Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
I know, honestly. The ubiquitous "hypocrisy" charge again. About song lyrics!
But I must dissent about the song itself. I do not like it one bit. Find it a bit of a dirge. I prefer his more strident numbers as a solo artist.
Sir David Amess MP stabbed multiple times at his surgery - Sky
Hope he makes a full recovery.
Horrible news, I attended an interesting webinar a few months ago where he discussed his new book and long career.
I hope they catch the culprit and he makes a full recovery.
There does need to be better security at MPs constituency surgeries too, what with this news and Stephen Timms and Nigel Jones also being attacked at constituency surgeries in the past
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
You're astonished that right wingers don't like the dream of a left wing hippy? Really?
Sense it's not a critique of the lyrics more of a rich rock star's "hypocrisy" in writing them.
He ought to have been crafting a haunting ballad about the Laffer curve.
I was the one who brought it up, and I was criticising the lyrics.
Whether he's hypocritical or not, that 'dream' is a nightmare.
It isn't that it is a nightmare for me, it's that it is so trite. It would be nice if everything was nice. Well, yeah, but it isn't. Almost like a nursery rhyme.
That's why the greatest utopian songs implicitly acknowledge they are not promoting a long term solution to anything, just a great moment of hope before returning to the humdrum. Epitomised by "we can be heroes. Just for one day".
"The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind." Give the anarchist a cigarette.
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Indeed but its only a factor if we've failed to reach net zero.
The issue is we're supposed to be using our technology to get to net zero. If we can get to net zero then it doesn't matter what our population is. 1 million, ten million, 7 billion or 50 billion - whatever figure you times by zero the answer is always zero.
I hate to say this but HYUFD is right on this one. For the wrong logic, but he's right. Technology is the key. If our technology makes us reach net zero then having double or half the population times by zero won't make any difference at all.
I don't disagree with that. Never did disagree with the issue (if you see the posts I agreed with HYUFD on that). It is the bloody logic that gets me.
Sadly I think if we are going to get out of the mess it may be that we do have to rely on technology like carbon capture (I don't see us doing it any other way) before it is too late as I don't see other technical advancements coming in time. I'm not sure how that works in a capitalist world though.
Of course if we overcome the carbon issue, population growth will bring the next lot of issues with it (water, food, etc). I am very pro population control as a solution (not in the Hitler type of way) as that can be very rapid (within a generation). It does mean though we can't have constant growth and there are a multitude of other problems like the age issue to deal with also with this approach, which means many don't like it. I suspect you may be in that camp.
Re HYUFD: As always with him it is the logic and only the logic. I mean he made the point that the West is more polluting than Africa, particularly per head with which I agree (I mean how can you disagree?). I have now had 4 arguments with him recently and out of those 4 I have actually agreed with him on the point he was making on 3 of them. I know, why the hell am I arguing with him if I agree with him? But he comes out with these 'mad as a frog in a box' deductions, which he did yesterday that was completely unfounded in any logic whatsoever. And although umpteen people tell him he just can't get it. I am baffled as to how someone can't see this stuff. To me he is unique. It seems to be an extreme case of the Kruger Dunning effect when it comes to deduction.
It is like having a family argument and suddenly you find your mad uncle is supporting you. Anyone sensible would ignore it, but me, I stupidly go and have an argument with my mad uncle instead because I am embarrassed to have my opinion supported by irrational arguments.
I agree with you on the issues with a certain other poster's logic (in general).
However on the issue with the environment the only thing that matters is technology. Realistically if we get to net zero by 2050 then we've achieved what we need to achieve - and if we haven't we've failed. But that only leaves us 28 years and two months until we reach 2050. Knock off nine months for pregnancies and you're talking 27 years and five months.
Being completely realistic the overwhelming majority of those who will be alive in 2050 are those who are alive or conceived already today.
There simply isn't the time or the possibility to affect population figures meaningfully in the next 27 years. Whether in that time you increase population by 2% or drop it by 2% is pretty irrelevant.
The only tool in our arsenal is technology, not population.
But 2050 is an utterly artificial date with no relevance in the real world. It is a target set up to try and force Governments to meet their commitments and although that is perfectly sensible, it should not be considered as anything more than that.
If the wider issue over and above climate change is population size (as I and many others believe it to be) then saying we can't do anything about it in the next 27 years as if that means we should not bother is a completely straw man argument. Yes technology will help us with net zero. It will not necessarily help us with the many other issues affecting the world some of which are even more serious. And it definitely won't help us if we don't recognise the problems in the first place. Technology only helps when it is properly directed to address the problems.
Now actually it appears that the best way to reduce global populations is to make everyone middle class - or some such equivalent. First world countries have reducing birth rates and the richer the country the more stable the natural population (excluding, for a moment, migration). What we should be aiming to do is massively improve living conditions and wealth in Africa, India and other Third World countries. In the long run that will do far more for our environment than any short term technological stop gaps.
As I pointed out the global average fertility rate is now 2.4 ie almost exactly at the replacement rate of 2.1 only and no more.
So the issue is not global population growth, the issue is getting technology and renewables to replace fossil fuels and other solutions to tackle other problems.
Indeed if global population growth falls further below the 2.1 replacement rate then the issue becomes we need more babies to produce more workers to pay for the ageing population, an issue currently confined mainly only to some parts of the West like Italy or Japan and to some extent here
Global population is increasing by 1.1% per year. That is around 88 million people a year. We are a long way from needing more babies.
For now, it is perfectly possible in a decade the global population will be declining by 1.1% a year, we are barely above global replacement level as it is. If we dip below 2.1 global fertility rate then the problem will be the other way, we will need more babies not fewer to get more workers to fund the healthcare of the ageing population and state pensions
That is because all Western countries have bought into an unsustainable ponzi scheme. In the long run we have to change that model because it will eventually fail of its own accord. Using that as an excuse for increasing the world's population is utterly irrational and ultimately self defeating.
