it doesn't pass
Arizona is one of the most fiscally conservative and libertarian states in the USA, it even voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964 when LBJ won a landslide nationally and of course it voted for McCain and Romney over Obama in 2008 and 2012.
Biden only won Arizona with socially liberal but fiscally conservative voters who voted Libertarian in 2016 when Trump beat Hillary in the state but for him in 2020 solely to remove Trump. Sinema knows her state. It is not infrastructure spending she is blocking anyway but pork spending and big government expansion beyond that
Strange then that Mark Kelly who is more a mainstream Democrat is far outpolling Sinema then.
Re Aslan’s point, I haven’t actually seen any polling on Sinema, not on 538 anyway.
She won't get past the primary. It's one thing to antagonize the left but she is actively thwarting the party platform and her president. If the Build Back Better plan fails and Biden doesn't get reelected, every Democrat will put it squarely on her and Manchin. She will go off and get some pharma lobbyist job.
I don’t think she cares. Her stance is even more remarkable because she couldn’t even use the threat of resignation as AZ is one of the states where the Governor (a Republican) has to pick a candidate from the same party as was elected.
I think people overestimate the chance that Sistema loses a primary challenge, and overestimate the chance that Democrats and Independents would spoil their ballots rather than vote for her.
My predictions:
1/ She'll come to agreement with her caucus and will vote for an infrastructure package 2/ She will win a primary challenge 3/ She will do better than the Democratic Presidential nominee in Arizona in 2024
I’d agree on 3. I think her stance will win her more support than she loses (and I still can’t find where she is polling worse than Kelly).
1 and 2 less so although, on 1, Pelosi seems to be admitting the $3.5trn isn’t going to happen. It’s such an own goal by the Democrats. If they had done a $1.5trn infrastructure plan, they would have been lauded. Now if they get that through, it looks like defeat.
Have to admit I don’t know what the AZ Democrat party looks like but the NV one has gone decidedly more left wing
Once the package is done, it'll be done, and the Democrats in Arizona will discover they don't hate Sistema as much as they thought they did.
And, personally, I think the US will do better with a smaller infrastructure package. Given inflation is already rearing its ugly head, an additional $2trn of stimulus (granted over a significant period) would do the US no good at all.
I thought the latest inflation figures were out and suggested inflation had been a blip?
Producer price inflation is up 8.6% year-over-year. That's a record, albeit a slightly smaller one than expected.
This month's announced CPI ie the one relating to September is of course what sets next year's pensions and benefits uplifts
Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?
Yes.
As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.
Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.
Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.
I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
I'm a loyalist, but I do have friends who've drifted away, mostly to the Greens. They say they might be back when we've got something worth voting for, but there isn't a GE at the moment, and they don't see much positive reason to vote Labour (or tell pollsters they will). I don't think they prefer opposition and they'd still be pleased to see the Tories lose - it's more that they can't be bothered to support the opposition if they feel it doesn't stand for anything.
By contrast, you can't really say that Corbyn doesn't stand for anything. Loads of people thought "Wow, that sounds good" and voted Labour with enthusiasm. But larger loads of people thought "no way". On the whole, Starmer is closer to winning power than Corbyn was, because most people feel he'd be perfectly acceptable as PM, so it "only" requires some attractive policies and Government unpopularity to bring them over. By contrast, Corbyn probably hit his ceiling in 2015.
2015 FFS what are you talking about are you confused with Ed?
"Starmer is closer to winning power" yeah right he will get nowhere near as close as 2017
i think you seriously misjudge how many actual Labour supporters he has lost. Definitely exceeds the Tories he has converted with his electric personality.
What's Starmer ever done to you? Even if you don't love him he's no worse than any other Labour leader. Do you know something the rest of us don't?
It is a really odd visceral hatred. I would have though Starmer incapable of stirring any kind of reaction from, well anyone. Or is Starmer's disloyalty to the true JC the source of the bad blood?
Labour Hold. Indy is serial candidate, UKIP, then Leigh, Atherton and Tyldesley Together.
That is a decent result for Labour in the heart of the Red Wall. 56%+ of the vote. Tory share down 1.9 % since May.
Sad to learn on looking up the result that the deceased Labour councillor was Lord Peter Smith, former council leader. I worked with him for a while in the late 1990s.
Yes. That's part of the reason I noted earlier this afternoon that this may not be a straightforward hold. He was Council leader for over 20 years, and well-liked. Leigh, as a constituency, doesn't seem to be voting Tory in Council elections, or the Mayoralty either. Just for Westminster. Maybe worth a punt as Labour gain next time. Although this ward has been moved to Makerfield under new boundary proposals.
Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?
Yes.
As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.
Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.
Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.
I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
I'm a loyalist, but I do have friends who've drifted away, mostly to the Greens. They say they might be back when we've got something worth voting for, but there isn't a GE at the moment, and they don't see much positive reason to vote Labour (or tell pollsters they will). I don't think they prefer opposition and they'd still be pleased to see the Tories lose - it's more that they can't be bothered to support the opposition if they feel it doesn't stand for anything.
By contrast, you can't really say that Corbyn doesn't stand for anything. Loads of people thought "Wow, that sounds good" and voted Labour with enthusiasm. But larger loads of people thought "no way". On the whole, Starmer is closer to winning power than Corbyn was, because most people feel he'd be perfectly acceptable as PM, so it "only" requires some attractive policies and Government unpopularity to bring them over. By contrast, Corbyn probably hit his ceiling in 2015.
2015 FFS what are you talking about are you confused with Ed?
"Starmer is closer to winning power" yeah right he will get nowhere near as close as 2017
i think you seriously misjudge how many actual Labour supporters he has lost. Definitely exceeds the Tories he has converted with his electric personality.
What's Starmer ever done to you? Even if you don't love him he's no worse than any other Labour leader. Do you know something the rest of us don't?
It is a really odd visceral hatred. I would have though Starmer incapable of stirring any kind of reaction from, well anyone. Or is Starmer's disloyalty to the true JC the source of the bad blood?
I feel it's BJO's inability to come to terms with the scale of the 2019 disaster. Note how he never mentions 2019, but always mentions JC's 2017 performance, which, whilst racking up 40% of the vote, still left him 55 seats shy of TMay.
Which is of course complete rubbish as the highest global fertility rate is in Africa and Africa also has the smallest level of climate emissions of any continent
Utterly insane illogic. Well done.
I sat there umming and ahring whether to respond having had these arguments with hyufd before, but he never gets it, but I do sit there slapping the palm of my hand against my forehead. It is incredible that someone can produce such mindbogglingly wrong logic.
The obvious conclusion is that Africa is made up of 3rd world countries and therefore obviously their per child output of CO2 is less. If their fertility rate is greater than 2 per woman the overall output will increase exponentially plus of course they will produce more individually as they improve their standard of living per head. So not only is the deduction irrational, with time it has a reasonable probability to be shown to be false.
But ignoring that you can produce umpteen mathematical models that show the conclusion jumped to that you can deduce from the fact stated is bonkers.
It is on a par with 'A dog is an animal with 4 legs, therefore all things with 4 legs are dogs, or animals, or all animals have 4 legs, etc, etc.'
Unfortunately hyufd does sometimes spot that the 4 legged thing is an animal or a dog (and not a table) and thinks his logic is spot on.
My logic is spot on.
Africa has far higher fertlity rates than the global average but emissions far below the average per head.
The issue of climate change is entirely therefore to do with replacing fossil fuels with renewables and perhaps reducing our consumption of red meat a bit so we need less destruction of forests for cattle farming and less methane emissions.
Fertility rates have sod all to do with it and so I was absolutely right and the article was completely wrong
HYUFD you wouldn't know logic if it punched you in the face.
HYUFD I am not going to argue with you as you are the most irrational person I have ever come across. It is not possible to deduce what you deduced even if it were correct, which it isn't. It is mathematically impossible, but you have not the faintest clue about the most basis logic.
Just try this:
Dogs have 4 legs, therefore something with 4 legs is a dog. That is patently wrong isn't it? Now think of some of your statements you have made over time with more complex assumptions you have made and see if that substitution applies.
You do the same with stats. You state a fact and then assume something from it and still think you have a fact. Classic error. It is now an opinion based upon a fact that maybe correct or wrong, but is just an opinion.
The most frustrating thing is in the 3 last big arguments I have had with you I have actually agreed with your opinion on 2 of them (I agreed re London house prices and US extradition, but disagreed on Grammar schools), but you put forward such mindbogglingly flawed logical arguments that you lose the support I would have given you and now I am arguing with you about the completely irrational stuff you have typed even though I agree with your opinion.
Same here. Africa does have lower emission but your logic of a => b is utterly bonkers. Even if it were true you have no logical grounds for deducing it. \None whatsoever. If you do please show the maths because it is beyond me.
Oh I do, just it is not the same as your usual left liberal 100% right all the time the only opinion that is right is mine and everything else is illogical view.
I am not going to go over your mindboggingly tedious paragraphs on logic yet again.
The logic on pollution is clear, it is C02 emissions that cause climate change and the largest emitters on earth ie in western Europe, the USA and China all have below average fertility rates. So fertiity rates have sod all to do with polliution, fossil fuels and methane emissions from cattle is all that matters.
A non-existent person has a zero environmental footprint.
Let's all stop procreating, allow our species to become extinct and leave the planet a better place.
God created the earth and humans to inhabit it and as I have already pointed out fertlity rates have nothing to do with pollution rates
Ignoring the God bit for a moment who do you think creates pollution if not humans and the more humans you have the greater the pollution. You may be able to ameliorate that by improving human behaviour but 2 humans will always produce more than 1 human even if they behave exceedingly well as far as the environment is concerned. And fertility rates determine how many humans there will be.
It is not number of humans which are the issue.
Otherwise Nigeria and Bangladesh would be amongst the biggest polluters.
It is entirely to do with replacing fossil fuels with renewables and cutting consumption of red meat that is it
I entirely agree with the last sentence but are you seriously saying that if Nigeria or Bangladesh had a completely different population their pollution levels would not be changed accordingly.
The reason they are not the biggest polluters is because they are 3rd world countries so unlike me do not go flying off on holidays and have umpteen electrical appliances on and have 3 cars and central heating etc, etc.
But if their populations halved their pollution would drop and if it doubled it would increase, just not as much as if the same happened in the West.
A non-existent person has a zero environmental footprint.
Let's all stop procreating, allow our species to become extinct and leave the planet a better place.
God created the earth and humans to inhabit it and as I have already pointed out fertlity rates have nothing to do with pollution rates
Ignoring the God bit for a moment who do you think creates pollution if not humans and the more humans you have the greater the pollution. You may be able to ameliorate that by improving human behaviour but 2 humans will always produce more than 1 human even if they behave exceedingly well as far as the environment is concerned. And fertility rates determine how many humans there will be.
It is not number of humans which are the issue.
Otherwise Nigeria and Bangladesh would be amongst the biggest polluters.
It is entirely to do with replacing fossil fuels with renewables and cutting consumption of red meat that is it
I entirely agree with the last sentence but are you seriously saying that if Nigeria or Bangladesh had a completely different population their pollution levels would not be changed accordingly.