Good luck with getting elected promising to abolish all state funded healthcare and state funded social care and abolish all state pensions and fund healthcare and social care only with private insurance and private assets and pensions only with private contributory pensions alone.
I was not arguing for increasing the global population anyway, just keeping it at replacement level
Not sure why you are wishing me luck. We have all already run out of luck on this. Just because the Governments can't persuade us to change has no relevance to the fact that in the end the scheme will collapse. How prepared we are for this and how honest we are about its inevitability will dictate how well we survive it.
A fine nerdy thread on the PCR test failures. (Which incidentally demonstrates how difficult it would be to fake the figures and not have it noticed by someone.)
UK Covid Mystery Thread #2. In a recent thread, I highlighted anomalies in case data in 9 particular LTLAs in the South West region, and stated my theory that there was an intermittent but ongoing PCR processing problem. Sorry, but this is gonna be long. https://twitter.com/ArtySmokesPS/status/1448927559970967556
Is it overly simplistic to conclude that if the number of positive tests have been materially understated it means that the vaccines are even better than we thought?
If we've missed 43,000 cases from a recorded ±900,000, no, not really....
That's nearly 5%, unless you are missing some zeros which I think you might be. Are we not doing something like 1m a day for some reason? In which case why is this even a story?
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
You're astonished that right wingers don't like the dream of a left wing hippy? Really?
Sense it's not a critique of the lyrics more of a rich rock star's "hypocrisy" in writing them.
He ought to have been crafting a haunting ballad about the Laffer curve.
Indeed, it is a massively under utilised topic for song. As are gilt yields, of course.
There's an even worse than usual Beatles song about marginal tax rates, I think.
The best things in life are free, But you can give them to the birds and bees, Now give me money (that's what I want)...
You could almost say that Mr Lennon was rather inconsistent in what he sang.
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
You're astonished that right wingers don't like the dream of a left wing hippy? Really?
Sense it's not a critique of the lyrics more of a rich rock star's "hypocrisy" in writing them.
He ought to have been crafting a haunting ballad about the Laffer curve.
Indeed, it is a massively under utilised topic for song. As are gilt yields, of course.
There's an even worse than usual Beatles song about marginal tax rates, I think.
Sir David Amess MP stabbed multiple times at his surgery - Sky
Hope he makes a full recovery.
Horrible news, I attended an interesting webinar a few months ago where he discussed his new book and long career.
I hope they catch the culprit and he makes a full recovery.
There does need to be better security at MPs constituency surgeries too, what with this news and Stephen Timms and Nigel Jones also being attacked at constituency surgeries in the past
Indeed. And we wonder why the quality of MP's is declining. Horrible news.
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
I don't take the lyrics seriously but there are plenty who do.
It's this idea that if we abolish possessions, religions and nations we'll all be living in harmony whereas in reality you'd be taking away what makes us human. If it was ever seriously attempted we'd replace it with new idols and axioms instead, and people would have different takes and tangents on that too.
We need beliefs and identities in order to co-operate en-masse, and thus progress socially - the issue is keeping the negative sides of our character in check - not abolishing our character.
Maybe, but it's a pop song. That's all it is. Nothing more.
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
You're astonished that right wingers don't like the dream of a left wing hippy? Really?
Sense it's not a critique of the lyrics more of a rich rock star's "hypocrisy" in writing them.
He ought to have been crafting a haunting ballad about the Laffer curve.
Look at the lyrics of Taxman. Moaning about 95% marginal tax rates. Blames Wilson and Heath. Lennon and McCartney - Tories at heart.
I spent years wondering what the hell the Blues Brothers theme song, "She Caught The Katy", was about. When the internet eventually enabled to me find out - the "Katy" was the K-T, Kansas to Texas express railway (and the 'mule' she left 'me' to ride was was what they called the slow moving freight trains that had to stop to let the Katy pass) - I also discovered that it was a cover of a song by Taj Mahal the great blues singer/guitarist, which I actually preferred.
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Indeed but its only a factor if we've failed to reach net zero.
The issue is we're supposed to be using our technology to get to net zero. If we can get to net zero then it doesn't matter what our population is. 1 million, ten million, 7 billion or 50 billion - whatever figure you times by zero the answer is always zero.
I hate to say this but HYUFD is right on this one. For the wrong logic, but he's right. Technology is the key. If our technology makes us reach net zero then having double or half the population times by zero won't make any difference at all.
I don't disagree with that. Never did disagree with the issue (if you see the posts I agreed with HYUFD on that). It is the bloody logic that gets me.
Sadly I think if we are going to get out of the mess it may be that we do have to rely on technology like carbon capture (I don't see us doing it any other way) before it is too late as I don't see other technical advancements coming in time. I'm not sure how that works in a capitalist world though.
Of course if we overcome the carbon issue, population growth will bring the next lot of issues with it (water, food, etc). I am very pro population control as a solution (not in the Hitler type of way) as that can be very rapid (within a generation). It does mean though we can't have constant growth and there are a multitude of other problems like the age issue to deal with also with this approach, which means many don't like it. I suspect you may be in that camp.
Re HYUFD: As always with him it is the logic and only the logic. I mean he made the point that the West is more polluting than Africa, particularly per head with which I agree (I mean how can you disagree?). I have now had 4 arguments with him recently and out of those 4 I have actually agreed with him on the point he was making on 3 of them. I know, why the hell am I arguing with him if I agree with him? But he comes out with these 'mad as a frog in a box' deductions, which he did yesterday that was completely unfounded in any logic whatsoever. And although umpteen people tell him he just can't get it. I am baffled as to how someone can't see this stuff. To me he is unique. It seems to be an extreme case of the Kruger Dunning effect when it comes to deduction.
It is like having a family argument and suddenly you find your mad uncle is supporting you. Anyone sensible would ignore it, but me, I stupidly go and have an argument with my mad uncle instead because I am embarrassed to have my opinion supported by irrational arguments.
I agree with you on the issues with a certain other poster's logic (in general).
However on the issue with the environment the only thing that matters is technology. Realistically if we get to net zero by 2050 then we've achieved what we need to achieve - and if we haven't we've failed. But that only leaves us 28 years and two months until we reach 2050. Knock off nine months for pregnancies and you're talking 27 years and five months.
Being completely realistic the overwhelming majority of those who will be alive in 2050 are those who are alive or conceived already today.
There simply isn't the time or the possibility to affect population figures meaningfully in the next 27 years. Whether in that time you increase population by 2% or drop it by 2% is pretty irrelevant.
The only tool in our arsenal is technology, not population.
But 2050 is an utterly artificial date with no relevance in the real world. It is a target set up to try and force Governments to meet their commitments and although that is perfectly sensible, it should not be considered as anything more than that.
If the wider issue over and above climate change is population size (as I and many others believe it to be) then saying we can't do anything about it in the next 27 years as if that means we should not bother is a completely straw man argument. Yes technology will help us with net zero. It will not necessarily help us with the many other issues affecting the world some of which are even more serious. And it definitely won't help us if we don't recognise the problems in the first place. Technology only helps when it is properly directed to address the problems.
Now actually it appears that the best way to reduce global populations is to make everyone middle class - or some such equivalent. First world countries have reducing birth rates and the richer the country the more stable the natural population (excluding, for a moment, migration). What we should be aiming to do is massively improve living conditions and wealth in Africa, India and other Third World countries. In the long run that will do far more for our environment than any short term technological stop gaps.
As I pointed out the global average fertility rate is now 2.4 ie almost exactly at the replacement rate of 2.1 only and no more.
So the issue is not global population growth, the issue is getting technology and renewables to replace fossil fuels and other solutions to tackle other problems.
Indeed if global population growth falls further below the 2.1 replacement rate then the issue becomes we need more babies to produce more workers to pay for the ageing population, an issue currently confined mainly only to some parts of the West like Italy or Japan and to some extent here
Global population is increasing by 1.1% per year. That is around 88 million people a year. We are a long way from needing more babies.
For now, it is perfectly possible in a decade the global population will be declining by 1.1% a year, we are barely above global replacement level as it is. If we dip below 2.1 global fertility rate then the problem will be the other way, we will need more babies not fewer to get more workers to fund the healthcare of the ageing population and state pensions
That is because all Western countries have bought into an unsustainable ponzi scheme. In the long run we have to change that model because it will eventually fail of its own accord. Using that as an excuse for increasing the world's population is utterly irrational and ultimately self defeating.
Good luck with getting elected promising to abolish all state funded healthcare and state funded social care and abolish all state pensions and fund healthcare and social care only with private insurance and private assets and pensions only with private contributory pensions alone.
I was not arguing for increasing the global population anyway, just keeping it at replacement level
Not sure why you are wishing me luck. We have all already run out of luck on this. Just because the Governments can't persuade us to change has no relevance to the fact that in the end the scheme will collapse. How prepared we are for this and how honest we are about its inevitability will dictate how well we survive it.
You are a libertarian who quite clearly would largely abolish the welfare state and abolish the NHS and fund healthcare and pensions mainly through private insurance and private assets. We may need more private pensions (which compulsory enrollment helps with in the workplace) but we will still need the NHS and state pensions too, there will never be a majority for abolishing the NHS. That has to be paid for however either by either higher taxes on workers or more babies, given the UK is already below replacement level fertility rate.
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Indeed but its only a factor if we've failed to reach net zero.
The issue is we're supposed to be using our technology to get to net zero. If we can get to net zero then it doesn't matter what our population is. 1 million, ten million, 7 billion or 50 billion - whatever figure you times by zero the answer is always zero.
I hate to say this but HYUFD is right on this one. For the wrong logic, but he's right. Technology is the key. If our technology makes us reach net zero then having double or half the population times by zero won't make any difference at all.
I don't disagree with that. Never did disagree with the issue (if you see the posts I agreed with HYUFD on that). It is the bloody logic that gets me.
Sadly I think if we are going to get out of the mess it may be that we do have to rely on technology like carbon capture (I don't see us doing it any other way) before it is too late as I don't see other technical advancements coming in time. I'm not sure how that works in a capitalist world though.
Of course if we overcome the carbon issue, population growth will bring the next lot of issues with it (water, food, etc). I am very pro population control as a solution (not in the Hitler type of way) as that can be very rapid (within a generation). It does mean though we can't have constant growth and there are a multitude of other problems like the age issue to deal with also with this approach, which means many don't like it. I suspect you may be in that camp.
Re HYUFD: As always with him it is the logic and only the logic. I mean he made the point that the West is more polluting than Africa, particularly per head with which I agree (I mean how can you disagree?). I have now had 4 arguments with him recently and out of those 4 I have actually agreed with him on the point he was making on 3 of them. I know, why the hell am I arguing with him if I agree with him? But he comes out with these 'mad as a frog in a box' deductions, which he did yesterday that was completely unfounded in any logic whatsoever. And although umpteen people tell him he just can't get it. I am baffled as to how someone can't see this stuff. To me he is unique. It seems to be an extreme case of the Kruger Dunning effect when it comes to deduction.
It is like having a family argument and suddenly you find your mad uncle is supporting you. Anyone sensible would ignore it, but me, I stupidly go and have an argument with my mad uncle instead because I am embarrassed to have my opinion supported by irrational arguments.
I agree with you on the issues with a certain other poster's logic (in general).
However on the issue with the environment the only thing that matters is technology. Realistically if we get to net zero by 2050 then we've achieved what we need to achieve - and if we haven't we've failed. But that only leaves us 28 years and two months until we reach 2050. Knock off nine months for pregnancies and you're talking 27 years and five months.
Being completely realistic the overwhelming majority of those who will be alive in 2050 are those who are alive or conceived already today.
There simply isn't the time or the possibility to affect population figures meaningfully in the next 27 years. Whether in that time you increase population by 2% or drop it by 2% is pretty irrelevant.
The only tool in our arsenal is technology, not population.