The reason they are not the biggest polluters is because they are 3rd world countries so unlike me do not go flying off on holidays and have umpteen electrical appliances on and have 3 cars and central heating etc, etc.
But if their populations halved their pollution would drop and if it doubled it would increase, just not as much as if the same happened in the West.
Don't think Nigeria or Bangladesh have much central heating. Even among the super rich. Air con perhaps.
I don't think she leaves. She wouldn't get elected as a Republican in Arizona, but I think she knows she's in a Purple State, and that the electoral geography might not be as favourable to a generic Democrat in 2024, and she therefore is going to be extremely moderate.
It's almost certainly the correct choice.
Except she is losing support with Independents. This seems like a bad thing for her re-election chances.
Sure she's gaining with Republicans but how many of them will vote for her instead of the Trumpster come election day when Trump is on the ballot?
Lets see. I think she will underperform both the Dem nominee (Probably Biden) and the generic house vote in Az
I think she is genuinely at risk of being primaried at the moment.
I think there is a significant chunk of Dem activists who thought they were getting former Green party member, most Left Wing member of the Arizona Statehouse, Sinema elected to the Senate. Not, voted with Trump more often than Joe Manchin, Sinema.
The "moderate" stuff that always gets blocked is never anything the gods, guns and gays Trumpers particularly care about but infrastructure spending that polls well across the spectrum but which the Dems will get it in the neck for if it doesn't pass
Arizona is one of the most fiscally conservative and libertarian states in the USA, it even voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964 when LBJ won a landslide nationally and of course it voted for McCain and Romney over Obama in 2008 and 2012.
Biden only won Arizona with socially liberal but fiscally conservative voters who voted Libertarian in 2016 when Trump beat Hillary in the state but for him in 2020 solely to remove Trump. Sinema knows her state. It is not infrastructure spending she is blocking anyway but pork spending and big government expansion beyond that
Strange then that Mark Kelly who is more a mainstream Democrat is far outpolling Sinema then.
Re Aslan’s point, I haven’t actually seen any polling on Sinema, not on 538 anyway.
She won't get past the primary. It's one thing to antagonize the left but she is actively thwarting the party platform and her president. If the Build Back Better plan fails and Biden doesn't get reelected, every Democrat will put it squarely on her and Manchin. She will go off and get some pharma lobbyist job.
I don’t think she cares. Her stance is even more remarkable because she couldn’t even use the threat of resignation as AZ is one of the states where the Governor (a Republican) has to pick a candidate from the same party as was elected.
I think people overestimate the chance that Sistema loses a primary challenge, and overestimate the chance that Democrats and Independents would spoil their ballots rather than vote for her.
My predictions:
1/ She'll come to agreement with her caucus and will vote for an infrastructure package 2/ She will win a primary challenge 3/ She will do better than the Democratic Presidential nominee in Arizona in 2024
I’d agree on 3. I think her stance will win her more support than she loses (and I still can’t find where she is polling worse than Kelly).
1 and 2 less so although, on 1, Pelosi seems to be admitting the $3.5trn isn’t going to happen. It’s such an own goal by the Democrats. If they had done a $1.5trn infrastructure plan, they would have been lauded. Now if they get that through, it looks like defeat.
Have to admit I don’t know what the AZ Democrat party looks like but the NV one has gone decidedly more left wing
Once the package is done, it'll be done, and the Democrats in Arizona will discover they don't hate Sistema as much as they thought they did.
And, personally, I think the US will do better with a smaller infrastructure package. Given inflation is already rearing its ugly head, an additional $2trn of stimulus (granted over a significant period) would do the US no good at all.
I thought the latest inflation figures were out and suggested inflation had been a blip?
Producer price inflation is up 8.6% year-over-year. That's a record, albeit a slightly smaller one than expected.
This month's announced CPI ie the one relating to September is of course what sets next year's pensions and benefits uplifts
And of course it used to be the RPI that uplifted pensions. Before George Osborne switched to the CPI.
I did a calculation a couple of years back that showed that even with the introduction of the much vaunted "triple lock", the negative effect on pensions of the switch to CPI has over the years outweighed the introduction of average earnings into the uplift calculation. Basically Osborne made the switch just at the point when he knew average earnings were going to collapse, and with earnings stagnant for the last decade the rate of wages growth has very rarely come into the pensions equation.
Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?
Yes.
As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.
Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.
Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.
I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
I'm a loyalist, but I do have friends who've drifted away, mostly to the Greens. They say they might be back when we've got something worth voting for, but there isn't a GE at the moment, and they don't see much positive reason to vote Labour (or tell pollsters they will). I don't think they prefer opposition and they'd still be pleased to see the Tories lose - it's more that they can't be bothered to support the opposition if they feel it doesn't stand for anything.
By contrast, you can't really say that Corbyn doesn't stand for anything. Loads of people thought "Wow, that sounds good" and voted Labour with enthusiasm. But larger loads of people thought "no way". On the whole, Starmer is closer to winning power than Corbyn was, because most people feel he'd be perfectly acceptable as PM, so it "only" requires some attractive policies and Government unpopularity to bring them over. By contrast, Corbyn probably hit his ceiling in 2015.
2015 FFS what are you talking about are you confused with Ed?
"Starmer is closer to winning power" yeah right he will get nowhere near as close as 2017
i think you seriously misjudge how many actual Labour supporters he has lost. Definitely exceeds the Tories he has converted with his electric personality.
What's Starmer ever done to you? Even if you don't love him he's no worse than any other Labour leader. Do you know something the rest of us don't?
It is a really odd visceral hatred. I would have though Starmer incapable of stirring any kind of reaction from, well anyone. Or is Starmer's disloyalty to the true JC the source of the bad blood?
Tell that to Paul Gambacinni
“ “I have the most negative feelings about Keir Starmer imaginable. Countless human beings were tormented because of him and he has never apologised. Keir is not only unsuitable to be leader of the Labour Party, he is unsuitable for any public position down to and including dog-catcher. He serves only himself and not the people.”
The extraordinary attack on the leadership hopeful is particularly wounding because Mr Gambacinni has been a prominent supporter of Labour. He has supported the party since the late 1980s and, until his arrest in 2013, hosted fundraisers for Ed Miliband at his London home.”
Good luck getting that message through to those environmentalists with a tribe of snot-goblins in tow....
It's complete cobblers.
We need to reduce emissions to net zero. Which means we need to reduce them to net zero, on average, for every person. At which point adding an extra person to the calculation makes a difference of zero to the net emissions.
It's not like we can cut the global population by 90% fast enough to make a difference to the climate, save by a monumental act of genocide. And women everywhere that they are educated and have control of their bodies and economic life choose on average to have fewer children than the replacement rate - so no act of self-denial is required to bring the global population under control.
So the misanthropic attempt to shame people for having children is, as I said, complete cobblers.
It isn't just climate change. Humans are fucking up the earth in plenty of other ways. Habitat destruction, species extinction, pollution of earth, water and air with manmade compounds that become ingested by animals. The list goes on. As a species we do not deserve to be on this planet. Let us quietly disappear and let everyone else get on with their lives.
And now definitely goodnight.
Well if that is the leftwing attitude you deserve to be in eternal opposition.
Humanity has also achieved more than any other species on earth, the fact we sometimes make mistakes does not mean we cannot rectify them
Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?
Yes.
As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.
Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.
Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.
I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
I'm a loyalist, but I do have friends who've drifted away, mostly to the Greens. They say they might be back when we've got something worth voting for, but there isn't a GE at the moment, and they don't see much positive reason to vote Labour (or tell pollsters they will). I don't think they prefer opposition and they'd still be pleased to see the Tories lose - it's more that they can't be bothered to support the opposition if they feel it doesn't stand for anything.
By contrast, you can't really say that Corbyn doesn't stand for anything. Loads of people thought "Wow, that sounds good" and voted Labour with enthusiasm. But larger loads of people thought "no way". On the whole, Starmer is closer to winning power than Corbyn was, because most people feel he'd be perfectly acceptable as PM, so it "only" requires some attractive policies and Government unpopularity to bring them over. By contrast, Corbyn probably hit his ceiling in 2015.
2015 FFS what are you talking about are you confused with Ed?
"Starmer is closer to winning power" yeah right he will get nowhere near as close as 2017
i think you seriously misjudge how many actual Labour supporters he has lost. Definitely exceeds the Tories he has converted with his electric personality.
What's Starmer ever done to you? Even if you don't love him he's no worse than any other Labour leader. Do you know something the rest of us don't?
It is a really odd visceral hatred. I would have though Starmer incapable of stirring any kind of reaction from, well anyone. Or is Starmer's disloyalty to the true JC the source of the bad blood?
I feel it's BJO's inability to come to terms with the scale of the 2019 disaster. Note how he never mentions 2019, but always mentions JC's 2017 performance, which, whilst racking up 40% of the vote, still left him 55 seats shy of TMay.
I feel 2017 and 2019 are completely irrelevant to whether SKS is a useless nonentity leading Lab to a result on a par with 2019 in 2024.
As to Starmer being no worse than any other leader
Which other Lab leader had so little passion? Was so boring? Was such a useless orator? Had no original policies? Was completely lacking in political philosophy as Well as nouse? Was unable to oppose anything the Tory Government does?
I would rank Starmer worst in all those categories to say nothing about him lying to get the leadership and breaking all 10 pledges within a year.
Anyone who defends him has to accept responsibility for the inevitable 2024 defeat.
A non-existent person has a zero environmental footprint.
Let's all stop procreating, allow our species to become extinct and leave the planet a better place.
God created the earth and humans to inhabit it and as I have already pointed out fertlity rates have nothing to do with pollution rates
Ignoring the God bit for a moment who do you think creates pollution if not humans and the more humans you have the greater the pollution. You may be able to ameliorate that by improving human behaviour but 2 humans will always produce more than 1 human even if they behave exceedingly well as far as the environment is concerned. And fertility rates determine how many humans there will be.
It is not number of humans which are the issue.
Otherwise Nigeria and Bangladesh would be amongst the biggest polluters.
It is entirely to do with replacing fossil fuels with renewables and cutting consumption of red meat that is it
If numbers of people aren't an issue why does China produce twice as much CO2 whilst its citizens are poorer than Americans on average ?
I don't think she leaves. She wouldn't get elected as a Republican in Arizona, but I think she knows she's in a Purple State, and that the electoral geography might not be as favourable to a generic Democrat in 2024, and she therefore is going to be extremely moderate.
It's almost certainly the correct choice.
Except she is losing support with Independents. This seems like a bad thing for her re-election chances.
Sure she's gaining with Republicans but how many of them will vote for her instead of the Trumpster come election day when Trump is on the ballot?
Lets see. I think she will underperform both the Dem nominee (Probably Biden) and the generic house vote in Az
I think she is genuinely at risk of being primaried at the moment.
I think there is a significant chunk of Dem activists who thought they were getting former Green party member, most Left Wing member of the Arizona Statehouse, Sinema elected to the Senate. Not, voted with Trump more often than Joe Manchin, Sinema.
The "moderate" stuff that always gets blocked is never anything the gods, guns and gays Trumpers particularly care about but infrastructure spending that polls well across the spectrum but which the Dems will get it in the neck for if it doesn't pass
Arizona is one of the most fiscally conservative and libertarian states in the USA, it even voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964 when LBJ won a landslide nationally and of course it voted for McCain and Romney over Obama in 2008 and 2012.
Biden only won Arizona with socially liberal but fiscally conservative voters who voted Libertarian in 2016 when Trump beat Hillary in the state but for him in 2020 solely to remove Trump. Sinema knows her state. It is not infrastructure spending she is blocking anyway but pork spending and big government expansion beyond that
Strange then that Mark Kelly who is more a mainstream Democrat is far outpolling Sinema then.
Re Aslan’s point, I haven’t actually seen any polling on Sinema, not on 538 anyway.
She won't get past the primary. It's one thing to antagonize the left but she is actively thwarting the party platform and her president. If the Build Back Better plan fails and Biden doesn't get reelected, every Democrat will put it squarely on her and Manchin. She will go off and get some pharma lobbyist job.
I don’t think she cares. Her stance is even more remarkable because she couldn’t even use the threat of resignation as AZ is one of the states where the Governor (a Republican) has to pick a candidate from the same party as was elected.
I think people overestimate the chance that Sistema loses a primary challenge, and overestimate the chance that Democrats and Independents would spoil their ballots rather than vote for her.
My predictions:
1/ She'll come to agreement with her caucus and will vote for an infrastructure package 2/ She will win a primary challenge 3/ She will do better than the Democratic Presidential nominee in Arizona in 2024
I’d agree on 3. I think her stance will win her more support than she loses (and I still can’t find where she is polling worse than Kelly).
1 and 2 less so although, on 1, Pelosi seems to be admitting the $3.5trn isn’t going to happen. It’s such an own goal by the Democrats. If they had done a $1.5trn infrastructure plan, they would have been lauded. Now if they get that through, it looks like defeat.
Have to admit I don’t know what the AZ Democrat party looks like but the NV one has gone decidedly more left wing
Once the package is done, it'll be done, and the Democrats in Arizona will discover they don't hate Sistema as much as they thought they did.
And, personally, I think the US will do better with a smaller infrastructure package. Given inflation is already rearing its ugly head, an additional $2trn of stimulus (granted over a significant period) would do the US no good at all.
I thought the latest inflation figures were out and suggested inflation had been a blip?
Producer price inflation is up 8.6% year-over-year. That's a record, albeit a slightly smaller one than expected.
This month's announced CPI ie the one relating to September is of course what sets next year's pensions and benefits uplifts
And of course it used to be the RPI that uplifted pensions. Before George Osborne switched to the CPI.
I did a calculation a couple of years back that showed that even with the introduction of the much vaunted "triple lock", the negative effect on pensions of the switch to CPI has over the years outweighed the introduction of average earnings into the uplift calculation. Basically Osborne made the switch just at the point when he knew average earnings were going to collapse, and with earnings stagnant for the last decade the rate of wages growth has very rarely come into the pensions equation.
Yes one of my personal pensions is still linked to RPI lucky me it is zooming up compared to all my other CPI linked ones.
A non-existent person has a zero environmental footprint.
Let's all stop procreating, allow our species to become extinct and leave the planet a better place.
God created the earth and humans to inhabit it and as I have already pointed out fertlity rates have nothing to do with pollution rates
Ignoring the God bit for a moment who do you think creates pollution if not humans and the more humans you have the greater the pollution. You may be able to ameliorate that by improving human behaviour but 2 humans will always produce more than 1 human even if they behave exceedingly well as far as the environment is concerned. And fertility rates determine how many humans there will be.
It is not number of humans which are the issue.
Otherwise Nigeria and Bangladesh would be amongst the biggest polluters.
It is entirely to do with replacing fossil fuels with renewables and cutting consumption of red meat that is it
If numbers of people aren't an issue why does China produce twice as much CO2 whilst its citizens are poorer than Americans on average ?
There are almost 5 times the number of people in China than the USA so the fact it only produces twice as much CO2 as the USA just proves my point.
The issue is getting the USA to reduce its fossil fuel emissions per head drastically and replace them by renewables first and then China can follow suit. Reducing birthrates is completely irrelevant, especially as the lowest birthrates are in the areas of highest emissions
Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?
Yes.
As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.
Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.
Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.
I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
I'm a loyalist, but I do have friends who've drifted away, mostly to the Greens. They say they might be back when we've got something worth voting for, but there isn't a GE at the moment, and they don't see much positive reason to vote Labour (or tell pollsters they will). I don't think they prefer opposition and they'd still be pleased to see the Tories lose - it's more that they can't be bothered to support the opposition if they feel it doesn't stand for anything.
By contrast, you can't really say that Corbyn doesn't stand for anything. Loads of people thought "Wow, that sounds good" and voted Labour with enthusiasm. But larger loads of people thought "no way". On the whole, Starmer is closer to winning power than Corbyn was, because most people feel he'd be perfectly acceptable as PM, so it "only" requires some attractive policies and Government unpopularity to bring them over. By contrast, Corbyn probably hit his ceiling in 2015.
2015 FFS what are you talking about are you confused with Ed?
"Starmer is closer to winning power" yeah right he will get nowhere near as close as 2017
i think you seriously misjudge how many actual Labour supporters he has lost. Definitely exceeds the Tories he has converted with his electric personality.
What's Starmer ever done to you? Even if you don't love him he's no worse than any other Labour leader. Do you know something the rest of us don't?
It is a really odd visceral hatred. I would have though Starmer incapable of stirring any kind of reaction from, well anyone. Or is Starmer's disloyalty to the true JC the source of the bad blood?
Tell that to Paul Gambacinni
“ “I have the most negative feelings about Keir Starmer imaginable. Countless human beings were tormented because of him and he has never apologised. Keir is not only unsuitable to be leader of the Labour Party, he is unsuitable for any public position down to and including dog-catcher. He serves only himself and not the people.”
The extraordinary attack on the leadership hopeful is particularly wounding because Mr Gambacinni has been a prominent supporter of Labour. He has supported the party since the late 1980s and, until his arrest in 2013, hosted fundraisers for Ed Miliband at his London home.”
A well researched and a fair point regarding Starmer's position as DPP and Gambo has good reason to critique. I don't think, although I don't know for certain, that your's and BJO's beef with Starmer has anything to do with his Nonce-Finder-In-Chief credentials.
A non-existent person has a zero environmental footprint.
Let's all stop procreating, allow our species to become extinct and leave the planet a better place.
God created the earth and humans to inhabit it and as I have already pointed out fertlity rates have nothing to do with pollution rates
Ignoring the God bit for a moment who do you think creates pollution if not humans and the more humans you have the greater the pollution. You may be able to ameliorate that by improving human behaviour but 2 humans will always produce more than 1 human even if they behave exceedingly well as far as the environment is concerned. And fertility rates determine how many humans there will be.
It is not number of humans which are the issue.
Otherwise Nigeria and Bangladesh would be amongst the biggest polluters.
It is entirely to do with replacing fossil fuels with renewables and cutting consumption of red meat that is it
If numbers of people aren't an issue why does China produce twice as much CO2 whilst its citizens are poorer than Americans on average ?
There are almost 5 times the number of people in China than the USA so the fact it only produces twice as much CO2 as the USA just proves my point.
The issue is getting the USA to reduce its fossil fuel emissions per head drastically and replace them by renewables first and then China can follow suit
Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?
Yes.
As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.
Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.
Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.
I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
I'm a loyalist, but I do have friends who've drifted away, mostly to the Greens. They say they might be back when we've got something worth voting for, but there isn't a GE at the moment, and they don't see much positive reason to vote Labour (or tell pollsters they will). I don't think they prefer opposition and they'd still be pleased to see the Tories lose - it's more that they can't be bothered to support the opposition if they feel it doesn't stand for anything.
By contrast, you can't really say that Corbyn doesn't stand for anything. Loads of people thought "Wow, that sounds good" and voted Labour with enthusiasm. But larger loads of people thought "no way". On the whole, Starmer is closer to winning power than Corbyn was, because most people feel he'd be perfectly acceptable as PM, so it "only" requires some attractive policies and Government unpopularity to bring them over. By contrast, Corbyn probably hit his ceiling in 2015.
2015 FFS what are you talking about are you confused with Ed?
"Starmer is closer to winning power" yeah right he will get nowhere near as close as 2017
i think you seriously misjudge how many actual Labour supporters he has lost. Definitely exceeds the Tories he has converted with his electric personality.
What's Starmer ever done to you? Even if you don't love him he's no worse than any other Labour leader. Do you know something the rest of us don't?
It is a really odd visceral hatred. I would have though Starmer incapable of stirring any kind of reaction from, well anyone. Or is Starmer's disloyalty to the true JC the source of the bad blood?
I feel it's BJO's inability to come to terms with the scale of the 2019 disaster. Note how he never mentions 2019, but always mentions JC's 2017 performance, which, whilst racking up 40% of the vote, still left him 55 seats shy of TMay.
I feel 2017 and 2019 are completely irrelevant to whether SKS is a useless nonentity leading Lab to a result on a par with 2019 in 2024.
As to Starmer being no worse than any other leader
Which other Lab leader had so little passion? Was so boring? Was such a useless orator? Had no original policies? Was completely lacking in political philosophy as Well as nouse? Was unable to oppose anything the Tory Government does?
I would rank Starmer worst in all those categories to say nothing about him lying to get the leadership and breaking all 10 pledges within a year.
Anyone who defends him has to accept responsibility for the inevitable 2024 defeat.
He is a massive disappointment, but you can't make that final statement with any credibility now that you have stated on here you would support Johnson to prevent a Starmer premiership at all costs.
Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?
Yes.
As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.
Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.
Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.
I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
I'm a loyalist, but I do have friends who've drifted away, mostly to the Greens. They say they might be back when we've got something worth voting for, but there isn't a GE at the moment, and they don't see much positive reason to vote Labour (or tell pollsters they will). I don't think they prefer opposition and they'd still be pleased to see the Tories lose - it's more that they can't be bothered to support the opposition if they feel it doesn't stand for anything.
By contrast, you can't really say that Corbyn doesn't stand for anything. Loads of people thought "Wow, that sounds good" and voted Labour with enthusiasm. But larger loads of people thought "no way". On the whole, Starmer is closer to winning power than Corbyn was, because most people feel he'd be perfectly acceptable as PM, so it "only" requires some attractive policies and Government unpopularity to bring them over. By contrast, Corbyn probably hit his ceiling in 2015.
2015 FFS what are you talking about are you confused with Ed?
"Starmer is closer to winning power" yeah right he will get nowhere near as close as 2017
i think you seriously misjudge how many actual Labour supporters he has lost. Definitely exceeds the Tories he has converted with his electric personality.
What's Starmer ever done to you? Even if you don't love him he's no worse than any other Labour leader. Do you know something the rest of us don't?
It is a really odd visceral hatred. I would have though Starmer incapable of stirring any kind of reaction from, well anyone. Or is Starmer's disloyalty to the true JC the source of the bad blood?