But 2050 is an utterly artificial date with no relevance in the real world. It is a target set up to try and force Governments to meet their commitments and although that is perfectly sensible, it should not be considered as anything more than that.
If the wider issue over and above climate change is population size (as I and many others believe it to be) then saying we can't do anything about it in the next 27 years as if that means we should not bother is a completely straw man argument. Yes technology will help us with net zero. It will not necessarily help us with the many other issues affecting the world some of which are even more serious. And it definitely won't help us if we don't recognise the problems in the first place. Technology only helps when it is properly directed to address the problems.
Now actually it appears that the best way to reduce global populations is to make everyone middle class - or some such equivalent. First world countries have reducing birth rates and the richer the country the more stable the natural population (excluding, for a moment, migration). What we should be aiming to do is massively improve living conditions and wealth in Africa, India and other Third World countries. In the long run that will do far more for our environment than any short term technological stop gaps.
As I pointed out the global average fertility rate is now 2.4 ie almost exactly at the replacement rate of 2.1 only and no more.
So the issue is not global population growth, the issue is getting technology and renewables to replace fossil fuels and other solutions to tackle other problems.
Indeed if global population growth falls further below the 2.1 replacement rate then the issue becomes we need more babies to produce more workers to pay for the ageing population, an issue currently confined mainly only to some parts of the West like Italy or Japan and to some extent here
Global population is increasing by 1.1% per year. That is around 88 million people a year. We are a long way from needing more babies.
For now, it is perfectly possible in a decade the global population will be declining by 1.1% a year, we are barely above global replacement level as it is. If we dip below 2.1 global fertility rate then the problem will be the other way, we will need more babies not fewer to get more workers to fund the healthcare of the ageing population and state pensions
That is because all Western countries have bought into an unsustainable ponzi scheme. In the long run we have to change that model because it will eventually fail of its own accord. Using that as an excuse for increasing the world's population is utterly irrational and ultimately self defeating.
Good luck with getting elected promising to abolish all state funded healthcare and state funded social care and abolish all state pensions and fund healthcare and social care only with private insurance and private assets and pensions only with private contributory pensions alone.
I was not arguing for increasing the global population anyway, just keeping it at replacement level
Not sure why you are wishing me luck. We have all already run out of luck on this. Just because the Governments can't persuade us to change has no relevance to the fact that in the end the scheme will collapse. How prepared we are for this and how honest we are about its inevitability will dictate how well we survive it.
I see no reason why 'the scheme' is unsustainable or has to fail.
The worlds population has increased for as long as humanity has existed. People have believed in the Malthusian fallacy for centuries. Global population was approximately a billion then and has increased nearly eight-fold in that time.
I see no reason with good technology and efficiency that we couldn't see the same in the future and in the 23rd century we could be around 60 billion people on the planet and people would still be parroting the same 'this time its different' Malthusian fallacy.
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
Golden rule, acquiring wealth is deeply virtuous if you're a righty, deeply sinful if you're a lefty.
There seem to be an awful lot of lefties who seem strangely tolerant of being deeply sinful whilst claiming that they are working class.
Sir David Amess MP stabbed multiple times at his surgery - Sky
Hope he makes a full recovery.
Horrible news, I attended an interesting webinar a few months ago where he discussed his new book and long career.
I hope they catch the culprit and he makes a full recovery.
There does need to be better security at MPs constituency surgeries too, what with this news and Stephen Timms and Nigel Jones also being attacked at constituency surgeries in the past
Indeed. And we wonder why the quality of MP's is declining. Horrible news.
Indeed, sadly how many high flying professionals or businessmen earning 6 figure salaries will take a paycut, extra media intrusion and harassment from constituents including the risk of being stabbed merely for trying to help them at a surgery?
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
You're astonished that right wingers don't like the dream of a left wing hippy? Really?
Sense it's not a critique of the lyrics more of a rich rock star's "hypocrisy" in writing them.
He ought to have been crafting a haunting ballad about the Laffer curve.
Indeed, it is a massively under utilised topic for song. As are gilt yields, of course.
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
You're astonished that right wingers don't like the dream of a left wing hippy? Really?
Sense it's not a critique of the lyrics more of a rich rock star's "hypocrisy" in writing them.
He ought to have been crafting a haunting ballad about the Laffer curve.
Look at the lyrics of Taxman. Moaning about 95% marginal tax rates. Blames Wilson and Heath. Lennon and McCartney - Tories at heart.
Wasn't Taxman George Harrison? And in fairness to Macca, he was the only one who never moved overseas. He's always been a resident for tax purposes.
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
I don't take the lyrics seriously but there are plenty who do.
It's this idea that if we abolish possessions, religions and nations we'll all be living in harmony whereas in reality you'd be taking away what makes us human. If it was ever seriously attempted we'd replace it with new idols and axioms instead, and people would have different takes and tangents on that too.
We need beliefs and identities in order to co-operate en-masse, and thus progress socially - the issue is keeping the negative sides of our character in check - not abolishing our character.
Not a bad effort. But you need to work on your verse lengths and harmonic structure. Some rhyme might help with the flow.
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
Golden rule, acquiring wealth is deeply virtuous if you're a righty, deeply sinful if you're a lefty.
There seem to be an awful lot of lefties who seem strangely tolerant of being deeply sinful whilst claiming that they are working class.
That's comment always says more about the people making it. There's a certain type of right wing voter that can never accept that left wing or working people can be more successful than them.
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
I don't take the lyrics seriously but there are plenty who do.
It's this idea that if we abolish possessions, religions and nations we'll all be living in harmony whereas in reality you'd be taking away what makes us human. If it was ever seriously attempted we'd replace it with new idols and axioms instead, and people would have different takes and tangents on that too.
We need beliefs and identities in order to co-operate en-masse, and thus progress socially - the issue is keeping the negative sides of our character in check - not abolishing our character.
Maybe, but it's a pop song. That's all it is. Nothing more.
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
You're astonished that right wingers don't like the dream of a left wing hippy? Really?
Sense it's not a critique of the lyrics more of a rich rock star's "hypocrisy" in writing them.