Tell that to Paul Gambacinni
“ “I have the most negative feelings about Keir Starmer imaginable. Countless human beings were tormented because of him and he has never apologised. Keir is not only unsuitable to be leader of the Labour Party, he is unsuitable for any public position down to and including dog-catcher. He serves only himself and not the people.”
The extraordinary attack on the leadership hopeful is particularly wounding because Mr Gambacinni has been a prominent supporter of Labour. He has supported the party since the late 1980s and, until his arrest in 2013, hosted fundraisers for Ed Miliband at his London home.”
A well researched and a fair point regarding Starmer's position as DPP and Gambo has good reason to critique. I don't think, although I don't know for certain, that your's and BJO's beef with Starmer has anything to do with his Nonce-Finder-In-Chief credentials.
Nothing to do with it as far as my beef goes; I don’t have much time for any of the politicians who tried to get a second go at the EU referendum before the result of the first had been enacted.
I also think he is over rated by Remainers who hate Corbyn, & see Sir Keir as the personification of their views. Therefore they refuse to concede he is doing poorly as that would be tantamount to admitting they’d called everything since 2016 incorrectly
Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?
Yes.
As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.
Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.
Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.
I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
I'm a loyalist, but I do have friends who've drifted away, mostly to the Greens. They say they might be back when we've got something worth voting for, but there isn't a GE at the moment, and they don't see much positive reason to vote Labour (or tell pollsters they will). I don't think they prefer opposition and they'd still be pleased to see the Tories lose - it's more that they can't be bothered to support the opposition if they feel it doesn't stand for anything.
By contrast, you can't really say that Corbyn doesn't stand for anything. Loads of people thought "Wow, that sounds good" and voted Labour with enthusiasm. But larger loads of people thought "no way". On the whole, Starmer is closer to winning power than Corbyn was, because most people feel he'd be perfectly acceptable as PM, so it "only" requires some attractive policies and Government unpopularity to bring them over. By contrast, Corbyn probably hit his ceiling in 2015.
2015 FFS what are you talking about are you confused with Ed?
"Starmer is closer to winning power" yeah right he will get nowhere near as close as 2017
i think you seriously misjudge how many actual Labour supporters he has lost. Definitely exceeds the Tories he has converted with his electric personality.
What's Starmer ever done to you? Even if you don't love him he's no worse than any other Labour leader. Do you know something the rest of us don't?
It is a really odd visceral hatred. I would have though Starmer incapable of stirring any kind of reaction from, well anyone. Or is Starmer's disloyalty to the true JC the source of the bad blood?
Tell that to Paul Gambacinni
“ “I have the most negative feelings about Keir Starmer imaginable. Countless human beings were tormented because of him and he has never apologised. Keir is not only unsuitable to be leader of the Labour Party, he is unsuitable for any public position down to and including dog-catcher. He serves only himself and not the people.”
The extraordinary attack on the leadership hopeful is particularly wounding because Mr Gambacinni has been a prominent supporter of Labour. He has supported the party since the late 1980s and, until his arrest in 2013, hosted fundraisers for Ed Miliband at his London home.”
A well researched and a fair point regarding Starmer's position as DPP and Gambo has good reason to critique. I don't think, although I don't know for certain, that your's and BJO's beef with Starmer has anything to do with his Nonce-Finder-In-Chief credentials.
You are correct although I have a very long list of other reasons that I haven't yet mentioned but no doubt will get an outing between tomorrow and 2024.
Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?
Yes.
As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.
Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.
Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.
I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
I'm a loyalist, but I do have friends who've drifted away, mostly to the Greens. They say they might be back when we've got something worth voting for, but there isn't a GE at the moment, and they don't see much positive reason to vote Labour (or tell pollsters they will). I don't think they prefer opposition and they'd still be pleased to see the Tories lose - it's more that they can't be bothered to support the opposition if they feel it doesn't stand for anything.
By contrast, you can't really say that Corbyn doesn't stand for anything. Loads of people thought "Wow, that sounds good" and voted Labour with enthusiasm. But larger loads of people thought "no way". On the whole, Starmer is closer to winning power than Corbyn was, because most people feel he'd be perfectly acceptable as PM, so it "only" requires some attractive policies and Government unpopularity to bring them over. By contrast, Corbyn probably hit his ceiling in 2015.
2015 FFS what are you talking about are you confused with Ed?
"Starmer is closer to winning power" yeah right he will get nowhere near as close as 2017
i think you seriously misjudge how many actual Labour supporters he has lost. Definitely exceeds the Tories he has converted with his electric personality.
What's Starmer ever done to you? Even if you don't love him he's no worse than any other Labour leader. Do you know something the rest of us don't?
It is a really odd visceral hatred. I would have though Starmer incapable of stirring any kind of reaction from, well anyone. Or is Starmer's disloyalty to the true JC the source of the bad blood?
Tell that to Paul Gambacinni
“ “I have the most negative feelings about Keir Starmer imaginable. Countless human beings were tormented because of him and he has never apologised. Keir is not only unsuitable to be leader of the Labour Party, he is unsuitable for any public position down to and including dog-catcher. He serves only himself and not the people.”
The extraordinary attack on the leadership hopeful is particularly wounding because Mr Gambacinni has been a prominent supporter of Labour. He has supported the party since the late 1980s and, until his arrest in 2013, hosted fundraisers for Ed Miliband at his London home.”
A well researched and a fair point regarding Starmer's position as DPP and Gambo has good reason to critique. I don't think, although I don't know for certain, that your's and BJO's beef with Starmer has anything to do with his Nonce-Finder-In-Chief credentials.
Nothing to do with it as far as my beef goes; I don’t have much time for any of the politicians who tried to get a second go at the EU referendum before the result of the first had been enacted.
I also think he is over rated by Remainers who hate Corbyn, & see Sir Keir as the personification of their views. Therefore they refuse to concede he is doing poorly as that would be tantamount to admitting they’d called everything since 2016 incorrectly
Starmer is a huge disappointment so far, but otherwise you have described me to a tee.
Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?
Yes.
As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.
Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.
Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.
I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
I'm a loyalist, but I do have friends who've drifted away, mostly to the Greens. They say they might be back when we've got something worth voting for, but there isn't a GE at the moment, and they don't see much positive reason to vote Labour (or tell pollsters they will). I don't think they prefer opposition and they'd still be pleased to see the Tories lose - it's more that they can't be bothered to support the opposition if they feel it doesn't stand for anything.
By contrast, you can't really say that Corbyn doesn't stand for anything. Loads of people thought "Wow, that sounds good" and voted Labour with enthusiasm. But larger loads of people thought "no way". On the whole, Starmer is closer to winning power than Corbyn was, because most people feel he'd be perfectly acceptable as PM, so it "only" requires some attractive policies and Government unpopularity to bring them over. By contrast, Corbyn probably hit his ceiling in 2015.
2015 FFS what are you talking about are you confused with Ed?
"Starmer is closer to winning power" yeah right he will get nowhere near as close as 2017
i think you seriously misjudge how many actual Labour supporters he has lost. Definitely exceeds the Tories he has converted with his electric personality.
What's Starmer ever done to you? Even if you don't love him he's no worse than any other Labour leader. Do you know something the rest of us don't?
It is a really odd visceral hatred. I would have though Starmer incapable of stirring any kind of reaction from, well anyone. Or is Starmer's disloyalty to the true JC the source of the bad blood?
Tell that to Paul Gambacinni
“ “I have the most negative feelings about Keir Starmer imaginable. Countless human beings were tormented because of him and he has never apologised. Keir is not only unsuitable to be leader of the Labour Party, he is unsuitable for any public position down to and including dog-catcher. He serves only himself and not the people.”
The extraordinary attack on the leadership hopeful is particularly wounding because Mr Gambacinni has been a prominent supporter of Labour. He has supported the party since the late 1980s and, until his arrest in 2013, hosted fundraisers for Ed Miliband at his London home.”
A well researched and a fair point regarding Starmer's position as DPP and Gambo has good reason to critique. I don't think, although I don't know for certain, that your's and BJO's beef with Starmer has anything to do with his Nonce-Finder-In-Chief credentials.
You are correct although I have a very long list of other reasons that I haven't yet mentioned but no doubt will get an outing between tomorrow and 2024.
Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?
Yes.
As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.
Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.
Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.
I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
I'm a loyalist, but I do have friends who've drifted away, mostly to the Greens. They say they might be back when we've got something worth voting for, but there isn't a GE at the moment, and they don't see much positive reason to vote Labour (or tell pollsters they will). I don't think they prefer opposition and they'd still be pleased to see the Tories lose - it's more that they can't be bothered to support the opposition if they feel it doesn't stand for anything.
By contrast, you can't really say that Corbyn doesn't stand for anything. Loads of people thought "Wow, that sounds good" and voted Labour with enthusiasm. But larger loads of people thought "no way". On the whole, Starmer is closer to winning power than Corbyn was, because most people feel he'd be perfectly acceptable as PM, so it "only" requires some attractive policies and Government unpopularity to bring them over. By contrast, Corbyn probably hit his ceiling in 2015.
2015 FFS what are you talking about are you confused with Ed?
"Starmer is closer to winning power" yeah right he will get nowhere near as close as 2017
i think you seriously misjudge how many actual Labour supporters he has lost. Definitely exceeds the Tories he has converted with his electric personality.
What's Starmer ever done to you? Even if you don't love him he's no worse than any other Labour leader. Do you know something the rest of us don't?
It is a really odd visceral hatred. I would have though Starmer incapable of stirring any kind of reaction from, well anyone. Or is Starmer's disloyalty to the true JC the source of the bad blood?
Tell that to Paul Gambacinni
“ “I have the most negative feelings about Keir Starmer imaginable. Countless human beings were tormented because of him and he has never apologised. Keir is not only unsuitable to be leader of the Labour Party, he is unsuitable for any public position down to and including dog-catcher. He serves only himself and not the people.”
The extraordinary attack on the leadership hopeful is particularly wounding because Mr Gambacinni has been a prominent supporter of Labour. He has supported the party since the late 1980s and, until his arrest in 2013, hosted fundraisers for Ed Miliband at his London home.”
A well researched and a fair point regarding Starmer's position as DPP and Gambo has good reason to critique. I don't think, although I don't know for certain, that your's and BJO's beef with Starmer has anything to do with his Nonce-Finder-In-Chief credentials.
Nothing to do with it as far as my beef goes; I don’t have much time for any of the politicians who tried to get a second go at the EU referendum before the result of the first had been enacted.
I also think he is over rated by Remainers who hate Corbyn, & see Sir Keir as the personification of their views. Therefore they refuse to concede he is doing poorly as that would be tantamount to admitting they’d called everything since 2016 incorrectly
100% agree isam as a Lexiteer the sneering from the FBPE types is part of the SKS stuff for me too.
A non-existent person has a zero environmental footprint.
Let's all stop procreating, allow our species to become extinct and leave the planet a better place.
God created the earth and humans to inhabit it and as I have already pointed out fertlity rates have nothing to do with pollution rates
Ignoring the God bit for a moment who do you think creates pollution if not humans and the more humans you have the greater the pollution. You may be able to ameliorate that by improving human behaviour but 2 humans will always produce more than 1 human even if they behave exceedingly well as far as the environment is concerned. And fertility rates determine how many humans there will be.
It is not number of humans which are the issue.
Otherwise Nigeria and Bangladesh would be amongst the biggest polluters.
It is entirely to do with replacing fossil fuels with renewables and cutting consumption of red meat that is it
If numbers of people aren't an issue why does China produce twice as much CO2 whilst its citizens are poorer than Americans on average ?
There are almost 5 times the number of people in China than the USA so the fact it only produces twice as much CO2 as the USA just proves my point.
The issue is getting the USA to reduce its fossil fuel emissions per head drastically and replace them by renewables first and then China can follow suit. Reducing birthrates is completely irrelevant, especially as the lowest birthrates are in the areas of highest emissions
What is your estimate of the maximum number of humans that the planet could support? Or is there no maximum?
If there is a maximum, what is the limiting factor?
Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?
Yes.
As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.
Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.
Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.
I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
I'm a loyalist, but I do have friends who've drifted away, mostly to the Greens. They say they might be back when we've got something worth voting for, but there isn't a GE at the moment, and they don't see much positive reason to vote Labour (or tell pollsters they will). I don't think they prefer opposition and they'd still be pleased to see the Tories lose - it's more that they can't be bothered to support the opposition if they feel it doesn't stand for anything.
By contrast, you can't really say that Corbyn doesn't stand for anything. Loads of people thought "Wow, that sounds good" and voted Labour with enthusiasm. But larger loads of people thought "no way". On the whole, Starmer is closer to winning power than Corbyn was, because most people feel he'd be perfectly acceptable as PM, so it "only" requires some attractive policies and Government unpopularity to bring them over. By contrast, Corbyn probably hit his ceiling in 2015.
2015 FFS what are you talking about are you confused with Ed?
"Starmer is closer to winning power" yeah right he will get nowhere near as close as 2017
i think you seriously misjudge how many actual Labour supporters he has lost. Definitely exceeds the Tories he has converted with his electric personality.
What's Starmer ever done to you? Even if you don't love him he's no worse than any other Labour leader. Do you know something the rest of us don't?
It is a really odd visceral hatred. I would have though Starmer incapable of stirring any kind of reaction from, well anyone. Or is Starmer's disloyalty to the true JC the source of the bad blood?
Tell that to Paul Gambacinni
“ “I have the most negative feelings about Keir Starmer imaginable. Countless human beings were tormented because of him and he has never apologised. Keir is not only unsuitable to be leader of the Labour Party, he is unsuitable for any public position down to and including dog-catcher. He serves only himself and not the people.”
The extraordinary attack on the leadership hopeful is particularly wounding because Mr Gambacinni has been a prominent supporter of Labour. He has supported the party since the late 1980s and, until his arrest in 2013, hosted fundraisers for Ed Miliband at his London home.”
A well researched and a fair point regarding Starmer's position as DPP and Gambo has good reason to critique. I don't think, although I don't know for certain, that your's and BJO's beef with Starmer has anything to do with his Nonce-Finder-In-Chief credentials.
You are correct although I have a very long list of other reasons that I haven't yet mentioned but no doubt will get an outing between tomorrow and 2024.
😃 🏃♂️ 🏃♀️ 🏃♂️ 🏃♀️
Do tell!
I will in a more long winded way than an electrifying LOTO Conference speech.
Which is of course complete rubbish as the highest global fertility rate is in Africa and Africa also has the smallest level of climate emissions of any continent
Utterly insane illogic. Well done.
I sat there umming and ahring whether to respond having had these arguments with hyufd before, but he never gets it, but I do sit there slapping the palm of my hand against my forehead. It is incredible that someone can produce such mindbogglingly wrong logic.
The obvious conclusion is that Africa is made up of 3rd world countries and therefore obviously their per child output of CO2 is less. If their fertility rate is greater than 2 per woman the overall output will increase exponentially plus of course they will produce more individually as they improve their standard of living per head. So not only is the deduction irrational, with time it has a reasonable probability to be shown to be false.
But ignoring that you can produce umpteen mathematical models that show the conclusion jumped to that you can deduce from the fact stated is bonkers.
It is on a par with 'A dog is an animal with 4 legs, therefore all things with 4 legs are dogs, or animals, or all animals have 4 legs, etc, etc.'
Unfortunately hyufd does sometimes spot that the 4 legged thing is an animal or a dog (and not a table) and thinks his logic is spot on.
My logic is spot on.
Africa has far higher fertlity rates than the global average but emissions far below the average per head.
The issue of climate change is entirely therefore to do with replacing fossil fuels with renewables and perhaps reducing our consumption of red meat a bit so we need less destruction of forests for cattle farming and less methane emissions.
Fertility rates have sod all to do with it and so I was absolutely right and the article was completely wrong
HYUFD you wouldn't know logic if it punched you in the face.
HYUFD I am not going to argue with you as you are the most irrational person I have ever come across. It is not possible to deduce what you deduced even if it were correct, which it isn't. It is mathematically impossible, but you have not the faintest clue about the most basis logic.
Just try this:
Dogs have 4 legs, therefore something with 4 legs is a dog. That is patently wrong isn't it? Now think of some of your statements you have made over time with more complex assumptions you have made and see if that substitution applies.
You do the same with stats. You state a fact and then assume something from it and still think you have a fact. Classic error. It is now an opinion based upon a fact that maybe correct or wrong, but is just an opinion.
The most frustrating thing is in the 3 last big arguments I have had with you I have actually agreed with your opinion on 2 of them (I agreed re London house prices and US extradition, but disagreed on Grammar schools), but you put forward such mindbogglingly flawed logical arguments that you lose the support I would have given you and now I am arguing with you about the completely irrational stuff you have typed even though I agree with your opinion.
Same here. Africa does have lower emission but your logic of a => b is utterly bonkers. Even if it were true you have no logical grounds for deducing it. \None whatsoever. If you do please show the maths because it is beyond me.
Oh I do, just it is not the same as your usual left liberal 100% right all the time the only opinion that is right is mine and everything else is illogical view.
I am not going to go over your mindboggingly tedious paragraphs on logic yet again.
The logic on pollution is clear, it is C02 emissions that cause climate change and the largest emitters on earth ie in western Europe, the USA and China all have below average fertility rates. So fertiity rates have sod all to do with polliution, fossil fuels and methane emissions from cattle is all that matters.
So I was of course completely right
I am not left but I am liberal. I'm certainly to the right of you on many things so uncalled for to call me left.
There are opinions and there are facts and there is logic. We all have opinions and they are neither right nor wrong and I respect your opinions whether I agree with them or not. Note I do not have these arguments with anyone else on PB yet I often disagree with their opinions and I sometimes agree with yours (even if your logic is flawed)
There are facts which you often produce and I have never (note never) disagreed with any fact you have produced. I have assumed it to be accurate.
But unlike anyone else on this site you then apply absolutely bonkers logic to both opinions and facts and that is the issue.
I often have arguments with @Philip_Thompson for instance. We disagree on the EU and FPTP. I think he is wrong and he thinks I am wrong, but these are just our opinions. We both apply logic to our opinions, but because they are opinions they stay opinions after that logic is applied.
Another example is you believe in God, I don't. I think you are wrong and you think I am wrong, but in both cases these are just opinions and neither of us can prove the other right or wrong. Again we can apply logic to these opinions but they remain opinions.
It is when you then apply your 'so called logic' that it goes haywire.
You have done it again in your last post. Quote 'The logic on pollution is clear....' There is no logic in that statement. It is an opinion. It is an opinion and only an opinion and I agree with the first half of it as do most people and there is a lot of evidence to back it up, BUT no logic is at work here. You then deduce that because the biggest emitters have low fertility rates there is no relation to fertility rates.
You can't deduce that. It is mathematically impossible to do so even if it were true. Do you understand that when you deduce 'a' from 'b' logical rules need to apply.
I repeat my example because this is what you do but you don't see it:
Statement: All dogs have 4 legs (FACT - ignoring amputees for the pedants amongst us)
Statement: I think dogs are cute (OPINION)
Deduction: All dogs are cute (This is an HYUFD FACT or in the real world an OPINION)
Deduction: Something with 4 legs is a dog (This is an HYUFD FACT or in the real world WRONG although many things with 4 legs will be dogs)
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY OPINIONS BEING ALWAYS CORRECT AND YOURS BEING ILLOGICAL.
I repeat nobodies opinions are correct or wrong, they are opinions and often I agree with your opinions, BUT logic is not a matter of opinion, it is a mathematical concept that is absolute, so once you apply a logical process if you do it incorrectly the result has no validity whatsoever, even if by chance it is still correct.
A non-existent person has a zero environmental footprint.
Let's all stop procreating, allow our species to become extinct and leave the planet a better place.
God created the earth and humans to inhabit it and as I have already pointed out fertlity rates have nothing to do with pollution rates
Ignoring the God bit for a moment who do you think creates pollution if not humans and the more humans you have the greater the pollution. You may be able to ameliorate that by improving human behaviour but 2 humans will always produce more than 1 human even if they behave exceedingly well as far as the environment is concerned. And fertility rates determine how many humans there will be.
It is not number of humans which are the issue.
Otherwise Nigeria and Bangladesh would be amongst the biggest polluters.
It is entirely to do with replacing fossil fuels with renewables and cutting consumption of red meat that is it
I entirely agree with the last sentence but are you seriously saying that if Nigeria or Bangladesh had a completely different population their pollution levels would not be changed accordingly.
The reason they are not the biggest polluters is because they are 3rd world countries so unlike me do not go flying off on holidays and have umpteen electrical appliances on and have 3 cars and central heating etc, etc.
But if their populations halved their pollution would drop and if it doubled it would increase, just not as much as if the same happened in the West.
Don't think Nigeria or Bangladesh have much central heating. Even among the super rich. Air con perhaps.
Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?
Yes.
As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.
Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.
Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.
I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
I'm a loyalist, but I do have friends who've drifted away, mostly to the Greens. They say they might be back when we've got something worth voting for, but there isn't a GE at the moment, and they don't see much positive reason to vote Labour (or tell pollsters they will). I don't think they prefer opposition and they'd still be pleased to see the Tories lose - it's more that they can't be bothered to support the opposition if they feel it doesn't stand for anything.
By contrast, you can't really say that Corbyn doesn't stand for anything. Loads of people thought "Wow, that sounds good" and voted Labour with enthusiasm. But larger loads of people thought "no way". On the whole, Starmer is closer to winning power than Corbyn was, because most people feel he'd be perfectly acceptable as PM, so it "only" requires some attractive policies and Government unpopularity to bring them over. By contrast, Corbyn probably hit his ceiling in 2015.
2015 FFS what are you talking about are you confused with Ed?
"Starmer is closer to winning power" yeah right he will get nowhere near as close as 2017
i think you seriously misjudge how many actual Labour supporters he has lost. Definitely exceeds the Tories he has converted with his electric personality.
What's Starmer ever done to you? Even if you don't love him he's no worse than any other Labour leader. Do you know something the rest of us don't?