He ought to have been crafting a haunting ballad about the Laffer curve.
I was the one who brought it up, and I was criticising the lyrics.
Whether he's hypocritical or not, that 'dream' is a nightmare.
Ah, just an honest PB debating style disagreement with the political sentiment then.
Not all of it, though, surely. No wars, no hunger, and - big for you, this, I think - "no religion too". All building to the crescendo of the overall message, imagine all the people living life in PEACE, you oo oo oo oo ...
If this is a "nightmare" for you you're a rum sort and no mistake.
I like the vision but not the song. Not even my new Lennon style photochromics - which really do suit me! - make me want to seek it out for a listen.
At the very least, yet another MP's life put at risk doing their job. There is something troubling about our culture. Within living memory there were no gates on Downing Street. We have come a long way from that.
Sir David Amess MP stabbed multiple times at his surgery - Sky
Hope he makes a full recovery.
So Angela, is it OK to stab scum?
O-to scoring political point 5.7 secs. Not bad.
Nope. Mark is exactly right. This is exactly the reason Rayner or any MP shouldn’t use such hateful and aggressive language, and after this assassination of a hardworking and popular Tory MP just weeks after her inflammatory language, Starmer has no choice but to force her resignation as deputy.
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
You're astonished that right wingers don't like the dream of a left wing hippy? Really?
Sense it's not a critique of the lyrics more of a rich rock star's "hypocrisy" in writing them.
He ought to have been crafting a haunting ballad about the Laffer curve.
Look at the lyrics of Taxman. Moaning about 95% marginal tax rates. Blames Wilson and Heath. Lennon and McCartney - Tories at heart.
Wasn't Taxman George Harrison? And in fairness to Macca, he was the only one who never moved overseas. He's always been a resident for tax purposes.
You're right, of course - it was George. There's always some bugger on here who chooses to check the facts.
There doesn’t seem to be anything in the article that justifies the headline. There’s no inherent reason why windfarms should only be 50ft tall. Poor journalism. Unnecessarily introducing a “fear” angle into a good news story.
It is rather annoying if you have a nice business making 200ft wind turbines, if the new standard becomes 250ft.
If only the government would step in and stop those nasty innovators innovating.....
Seems to be close to the ideal of an article totally devoid of content.
Sir David Amess MP stabbed multiple times at his surgery - Sky
Hope he makes a full recovery.
So Angela, is it OK to stab scum?
O-to scoring political point 5.7 secs. Not bad.
Nope. Mark is exactly right. This is exactly the reason Rayner or any MP shouldn’t use such hateful and aggressive language, and after this assassination of a hardworking and popular Tory MP just weeks after her inflammatory language, Starmer has no choice but to force her resignation as deputy.
Let’s brace ourselves, if someone is still being treated at a scene this long after multiple stab wounds, it’s going to be the worst possible news.
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
You're astonished that right wingers don't like the dream of a left wing hippy? Really?
Sense it's not a critique of the lyrics more of a rich rock star's "hypocrisy" in writing them.
He ought to have been crafting a haunting ballad about the Laffer curve.
I was the one who brought it up, and I was criticising the lyrics.
Whether he's hypocritical or not, that 'dream' is a nightmare.
Ah, just an honest PB debating style disagreement with the political sentiment then.
Not all of it, though, surely. No wars, no hunger, and - big for you, this, I think - "no religion too". All building to the crescendo of the overall message, imagine all the people living life in PEACE, you oo oo oo oo ...
If this is a "nightmare" for you you're a rum sort and no mistake.
I like the vision but not the song. Not even my new Lennon style photochromics - which really do suit me! - make me want to seek it out for a listen.
The vast majority of it yes.
The 'nothing to kill or die for' flows on from the awful dystopian horror line of "Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do". I've always interpreted it as suggesting that he's saying people kill or die for countries, but that's not the case, people kill or die for a plethora of countries and if we lived in a horrendous society where there are no countries then that would likely result in more killing and dying, not less.
Similarly the "no hunger" line flows on from the awful suggestion of "Imagine no possessions". Is he suggesting no possessions would mean no hunger? Because the opposite is true. Better for everyone to have lots of possessions, that enables there to be no hunger.
The only thing I agree with is the "no religion" bit but I don't believe that would lead to the world living in peace.
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
Bit like those people who rush to point out that Bryan Adams was only nine in the summer of 1969.
I always took that as evidence that the song wasn't referring to the year.
I think Adams himself somewhat admitted to the smutty interpretation. That saddened me in a way. I'd always felt that having it as the year 1969 was to imbue it with a 'Withnail and I', end-of-an-era poignancy.
They're selling hippie wigs in Woolworth's, man. The greatest decade in the history of mankind is over.
He has admitted the song is about the first year he had wild sex, including that (overrated) sexual position
Relatedly, Stairway to Heaven is, in part, about puberty and orgasm
‘If there's a bustle in your hedgerow, don't be alarmed now It's just a spring clean for the May queen’
See, now by slipping in "overrated" you're obviously trying to start a detailed discussion on here about sexual positions - which would be highly inappropriate and would attract the wrong sort to the site.
This is why I call you 'fruity leon' and why you need to be watched.
Sir David Amess MP stabbed multiple times at his surgery - Sky
Hope he makes a full recovery.
So Angela, is it OK to stab scum?
O-to scoring political point 5.7 secs. Not bad.
Nope. Mark is exactly right. This is exactly the reason Rayner or any MP shouldn’t use such hateful and aggressive language, and after this assassination of a hardworking and popular Tory MP just weeks after her inflammatory language, Starmer has no choice but to force her resignation as deputy.
Let’s brace ourselves, if someone is still being treated at a scene this long after multiple stab wounds, it’s going to be the worst possible news.
Let's not speculate prematurely.
The worst possible news would be there's no possible treatment to give.
Stabbed multiple times is horrific no matter what, but hopefully the treatment is able to work.
At the very least, yet another MP's life put at risk doing their job. There is something troubling about our culture. Within living memory there were no gates on Downing Street. We have come a long way from that.
In the late Eighties I remember walking up Downing St on the way home from a night out to chat to the policeman outside the door. Not that he wanted to chat.
Conservative councillor and former Southend mayor, John Lamb, who is at the scene, said: “I was indoors when I got a phone call just before midday about this, I am so shocked.
“At the moment, all we know is that David has been stabbed several times.
“He is still at the church and they won’t let us go in to see him. It does look very serious."
Conservative councillor and former Southend mayor, John Lamb, who is at the scene, said: “I was indoors when I got a phone call just before midday about this, I am so shocked.
“At the moment, all we know is that David has been stabbed several times.
“He is still at the church and they won’t let us go in to see him. It does look very serious."
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
You're astonished that right wingers don't like the dream of a left wing hippy? Really?
Sense it's not a critique of the lyrics more of a rich rock star's "hypocrisy" in writing them.
He ought to have been crafting a haunting ballad about the Laffer curve.
I was the one who brought it up, and I was criticising the lyrics.
Whether he's hypocritical or not, that 'dream' is a nightmare.
Ah, just an honest PB debating style disagreement with the political sentiment then.
Not all of it, though, surely. No wars, no hunger, and - big for you, this, I think - "no religion too". All building to the crescendo of the overall message, imagine all the people living life in PEACE, you oo oo oo oo ...
If this is a "nightmare" for you you're a rum sort and no mistake.
I like the vision but not the song. Not even my new Lennon style photochromics - which really do suit me! - make me want to seek it out for a listen.
Nothing should be described as "building to a crescendo"
The crescendo IS the building up.
It gets used incorrectly more often than not, so it's probably changed in some dictionaries.
It’s not the Prime Ministers fault if the Labour top team are instigating a class war.
First Jo Cox now Sir David, two MPs brutally murdered in public in 5 years. Starmer - if you want any electoral credibility left, you have to sack those in your top team and party instigating such disrespect and aggression in British Politics.
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
Bit like those people who rush to point out that Bryan Adams was only nine in the summer of 1969.
I always took that as evidence that the song wasn't referring to the year.
I think Adams himself somewhat admitted to the smutty interpretation. That saddened me in a way. I'd always felt that having it as the year 1969 was to imbue it with a 'Withnail and I', end-of-an-era poignancy.
They're selling hippie wigs in Woolworth's, man. The greatest decade in the history of mankind is over.
He has admitted the song is about the first year he had wild sex, including that (overrated) sexual position
Relatedly, Stairway to Heaven is, in part, about puberty and orgasm
‘If there's a bustle in your hedgerow, don't be alarmed now It's just a spring clean for the May queen’
See, now by slipping in "overrated" you're obviously trying to start a detailed discussion on here about sexual positions - which would be highly inappropriate and would attract the wrong sort to the site.
This is why I call you 'fruity leon' and why you need to be watched.
It is overrated tho. Really hard to get right, and even when you do, not worth the hype. Like ice skating, or roasting your own coffee beans
Conservative councillor and former Southend mayor, John Lamb, who is at the scene, said: “I was indoors when I got a phone call just before midday about this, I am so shocked.
“At the moment, all we know is that David has been stabbed several times.
“He is still at the church and they won’t let us go in to see him. It does look very serious."
Sky news saying Ajr Ambulance at scene
Not the sort of area where you'd expect that to happen. Unless it's changed a lot since I used to go there regularly.
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
You're astonished that right wingers don't like the dream of a left wing hippy? Really?
Sense it's not a critique of the lyrics more of a rich rock star's "hypocrisy" in writing them.
He ought to have been crafting a haunting ballad about the Laffer curve.
Indeed, it is a massively under utilised topic for song. As are gilt yields, of course.
Yes, but a problem there.
"Imagine all the gilt yields, rising to the sky ..."
If he'd written that some PBer would have been straight on the case -
"Utter drivel. Rising yields mean falling bond prices and higher interest rates, which is bad news. Bloke hasn't a clue what he's talking about."
It’s not the Prime Ministers fault if the Labour top team are instigating a class war.
First Jo Cox now Sir David, two MPs brutally murdered in public in 5 years. Starmer - if you want any electoral credibility left, you have to sack those in your top team and party instigating such disrespect and aggression in British Politics.
I have not heard that Sir David has died, are you sure
Sir David Amess MP stabbed multiple times at his surgery - Sky
Hope he makes a full recovery.
So Angela, is it OK to stab scum?
O-to scoring political point 5.7 secs. Not bad.
Nope. Mark is exactly right. This is exactly the reason Rayner or any MP shouldn’t use such hateful and aggressive language, and after this assassination of a hardworking and popular Tory MP just weeks after her inflammatory language, Starmer has no choice but to force her resignation as deputy.
I think we all need to calm down a bit. No one knows the motivation of the perpetrator. It could be some personal issue or just a crazy person or even a case of mistaken identity. Jumping to conclusions might be satisfying at a time like this but it helps no one.
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
Bit like those people who rush to point out that Bryan Adams was only nine in the summer of 1969.
I always took that as evidence that the song wasn't referring to the year.
I think Adams himself somewhat admitted to the smutty interpretation. That saddened me in a way. I'd always felt that having it as the year 1969 was to imbue it with a 'Withnail and I', end-of-an-era poignancy.
They're selling hippie wigs in Woolworth's, man. The greatest decade in the history of mankind is over.
He has admitted the song is about the first year he had wild sex, including that (overrated) sexual position
Relatedly, Stairway to Heaven is, in part, about puberty and orgasm
‘If there's a bustle in your hedgerow, don't be alarmed now It's just a spring clean for the May queen’
See, now by slipping in "overrated" you're obviously trying to start a detailed discussion on here about sexual positions - which would be highly inappropriate and would attract the wrong sort to the site.
This is why I call you 'fruity leon' and why you need to be watched.
It is overrated tho. Really hard to get right, and even when you do, not worth the hype. Like ice skating, or roasting your own coffee beans
Now there are 3 things l never thought l would see compared in the same sentence.