It is a really odd visceral hatred. I would have though Starmer incapable of stirring any kind of reaction from, well anyone. Or is Starmer's disloyalty to the true JC the source of the bad blood?
Tell that to Paul Gambacinni
“ “I have the most negative feelings about Keir Starmer imaginable. Countless human beings were tormented because of him and he has never apologised. Keir is not only unsuitable to be leader of the Labour Party, he is unsuitable for any public position down to and including dog-catcher. He serves only himself and not the people.”
The extraordinary attack on the leadership hopeful is particularly wounding because Mr Gambacinni has been a prominent supporter of Labour. He has supported the party since the late 1980s and, until his arrest in 2013, hosted fundraisers for Ed Miliband at his London home.”
A well researched and a fair point regarding Starmer's position as DPP and Gambo has good reason to critique. I don't think, although I don't know for certain, that your's and BJO's beef with Starmer has anything to do with his Nonce-Finder-In-Chief credentials.
Nothing to do with it as far as my beef goes; I don’t have much time for any of the politicians who tried to get a second go at the EU referendum before the result of the first had been enacted.
I also think he is over rated by Remainers who hate Corbyn, & see Sir Keir as the personification of their views. Therefore they refuse to concede he is doing poorly as that would be tantamount to admitting they’d called everything since 2016 incorrectly
100% agree isam as a Lexiteer the sneering from the FBPE types is part of the SKS stuff for me too.
I am not sneering at anyone except Johnson and Corbyn. Brexit had direct implications for me which is why I detest the pair of them. Corbyn because he is lost up his own anti trading- bloc idealogical anus and Johnson because, as no more a Brexiteer than me, he was prepared I believe, to sell his country and his better judgement in exchange for promotion.
Which is of course complete rubbish as the highest global fertility rate is in Africa and Africa also has the smallest level of climate emissions of any continent
Utterly insane illogic. Well done.
I sat there umming and ahring whether to respond having had these arguments with hyufd before, but he never gets it, but I do sit there slapping the palm of my hand against my forehead. It is incredible that someone can produce such mindbogglingly wrong logic.
The obvious conclusion is that Africa is made up of 3rd world countries and therefore obviously their per child output of CO2 is less. If their fertility rate is greater than 2 per woman the overall output will increase exponentially plus of course they will produce more individually as they improve their standard of living per head. So not only is the deduction irrational, with time it has a reasonable probability to be shown to be false.
But ignoring that you can produce umpteen mathematical models that show the conclusion jumped to that you can deduce from the fact stated is bonkers.
It is on a par with 'A dog is an animal with 4 legs, therefore all things with 4 legs are dogs, or animals, or all animals have 4 legs, etc, etc.'
Unfortunately hyufd does sometimes spot that the 4 legged thing is an animal or a dog (and not a table) and thinks his logic is spot on.
My logic is spot on.
Africa has far higher fertlity rates than the global average but emissions far below the average per head.
The issue of climate change is entirely therefore to do with replacing fossil fuels with renewables and perhaps reducing our consumption of red meat a bit so we need less destruction of forests for cattle farming and less methane emissions.
Fertility rates have sod all to do with it and so I was absolutely right and the article was completely wrong
HYUFD you wouldn't know logic if it punched you in the face.
HYUFD I am not going to argue with you as you are the most irrational person I have ever come across. It is not possible to deduce what you deduced even if it were correct, which it isn't. It is mathematically impossible, but you have not the faintest clue about the most basis logic.
Just try this:
Dogs have 4 legs, therefore something with 4 legs is a dog. That is patently wrong isn't it? Now think of some of your statements you have made over time with more complex assumptions you have made and see if that substitution applies.
You do the same with stats. You state a fact and then assume something from it and still think you have a fact. Classic error. It is now an opinion based upon a fact that maybe correct or wrong, but is just an opinion.
The most frustrating thing is in the 3 last big arguments I have had with you I have actually agreed with your opinion on 2 of them (I agreed re London house prices and US extradition, but disagreed on Grammar schools), but you put forward such mindbogglingly flawed logical arguments that you lose the support I would have given you and now I am arguing with you about the completely irrational stuff you have typed even though I agree with your opinion.
Same here. Africa does have lower emission but your logic of a => b is utterly bonkers. Even if it were true you have no logical grounds for deducing it. \None whatsoever. If you do please show the maths because it is beyond me.
Oh I do, just it is not the same as your usual left liberal 100% right all the time the only opinion that is right is mine and everything else is illogical view.
I am not going to go over your mindboggingly tedious paragraphs on logic yet again.
The logic on pollution is clear, it is C02 emissions that cause climate change and the largest emitters on earth ie in western Europe, the USA and China all have below average fertility rates. So fertiity rates have sod all to do with polliution, fossil fuels and methane emissions from cattle is all that matters.
So I was of course completely right
I am not left but I am liberal. I'm certainly to the right of you on many things so uncalled for to call me left.
There are opinions and there are facts and there is logic. We all have opinions and they are neither right nor wrong and I respect your opinions whether I agree with them or not. Note I do not have these arguments with anyone else on PB yet I often disagree with their opinions and I sometimes agree with yours (even if your logic is flawed)
There are facts which you often produce and I have never (note never) disagreed with any fact you have produced. I have assumed it to be accurate.
But unlike anyone else on this site you then apply absolutely bonkers logic to both opinions and facts and that is the issue.
I often have arguments with @Philip_Thompson for instance. We disagree on the EU and FPTP. I think he is wrong and he thinks I am wrong, but these are just our opinions. We both apply logic to our opinions, but because they are opinions they stay opinions after that logic is applied.
Another example is you believe in God, I don't. I think you are wrong and you think I am wrong, but in both cases these are just opinions and neither of us can prove the other right or wrong. Again we can apply logic to these opinions but they remain opinions.
It is when you then apply your 'so called logic' that it goes haywire.
You have done it again in your last post. Quote 'The logic on pollution is clear....' There is no logic in that statement. It is an opinion. It is an opinion and only an opinion and I agree with the first half of it as do most people and there is a lot of evidence to back it up, BUT no logic is at work here. You then deduce that because the biggest emitters have low fertility rates there is no relation to fertility rates.
You can't deduce that. It is mathematically impossible to do so even if it were true. Do you understand that when you deduce a from b logical rules need to apply.
I repeat my example because this is what you do but you don't see it:
Statement: All dogs have 4 legs (FACT - ignoring amputees for the pedants amongst us)
Statement: I think dogs are cute (OPINION)
Deduction: All dogs are cute (This is an HYUFD FACT or in the real world an OPINION)
Deduction: Something with 4 legs is a dog (This is an HYUFD FACT or in the real world WRONG although many things with 4 legs will be dogs)
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY OPINIONS BEING ALWAYS CORRECT AND YOURS BEING ILLOGICAL.
I repeat nobodies opinions are correct or wrong, they are opinions and often I agree with your opinions, BUT logic is not a matter of opinion, it is a mathematical concept that is absolute, so once you apply a logical process if you do it incorrectly the result has no validity whatsoever, even if by chance it is still correct.
You are a left liberal on cultural and social issues certainly, the fact you may be economically classically liberal does not change that. You are certainly no conservative.
Philip Thompson is also a non conservative liberal like you, so obviously you agree with him more often than not.
I could not care less about your tedious logic posts, I will continue to post exactly as I see it, your views of my opinions I could not care less on. Your opinions on the logic of my posts I also could not care less on, politics is rarely a mathematical application of some pre determined logical equation as you have still yet to discover. More often than not the political argument is won on gut willpower.
And on the emissions point it is clear that emissions production is down to fossil fuels production principally, the solution is renewables. Fertility rates are not relevant as the largest polluters also have below average global fertility
Are the Left so irredeemably disjointed that they couldn't group together under a green banner to win power?
Yes.
As someone with right of centre instincts who just really really would rather B Johnson wasn't Prime Minister, this baffles and infuriates me.
Even if Starmer is a bit of a duffer (and I think he's better than that- flawed but substantial and serviceable), he's the best the left has got. And he's clearly an improvement on the incumbent.
Tories understand this, which is why they keep winning. Back your leader to the hilt, unless you're prepared to back them onto the hilt. Make your leader look good, because that improves your chance of winning.
I'm an outsider to lefty thinking. But my impression is that kits of people would rather lead an opposition than have a secondary place in power.
I'm a loyalist, but I do have friends who've drifted away, mostly to the Greens. They say they might be back when we've got something worth voting for, but there isn't a GE at the moment, and they don't see much positive reason to vote Labour (or tell pollsters they will). I don't think they prefer opposition and they'd still be pleased to see the Tories lose - it's more that they can't be bothered to support the opposition if they feel it doesn't stand for anything.
By contrast, you can't really say that Corbyn doesn't stand for anything. Loads of people thought "Wow, that sounds good" and voted Labour with enthusiasm. But larger loads of people thought "no way". On the whole, Starmer is closer to winning power than Corbyn was, because most people feel he'd be perfectly acceptable as PM, so it "only" requires some attractive policies and Government unpopularity to bring them over. By contrast, Corbyn probably hit his ceiling in 2015.
2015 FFS what are you talking about are you confused with Ed?
"Starmer is closer to winning power" yeah right he will get nowhere near as close as 2017
i think you seriously misjudge how many actual Labour supporters he has lost. Definitely exceeds the Tories he has converted with his electric personality.
What's Starmer ever done to you? Even if you don't love him he's no worse than any other Labour leader. Do you know something the rest of us don't?
It is a really odd visceral hatred. I would have though Starmer incapable of stirring any kind of reaction from, well anyone. Or is Starmer's disloyalty to the true JC the source of the bad blood?
Tell that to Paul Gambacinni
“ “I have the most negative feelings about Keir Starmer imaginable. Countless human beings were tormented because of him and he has never apologised. Keir is not only unsuitable to be leader of the Labour Party, he is unsuitable for any public position down to and including dog-catcher. He serves only himself and not the people.”
The extraordinary attack on the leadership hopeful is particularly wounding because Mr Gambacinni has been a prominent supporter of Labour. He has supported the party since the late 1980s and, until his arrest in 2013, hosted fundraisers for Ed Miliband at his London home.”
A well researched and a fair point regarding Starmer's position as DPP and Gambo has good reason to critique. I don't think, although I don't know for certain, that your's and BJO's beef with Starmer has anything to do with his Nonce-Finder-In-Chief credentials.
Nothing to do with it as far as my beef goes; I don’t have much time for any of the politicians who tried to get a second go at the EU referendum before the result of the first had been enacted.
I also think he is over rated by Remainers who hate Corbyn, & see Sir Keir as the personification of their views. Therefore they refuse to concede he is doing poorly as that would be tantamount to admitting they’d called everything since 2016 incorrectly
100% agree isam as a Lexiteer the sneering from the FBPE types is part of the SKS stuff for me too.
I am not sneering at anyone except Johnson and Corbyn. Brexit had direct implications for me which is why I detest the pair of them. Corbyn because he is lost up his own anti trading- bloc idealogical anus and Johnson because, as no more a Brexiteer than me, he was prepared I believe, to sell his country and his better judgement in exchange for promotion.