It’s not the Prime Ministers fault if the Labour top team are instigating a class war.
First Jo Cox now Sir David, two MPs brutally murdered in public in 5 years. Starmer - if you want any electoral credibility left, you have to sack those in your top team and party instigating such disrespect and aggression in British Politics.
I have not heard that Sir David has died, are you sure
No, see 1:55pm he's trying to 'advance the conversation' prematurely.
Hopefully he doesn't, but if he does then wait for confirmation. Its really disrespectful and disgusting to be speculating like that.
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
Golden rule, acquiring wealth is deeply virtuous if you're a righty, deeply sinful if you're a lefty.
There seem to be an awful lot of lefties who seem strangely tolerant of being deeply sinful whilst claiming that they are working class.
That's comment always says more about the people making it. There's a certain type of right wing voter that can never accept that left wing or working people can be more successful than them.
And that's a straw man
It's a problem.
Just the same as people arguing "sanctity of marriage" shouters who turn out to be having multiple affairs.
The old point that not living up to your own expressed values undermines your case.
Sir David Amess MP stabbed multiple times at his surgery - Sky
Hope he makes a full recovery.
Horrible news, I attended an interesting webinar a few months ago where he discussed his new book and long career.
I hope they catch the culprit and he makes a full recovery.
The assailant was probably high on 'cake'.
Was that Amess?
Do you think it is right to joke about this, and you a doctor
I don't think he's joking, but just checking with DA if Amess was the MP who was fooled by Brass Eye into asking about "completely made up" drug 'cake' in the HOC
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
I know, honestly. The ubiquitous "hypocrisy" charge again. About song lyrics!
But I must dissent about the song itself. I do not like it one bit. Find it a bit of a dirge. I prefer his more strident numbers as a solo artist.
Jealous Guy is just genius.
Yes, that's not one of the 'more strident' numbers I was thinking of, it's total ballad, but I do like that a lot. Also like the (more famous) Ferry cover but I prefer the original.
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
Bit like those people who rush to point out that Bryan Adams was only nine in the summer of 1969.
I always took that as evidence that the song wasn't referring to the year.
I think Adams himself somewhat admitted to the smutty interpretation. That saddened me in a way. I'd always felt that having it as the year 1969 was to imbue it with a 'Withnail and I', end-of-an-era poignancy.
They're selling hippie wigs in Woolworth's, man. The greatest decade in the history of mankind is over.
He has admitted the song is about the first year he had wild sex, including that (overrated) sexual position
Relatedly, Stairway to Heaven is, in part, about puberty and orgasm
‘If there's a bustle in your hedgerow, don't be alarmed now It's just a spring clean for the May queen’
See, now by slipping in "overrated" you're obviously trying to start a detailed discussion on here about sexual positions - which would be highly inappropriate and would attract the wrong sort to the site.
This is why I call you 'fruity leon' and why you need to be watched.
PB on form today. Moving from horrible political violence, to expressions of sympathy, to ill-timed jokes, to denunciations of the jokes, to this meta-commentary on the whole process, in about 18 minutes
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
You're astonished that right wingers don't like the dream of a left wing hippy? Really?
Sense it's not a critique of the lyrics more of a rich rock star's "hypocrisy" in writing them.
He ought to have been crafting a haunting ballad about the Laffer curve.
Look at the lyrics of Taxman. Moaning about 95% marginal tax rates. Blames Wilson and Heath. Lennon and McCartney - Tories at heart.
Wasn't Taxman George Harrison? And in fairness to Macca, he was the only one who never moved overseas. He's always been a resident for tax purposes.
"Taxman" and "I me me mine" penned at about the same time. The first a moan about paying tax, the second a moan about selfish people. Not a shred of consistency there.
One thing I’ve realised is that leavers are going to be scared, paranoid and anxious for the rest of their lives that Brexit might eventually be reversed. Amusing.
One thing I’ve realised is that leavers are going to be scared, paranoid and anxious for the rest of their lives that Brexit might eventually be reversed. Amusing.
It does change the election dynamic to "we're the party that will protect Brexit" being worth 42-45% at every election which is landslide territory as we saw in 2019.
It does change the election dynamic to "we're the party that will protect Brexit" being worth 42-45% at every election which is landslide territory as we saw in 2019.
We are the party that will protect food a fuel shortages, cancelling Christmas and putting farmers and fishermen on the dole.
PB on form today. Moving from horrible political violence, to expressions of sympathy, to ill-timed jokes, to denunciations of the jokes, to this meta-commentary on the whole process, in about 18 minutes
It does change the election dynamic to "we're the party that will protect Brexit" being worth 42-45% at every election which is landslide territory as we saw in 2019.
We are the party that will protect food a fuel shortages, cancelling Christmas and putting farmers and fishermen on the dole.
Landslide...
In 10-20 years those in their 30s now will be in their 50s and may look through rose tinted spectacles at the “good old days” in the EU.
There will have to be security at all Mps surgeries
Wasn't this at a church
Yes. Even though Southend W is a 'town' constituency it covers quite a big area and I can imagine it's sensible to hold a surgery there every so often. Especially, perhaps, as far as Amess is concerned because the area was, when I knew it, a while ago now, quite a strong Lib/LD area.
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
You're astonished that right wingers don't like the dream of a left wing hippy? Really?
Sense it's not a critique of the lyrics more of a rich rock star's "hypocrisy" in writing them.
He ought to have been crafting a haunting ballad about the Laffer curve.
Look at the lyrics of Taxman. Moaning about 95% marginal tax rates. Blames Wilson and Heath. Lennon and McCartney - Tories at heart.
Wasn't Taxman George Harrison? And in fairness to Macca, he was the only one who never moved overseas. He's always been a resident for tax purposes.
"Taxman" and "I me me mine" penned at about the same time. The first a moan about paying tax, the second a moan about selfish people. Not a shred of consistency there.
Just noticed George Harrison died nearly 20 years ago now.... bloody hell time's an odd thing.