I wasn't referring to you but "I am not sneering at anyone except ...."
Was tonights by election result in Falkirk Corbyns fault or not?
No but it is also a stretch to blame Starmer directly, although as the incumbent leader the loss is on his shoulders. You can probably trace the loss back to Labour's "Better Together" performance at Sindyref and Falkirk MP Eric Joyce's punch up , the butterfly effect of which, gave us Oh Jeremy Corbyn.
Which is of course complete rubbish as the highest global fertility rate is in Africa and Africa also has the smallest level of climate emissions of any continent
Utterly insane illogic. Well done.
I sat there umming and ahring whether to respond having had these arguments with hyufd before, but he never gets it, but I do sit there slapping the palm of my hand against my forehead. It is incredible that someone can produce such mindbogglingly wrong logic.
The obvious conclusion is that Africa is made up of 3rd world countries and therefore obviously their per child output of CO2 is less. If their fertility rate is greater than 2 per woman the overall output will increase exponentially plus of course they will produce more individually as they improve their standard of living per head. So not only is the deduction irrational, with time it has a reasonable probability to be shown to be false.
But ignoring that you can produce umpteen mathematical models that show the conclusion jumped to that you can deduce from the fact stated is bonkers.
It is on a par with 'A dog is an animal with 4 legs, therefore all things with 4 legs are dogs, or animals, or all animals have 4 legs, etc, etc.'
Unfortunately hyufd does sometimes spot that the 4 legged thing is an animal or a dog (and not a table) and thinks his logic is spot on.
My logic is spot on.
Africa has far higher fertlity rates than the global average but emissions far below the average per head.
The issue of climate change is entirely therefore to do with replacing fossil fuels with renewables and perhaps reducing our consumption of red meat a bit so we need less destruction of forests for cattle farming and less methane emissions.
Fertility rates have sod all to do with it and so I was absolutely right and the article was completely wrong
HYUFD you wouldn't know logic if it punched you in the face.
HYUFD I am not going to argue with you as you are the most irrational person I have ever come across. It is not possible to deduce what you deduced even if it were correct, which it isn't. It is mathematically impossible, but you have not the faintest clue about the most basis logic.
Just try this:
Dogs have 4 legs, therefore something with 4 legs is a dog. That is patently wrong isn't it? Now think of some of your statements you have made over time with more complex assumptions you have made and see if that substitution applies.
You do the same with stats. You state a fact and then assume something from it and still think you have a fact. Classic error. It is now an opinion based upon a fact that maybe correct or wrong, but is just an opinion.
The most frustrating thing is in the 3 last big arguments I have had with you I have actually agreed with your opinion on 2 of them (I agreed re London house prices and US extradition, but disagreed on Grammar schools), but you put forward such mindbogglingly flawed logical arguments that you lose the support I would have given you and now I am arguing with you about the completely irrational stuff you have typed even though I agree with your opinion.
Same here. Africa does have lower emission but your logic of a => b is utterly bonkers. Even if it were true you have no logical grounds for deducing it. \None whatsoever. If you do please show the maths because it is beyond me.
Oh I do, just it is not the same as your usual left liberal 100% right all the time the only opinion that is right is mine and everything else is illogical view.
I am not going to go over your mindboggingly tedious paragraphs on logic yet again.
The logic on pollution is clear, it is C02 emissions that cause climate change and the largest emitters on earth ie in western Europe, the USA and China all have below average fertility rates. So fertiity rates have sod all to do with polliution, fossil fuels and methane emissions from cattle is all that matters.
So I was of course completely right
I am not left but I am liberal. I'm certainly to the right of you on many things so uncalled for to call me left.
There are opinions and there are facts and there is logic. We all have opinions and they are neither right nor wrong and I respect your opinions whether I agree with them or not. Note I do not have these arguments with anyone else on PB yet I often disagree with their opinions and I sometimes agree with yours (even if your logic is flawed)
There are facts which you often produce and I have never (note never) disagreed with any fact you have produced. I have assumed it to be accurate.
But unlike anyone else on this site you then apply absolutely bonkers logic to both opinions and facts and that is the issue.
I often have arguments with @Philip_Thompson for instance. We disagree on the EU and FPTP. I think he is wrong and he thinks I am wrong, but these are just our opinions. We both apply logic to our opinions, but because they are opinions they stay opinions after that logic is applied.
Another example is you believe in God, I don't. I think you are wrong and you think I am wrong, but in both cases these are just opinions and neither of us can prove the other right or wrong. Again we can apply logic to these opinions but they remain opinions.
It is when you then apply your 'so called logic' that it goes haywire.
You have done it again in your last post. Quote 'The logic on pollution is clear....' There is no logic in that statement. It is an opinion. It is an opinion and only an opinion and I agree with the first half of it as do most people and there is a lot of evidence to back it up, BUT no logic is at work here. You then deduce that because the biggest emitters have low fertility rates there is no relation to fertility rates.
You can't deduce that. It is mathematically impossible to do so even if it were true. Do you understand that when you deduce a from b logical rules need to apply.
I repeat my example because this is what you do but you don't see it:
Statement: All dogs have 4 legs (FACT - ignoring amputees for the pedants amongst us)
Statement: I think dogs are cute (OPINION)
Deduction: All dogs are cute (This is an HYUFD FACT or in the real world an OPINION)
Deduction: Something with 4 legs is a dog (This is an HYUFD FACT or in the real world WRONG although many things with 4 legs will be dogs)
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY OPINIONS BEING ALWAYS CORRECT AND YOURS BEING ILLOGICAL.
I repeat nobodies opinions are correct or wrong, they are opinions and often I agree with your opinions, BUT logic is not a matter of opinion, it is a mathematical concept that is absolute, so once you apply a logical process if you do it incorrectly the result has no validity whatsoever, even if by chance it is still correct.
You are a left liberal on cultural and social issues certainly, the fact you may be economically classically liberal does not change that. You are certainly no conservative.
Philip Thompson is also a non conservative liberal like you, so obviously you agree with him more often than not.
I could not care less about your tedious logic posts, I will continue to post exactly as I see it, your views of my opinions I could not care less on.
And on the emissions point it is clear that emissions production is down to fossil fuels production principally, the solution is renewables. Fertility rates are not relevant as the largest polluters also have below average global fertility
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - Not the point I am making. I am talking about when I disagree with him which I do a lot. Pick anyone I disagree with here (there are a lot both on the left and right) and I never have this conversation with them. Do you wonder why you have this conversation with me and many others here and other don't?
4th para, 1 sentence - I agree
4th para 2nd sentence - You keep repeating the same thing. It is my opinion (just an opinion) that is not true, but it is a fact that you can not deduce the conclusion from the statement.
3rd para - Rather than taking my word for it can I suggest you do something different. Clearly you don't respect my knowledge on the subject even though I am well qualified. Why not find an appropriately qualified academic. Someone with a Philosophy or Maths degree who has specialised in logic and ask them to review some of the conclusions that I and others have challenged as being illogical and see what a professional says. What have you to lose?
A non-existent person has a zero environmental footprint.
Let's all stop procreating, allow our species to become extinct and leave the planet a better place.
I never had kids for this reason. Human beings are a vile species that share nothing and destroy everything. Why would you make more of them?
And there in a nutshell yet again is why the left deserves to lose forever, a philosophy built on pessimism and self hate is doomed.
It is of course wrong anyway, there are plenty of bloodthirsty animals like alligators and sharks who would still be bloodthirsty and ruthless even if humanity went extinct
Which is of course complete rubbish as the highest global fertility rate is in Africa and Africa also has the smallest level of climate emissions of any continent
Utterly insane illogic. Well done.
I sat there umming and ahring whether to respond having had these arguments with hyufd before, but he never gets it, but I do sit there slapping the palm of my hand against my forehead. It is incredible that someone can produce such mindbogglingly wrong logic.
The obvious conclusion is that Africa is made up of 3rd world countries and therefore obviously their per child output of CO2 is less. If their fertility rate is greater than 2 per woman the overall output will increase exponentially plus of course they will produce more individually as they improve their standard of living per head. So not only is the deduction irrational, with time it has a reasonable probability to be shown to be false.
But ignoring that you can produce umpteen mathematical models that show the conclusion jumped to that you can deduce from the fact stated is bonkers.
It is on a par with 'A dog is an animal with 4 legs, therefore all things with 4 legs are dogs, or animals, or all animals have 4 legs, etc, etc.'
Unfortunately hyufd does sometimes spot that the 4 legged thing is an animal or a dog (and not a table) and thinks his logic is spot on.
My logic is spot on.
Africa has far higher fertlity rates than the global average but emissions far below the average per head.
The issue of climate change is entirely therefore to do with replacing fossil fuels with renewables and perhaps reducing our consumption of red meat a bit so we need less destruction of forests for cattle farming and less methane emissions.
Fertility rates have sod all to do with it and so I was absolutely right and the article was completely wrong
HYUFD you wouldn't know logic if it punched you in the face.
HYUFD I am not going to argue with you as you are the most irrational person I have ever come across. It is not possible to deduce what you deduced even if it were correct, which it isn't. It is mathematically impossible, but you have not the faintest clue about the most basis logic.
Just try this:
Dogs have 4 legs, therefore something with 4 legs is a dog. That is patently wrong isn't it? Now think of some of your statements you have made over time with more complex assumptions you have made and see if that substitution applies.
You do the same with stats. You state a fact and then assume something from it and still think you have a fact. Classic error. It is now an opinion based upon a fact that maybe correct or wrong, but is just an opinion.
The most frustrating thing is in the 3 last big arguments I have had with you I have actually agreed with your opinion on 2 of them (I agreed re London house prices and US extradition, but disagreed on Grammar schools), but you put forward such mindbogglingly flawed logical arguments that you lose the support I would have given you and now I am arguing with you about the completely irrational stuff you have typed even though I agree with your opinion.
Same here. Africa does have lower emission but your logic of a => b is utterly bonkers. Even if it were true you have no logical grounds for deducing it. \None whatsoever. If you do please show the maths because it is beyond me.
Oh I do, just it is not the same as your usual left liberal 100% right all the time the only opinion that is right is mine and everything else is illogical view.
I am not going to go over your mindboggingly tedious paragraphs on logic yet again.
The logic on pollution is clear, it is C02 emissions that cause climate change and the largest emitters on earth ie in western Europe, the USA and China all have below average fertility rates. So fertiity rates have sod all to do with polliution, fossil fuels and methane emissions from cattle is all that matters.
So I was of course completely right
I am not left but I am liberal. I'm certainly to the right of you on many things so uncalled for to call me left.
There are opinions and there are facts and there is logic. We all have opinions and they are neither right nor wrong and I respect your opinions whether I agree with them or not. Note I do not have these arguments with anyone else on PB yet I often disagree with their opinions and I sometimes agree with yours (even if your logic is flawed)
There are facts which you often produce and I have never (note never) disagreed with any fact you have produced. I have assumed it to be accurate.
But unlike anyone else on this site you then apply absolutely bonkers logic to both opinions and facts and that is the issue.