Just reading the comments on 'Imagine' in astonishment. I can't believe people taking umbrage at the lyrics. Lennon was a bit of an old hippy writing about a dream, as old hippies are wont to do. Great song, cheesy but harmless lyrics.
It wasn't meant to be a political manifesto - he didn't employ Corbyn to write the lyrics. It's just a song, ffs.
Before we know it, people will be telling me that there isn't really a Stairway to Heaven, that Led Zeppelin were making it up.
You're astonished that right wingers don't like the dream of a left wing hippy? Really?
Sense it's not a critique of the lyrics more of a rich rock star's "hypocrisy" in writing them.
He ought to have been crafting a haunting ballad about the Laffer curve.
I was the one who brought it up, and I was criticising the lyrics.
Whether he's hypocritical or not, that 'dream' is a nightmare.
Ah, just an honest PB debating style disagreement with the political sentiment then.
Not all of it, though, surely. No wars, no hunger, and - big for you, this, I think - "no religion too". All building to the crescendo of the overall message, imagine all the people living life in PEACE, you oo oo oo oo ...
If this is a "nightmare" for you you're a rum sort and no mistake.
I like the vision but not the song. Not even my new Lennon style photochromics - which really do suit me! - make me want to seek it out for a listen.
Nothing should be described as "building to a crescendo"
The crescendo IS the building up.
It gets used incorrectly more often than not, so it's probably changed in some dictionaries.
Comments
I hope they catch the culprit and he makes a full recovery.
There does need to be better security at MPs constituency surgeries too, what with this news and Stephen Timms and Nigel Jones also being attacked at constituency surgeries in the past
Give the anarchist a cigarette.
But you can give them to the birds and bees,
Now give me money (that's what I want)...
You could almost say that Mr Lennon was rather inconsistent in what he sang.
The EU has been “preparing for the worst”, with options ranging from imposing tariffs on UK imports to termination of the entire trade and cooperation deal
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/15/big-gap-between-uk-and-eu-at-brexit-northern-ireland-talks-says-frost
And we wonder why the quality of MP's is declining.
Horrible news.
The worlds population has increased for as long as humanity has existed. People have believed in the Malthusian fallacy for centuries. Global population was approximately a billion then and has increased nearly eight-fold in that time.
I see no reason with good technology and efficiency that we couldn't see the same in the future and in the 23rd century we could be around 60 billion people on the planet and people would still be parroting the same 'this time its different' Malthusian fallacy.
Starmer's verisimilitude problem.
And in fairness to Macca, he was the only one who never moved overseas. He's always been a resident for tax purposes.
https://news.sky.com/story/conservative-mp-david-amess-stabbed-multiple-times-in-incident-at-constituency-surgery-12434498
Not all of it, though, surely. No wars, no hunger, and - big for you, this, I think - "no religion too". All building to the crescendo of the overall message, imagine all the people living life in PEACE, you oo oo oo oo ...
If this is a "nightmare" for you you're a rum sort and no mistake.
I like the vision but not the song. Not even my new Lennon style photochromics - which really do suit me! - make me want to seek it out for a listen.
It’s a privilege to live in an open, democratic society where any constituent can meet their representative.
I've never known much about him, but I note that he is the 7th most senior MP having first been elected in 1983.
At the very least, yet another MP's life put at risk doing their job. There is something troubling about our culture. Within living memory there were no gates on Downing Street. We have come a long way from that.
(And I hope they get the ****** )
https://www.davidamess.co.uk/news/sir-david-asks-prime-minister-tackle-knife-crime
Let's hope he makes a full recovery
The 'nothing to kill or die for' flows on from the awful dystopian horror line of "Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do". I've always interpreted it as suggesting that he's saying people kill or die for countries, but that's not the case, people kill or die for a plethora of countries and if we lived in a horrendous society where there are no countries then that would likely result in more killing and dying, not less.
Similarly the "no hunger" line flows on from the awful suggestion of "Imagine no possessions". Is he suggesting no possessions would mean no hunger? Because the opposite is true. Better for everyone to have lots of possessions, that enables there to be no hunger.
The only thing I agree with is the "no religion" bit but I don't believe that would lead to the world living in peace.
This is why I call you 'fruity leon' and why you need to be watched.
The worst possible news would be there's no possible treatment to give.
Stabbed multiple times is horrific no matter what, but hopefully the treatment is able to work.
Conservative councillor and former Southend mayor, John Lamb, who is at the scene, said: “I was indoors when I got a phone call just before midday about this, I am so shocked.
“At the moment, all we know is that David has been stabbed several times.
“He is still at the church and they won’t let us go in to see him. It does look very serious."
The crescendo IS the building up.
It gets used incorrectly more often than not, so it's probably changed in some dictionaries.
Estimated 2 fewer seats for the LDs.
Everyone else stays the same.
LDV is not yet fizzing.
First Jo Cox now Sir David, two MPs brutally murdered in public in 5 years. Starmer - if you want any electoral credibility left, you have to sack those in your top team and party instigating such disrespect and aggression in British Politics.
"Imagine all the gilt yields, rising to the sky ..."
If he'd written that some PBer would have been straight on the case -
"Utter drivel. Rising yields mean falling bond prices and higher interest rates, which is bad news. Bloke hasn't a clue what he's talking about."
Hopefully he doesn't, but if he does then wait for confirmation. Its really disrespectful and disgusting to be speculating like that.
Yet another MP attacked at a constituency surgery. https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1448999489721733121/photo/1
'Gentlemen, start your engines.Those of you who aren't gentlemen can start their engines also.'
It's a problem.
Just the same as people arguing "sanctity of marriage" shouters who turn out to be having multiple affairs.
The old point that not living up to your own expressed values undermines your case.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58925863
Take a bow, everyone
Thoughts and prayers for David Amess.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/14/texas-school-holocaust-books-race-southlake
Landslide...
Under/over 8 minutes (2.30) @ evens
Nothing is certain
They are now live above the scene