I often have arguments with @Philip_Thompson for instance. We disagree on the EU and FPTP. I think he is wrong and he thinks I am wrong, but these are just our opinions. We both apply logic to our opinions, but because they are opinions they stay opinions after that logic is applied.
Another example is you believe in God, I don't. I think you are wrong and you think I am wrong, but in both cases these are just opinions and neither of us can prove the other right or wrong. Again we can apply logic to these opinions but they remain opinions.
It is when you then apply your 'so called logic' that it goes haywire.
You have done it again in your last post. Quote 'The logic on pollution is clear....' There is no logic in that statement. It is an opinion. It is an opinion and only an opinion and I agree with the first half of it as do most people and there is a lot of evidence to back it up, BUT no logic is at work here. You then deduce that because the biggest emitters have low fertility rates there is no relation to fertility rates.
You can't deduce that. It is mathematically impossible to do so even if it were true. Do you understand that when you deduce a from b logical rules need to apply.
I repeat my example because this is what you do but you don't see it:
Statement: All dogs have 4 legs (FACT - ignoring amputees for the pedants amongst us)
Statement: I think dogs are cute (OPINION)
Deduction: All dogs are cute (This is an HYUFD FACT or in the real world an OPINION)
Deduction: Something with 4 legs is a dog (This is an HYUFD FACT or in the real world WRONG although many things with 4 legs will be dogs)
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY OPINIONS BEING ALWAYS CORRECT AND YOURS BEING ILLOGICAL.
I repeat nobodies opinions are correct or wrong, they are opinions and often I agree with your opinions, BUT logic is not a matter of opinion, it is a mathematical concept that is absolute, so once you apply a logical process if you do it incorrectly the result has no validity whatsoever, even if by chance it is still correct.
You are a left liberal on cultural and social issues certainly, the fact you may be economically classically liberal does not change that. You are certainly no conservative.
Philip Thompson is also a non conservative liberal like you, so obviously you agree with him more often than not.
I could not care less about your tedious logic posts, I will continue to post exactly as I see it, your views of my opinions I could not care less on.
And on the emissions point it is clear that emissions production is down to fossil fuels production principally, the solution is renewables. Fertility rates are not relevant as the largest polluters also have below average global fertility
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - Not the point I am making. I am talking about when I disagree with him which I do a lot. Pick anyone I disagree with here (there are a lot both on the left and right) and I never have this conversation with them. Do you wonder why you have this conversation with me and many others here and other don't?
4th para, 1 sentence - I agree
4th para 2nd sentence - You keep repeating the same thing. It is my opinion (just an opinion) that is not true, but it is a fact that you can not deduce the conclusion from the statement.
3rd para - Rather than taking my word for it can I suggest you do something different. Clearly you don't respect my knowledge on the subject even though I am well qualified. Why not find an appropriately qualified academic. Someone with a Philosophy or Maths degree who has specialised in logic and ask them to review some of the conclusions that I and others have challenged as being illogical and see what a professional says. What have you to lose?
Why not find an appropriately qualified academic? Because I could not care less, I am not applying to be professor of Applied Logic.
I also could not care less what someone with a Philosophy or Maths degree thinks of what I post or if they think my posts are completely illogical.
I come here to give my views and argue conservative points of view with left liberals like you. This is a politics site not a maths site.
Great conservative leaders like Reagan and George W Bush and Berlusconi and indeed Boris often were tarred as illogical by the ivory tower liberal left like you, they still won as they had force of conviction
The monarchy will lose support if members of it don't stay out of politics. We might as well have an elected president if they're going to make political pronouncements.
The monarchy will lose support if members of it don't stay out of politics. We might as well have an elected president if they're going to make political pronouncements.
I don't think think so.
Especially not on issues like the environment as he was promoting here which most people agree with.
You can still make sensible points without going to war or creating legislation like an elected president
Judging from the Pinner East result yesterday there is little enthusiasm for Labour in the London commuter belt. Lib Dems second yesterday. Think Mike you may have well wasted your money, my advice get on the Lib Dems at 33-1.
Comments
Just for Westminster. Maybe worth a punt as Labour gain next time.
Although this ward has been moved to Makerfield under new boundary proposals.
I am not going to go over your mindboggingly tedious paragraphs on logic yet again.
The logic on pollution is clear, it is C02 emissions that cause climate change and the largest emitters on earth ie in western Europe, the USA and China all have below average fertility rates. So fertiity rates have sod all to do with polliution, fossil fuels and methane emissions from cattle is all that matters.
So I was of course completely right
The reason they are not the biggest polluters is because they are 3rd world countries so unlike me do not go flying off on holidays and have umpteen electrical appliances on and have 3 cars and central heating etc, etc.
But if their populations halved their pollution would drop and if it doubled it would increase, just not as much as if the same happened in the West.
Air con perhaps.
I did a calculation a couple of years back that showed that even with the introduction of the much vaunted "triple
lock", the negative effect on pensions of the switch to CPI has over the years outweighed the introduction of average earnings into the uplift calculation. Basically Osborne made the switch just at the point when he knew average earnings were going to collapse, and with earnings stagnant for the last decade the rate of wages growth has very rarely come into the pensions equation.
“ “I have the most negative feelings about Keir Starmer imaginable. Countless human beings were tormented because of him and he has never apologised. Keir is not only unsuitable to be leader of the Labour Party, he is unsuitable for any public position down to and including dog-catcher. He serves only himself and not the people.”
The extraordinary attack on the leadership hopeful is particularly wounding because Mr Gambacinni has been a prominent supporter of Labour. He has supported the party since the late 1980s and, until his arrest in 2013, hosted fundraisers for Ed Miliband at his London home.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/paul-gambaccini-ill-run-against-keir-starmer-over-my-child-abuse-witch-hunt-v8xjn68km
As to Starmer being no worse than any other leader
Which other Lab leader had so little passion? Was so boring? Was such a useless orator? Had no original policies? Was completely lacking in political philosophy as Well as nouse? Was unable to oppose anything the Tory Government does?
I would rank Starmer worst in all those categories to say nothing about him lying to get the leadership and breaking all 10 pledges within a year.
Anyone who defends him has to accept responsibility for the inevitable 2024 defeat.
The issue is getting the USA to reduce its fossil fuel emissions per head drastically and replace them by renewables first and then China can follow suit. Reducing birthrates is completely irrelevant, especially as the lowest birthrates are in the areas of highest emissions
Serious oversight from the omnipotent one there.
I also think he is over rated by Remainers who hate Corbyn, & see Sir Keir as the personification of their views. Therefore they refuse to concede he is doing poorly as that would be tantamount to admitting they’d called everything since 2016 incorrectly
😃 🏃♂️ 🏃♀️ 🏃♂️ 🏃♀️
If there is a maximum, what is the limiting factor?
There are opinions and there are facts and there is logic. We all have opinions and they are neither right nor wrong and I respect your opinions whether I agree with them or not. Note I do not have these arguments with anyone else on PB yet I often disagree with their opinions and I sometimes agree with yours (even if your logic is flawed)
There are facts which you often produce and I have never (note never) disagreed with any fact you have produced. I have assumed it to be accurate.
But unlike anyone else on this site you then apply absolutely bonkers logic to both opinions and facts and that is the issue.
I often have arguments with @Philip_Thompson for instance. We disagree on the EU and FPTP. I think he is wrong and he thinks I am wrong, but these are just our opinions. We both apply logic to our opinions, but because they are opinions they stay opinions after that logic is applied.
Another example is you believe in God, I don't. I think you are wrong and you think I am wrong, but in both cases these are just opinions and neither of us can prove the other right or wrong. Again we can apply logic to these opinions but they remain opinions.
It is when you then apply your 'so called logic' that it goes haywire.
You have done it again in your last post. Quote 'The logic on pollution is clear....' There is no logic in that statement. It is an opinion. It is an opinion and only an opinion and I agree with the first half of it as do most people and there is a lot of evidence to back it up, BUT no logic is at work here. You then deduce that because the biggest emitters have low fertility rates there is no relation to fertility rates.
You can't deduce that. It is mathematically impossible to do so even if it were true. Do you understand that when you deduce 'a' from 'b' logical rules need to apply.
I repeat my example because this is what you do but you don't see it:
Statement: All dogs have 4 legs (FACT - ignoring amputees for the pedants amongst us)
Statement: I think dogs are cute (OPINION)
Deduction: All dogs are cute (This is an HYUFD FACT or in the real world an OPINION)
Deduction: Something with 4 legs is a dog (This is an HYUFD FACT or in the real world WRONG although many things with 4 legs will be dogs)
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY OPINIONS BEING ALWAYS CORRECT AND YOURS BEING ILLOGICAL.
I repeat nobodies opinions are correct or wrong, they are opinions and often I agree with your opinions, BUT logic is not a matter of opinion, it is a mathematical concept that is absolute, so once you apply a logical process if you do it incorrectly the result has no validity whatsoever, even if by chance it is still correct.
Was tonights by election result in Falkirk Corbyns fault or not?
Philip Thompson is also a non conservative liberal like you, so obviously you agree with him more often than not.
I could not care less about your tedious logic posts, I will continue to post exactly as I see it, your views of my opinions I could not care less on. Your opinions on the logic of my posts I also could not care less on, politics is rarely a mathematical application of some pre determined logical equation as you have still yet to discover. More often than not the political argument is won on gut willpower.
And on the emissions point it is clear that emissions production is down to fossil fuels production principally, the solution is renewables. Fertility rates are not relevant as the largest polluters also have below average global fertility
Is not not sneering Pete.
Any terrible Starmer polls out tomorrow!!
Sunils account had been hacked!
1st para - I agree.
2nd para - Not the point I am making. I am talking about when I disagree with him which I do a lot. Pick anyone I disagree with here (there are a lot both on the left and right) and I never have this conversation with them. Do you wonder why you have this conversation with me and many others here and other don't?
4th para, 1 sentence - I agree
4th para 2nd sentence - You keep repeating the same thing. It is my opinion (just an opinion) that is not true, but it is a fact that you can not deduce the conclusion from the statement.
3rd para - Rather than taking my word for it can I suggest you do something different. Clearly you don't respect my knowledge on the subject even though I am well qualified. Why not find an appropriately qualified academic. Someone with a Philosophy or Maths degree who has specialised in logic and ask them to review some of the conclusions that I and others have challenged as being illogical and see what a professional says. What have you to lose?
It is of course wrong anyway, there are plenty of bloodthirsty animals like alligators and sharks who would still be bloodthirsty and ruthless even if humanity went extinct
I also could not care less what someone with a Philosophy or Maths degree thinks of what I post or if they think my posts are completely illogical.
I come here to give my views and argue conservative points of view with left liberals like you. This is a politics site not a maths site.
Great conservative leaders like Reagan and George W Bush and Berlusconi and indeed Boris often were tarred as illogical by the ivory tower liberal left like you, they still won as they had force of conviction
Especially not on issues like the environment as he was promoting here which most people agree with.
You can still make sensible points without going to war or creating legislation like an elected president
Think Mike you may have well wasted your money, my advice get on the Lib Dems at 33-1.