news & politics:discussion

[steviewevie]

12 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Nicholas Stern (economist) said this about 15 years ago in the largely ignored Stern report.

He also said dealing with the damage caused by ignoring the problem of climate change would cost considerably more than spending now to reduce that damage.

Part of the problem with our political system is "short term ism". MP's are only interested in securing the next 5 years.

well, that's the problem with democracy...maybe we should bin it.

[steviewevie]

11 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Its weekly thing that you share now, then a day or 2 later Labour come out and say they are committed to it. Then it starts again a week later. 

it's their big policy....they said it not me...and now they don't want to say it. It will be the news if/when gets dropped, and if doesn't get dropped they will have to fight the campaign defending it.

[Skip997]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

well, that's the problem with democracy...maybe we should bin it.

There's loads of problems with democracy, or at least in the way it's done.

[steviewevie]

19 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Nicholas Stern (economist) said this about 15 years ago in the largely ignored Stern report.

He also said dealing with the damage caused by ignoring the problem of climate change would cost considerably more than spending now to reduce that damage.

Part of the problem with our political system is "short term ism". MP's are only interested in securing the next 5 years.

and it is actually perfectly natural for people to care about climate change and want to do something about it, but don't want their lives to become more sh*t in order to prevent it. It is the big challenge of our times...even undemocratic utopias like China face it because they want to keep their populations happy otherwise they're going to kick off. It is not an easy problem to solve, we are so reliant on fossil fuels.

Edited February 1, 2024 by steviewevie

[steviewevie]

the scale of change globally required to meet various COP goals is bigger than humankind has ever achieved over such a short timescale...especially with all the other sh*t going on...f**king huge....

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

it's their big policy....they said it not me...and now they don't want to say it. It will be the news if/when gets dropped, and if doesn't get dropped they will have to fight the campaign defending it.

It’s weekly thing that the media come up with this story and you share every time. Then Labour come out and reaffirm their commitment to the policy. It’s at least once a week now this circle happens. 

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

and it is actually perfectly natural for people to care about climate change and want to do something about it, but don't want their lives to become more sh*t in order to prevent it. It is the big challenge of our times...even undemocratic utopias like China face it because they want to keep their populations happy otherwise they're going to kick off. It is not an easy problem to solve, we are so reliant on fossil fuels.

There's a lot people and governments could do without making their lives more sh*t.

For example, go into any pound shop, have a look around and think - how much of that sh*t is actually necessary, how much of it improves anyone's life for more than about 10 seconds? Then think about how it's produced and where it comes from.

FFS sake just ban it, people would soon not even notice and I reckon be better off without it.

Just one of many examples.

The problem is that we've been programmed/conned to think that consumerism = happiness, when actually less can be more.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

It’s weekly thing that the media come up with this story and you share every time. Then Labour come out and reaffirm their commitment to the policy. It’s at least once a week now this circle happens. 

because it's important.

if they are committed why do journalists keep bringing it up? Because they talk to Labour people and know it's an issue and will likely get dropped.

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

There's a lot people and governments could do without making their lives more sh*t.

For example, go into any pound shop, have a look around and think - how much of that sh*t is actually necessary, how much of it improves anyone's life for more than about 10 seconds? Then think about how it's produced and where it comes from.

FFS sake just ban it, people would soon not even notice and I reckon be better off without it.

Just one of many examples.

The problem is that we've been programmed/conned to think that consumerism = happiness, when actually less can be more.

yeah, well that sh*t in poundshops drives a part of the global economy and keeps some people in jobs...

Plus, people like buying sh*t. I love buying sh*t. It's all I have.

[steviewevie]

I guess I could go and look at some trees or something.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

because it's important.

if they are committed why do journalists keep bringing it up? Because they talk to Labour people and know it's an issue and will likely get dropped.

As we’ve discussed many times the policy itself is the same, you are just fixated on the £28b being spent on it.

The media have an agenda so try to cause issues and pressure Labour into dropping the policy. I imagine that’s the reason this Labour ‘source’ leaks this stuff too.

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

yeah, well that sh*t in poundshops drives a part of the global economy and keeps some people in jobs...

Plus, people like buying sh*t. I love buying sh*t. It's all I have.

And here you've just partly illustrated why we are ultimately f**ked.

 

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

I guess I could go and look at some trees or something.

ive recently got into buying houseplants 

[steviewevie]

Just now, Ozanne said:

As we’ve discussed many times the policy itself is the same, you are just fixated on the £28b being spent on it.

The media have an agenda so try to cause issues and pressure Labour into dropping the policy. I imagine that’s the reason this Labour ‘source’ leaks this stuff too.

man alive, blame me or blame journalists...Labour came up with the policy, they came up with this pledge, they were shouting about it for ages, they kind of still are...well  some of them are...kind of whispering it...and Tories are ready to attack them on it. So, they going to defend it, or drop it because they're scared?

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

ive recently got into buying houseplants 

from poundshops?

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

from poundshops?

Do they even exist ? With inflation they need a rename . 

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

And here you've just partly illustrated why we are ultimately f**ked.

 

and I'm not even going to vote Green.

And I drove to work today. And now I'm on the internet which uses f**k loads of energy.

We need a proper virus to get rid of us greedy evil consumerists.

Actually and need to take out my dog the horrible little carnivore c**t.

[steviewevie]

Just now, Crazyfool01 said:

Do they even exist ? With inflation they need a rename . 

Wow!

Got your own little rainforest there.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

man alive, blame me or blame journalists...Labour came up with the policy, they came up with this pledge, they were shouting about it for ages, they kind of still are...well  some of them are...kind of whispering it...and Tories are ready to attack them on it. So, they going to defend it, or drop it because they're scared?

They came up with the policy, yet all people are going on about is the £28b which is why they’re trying to veer away from that. They do defend the policy, they do it every time the media spin this story. The media act like this because it works, the cycle continues. 

[Crazyfool01]

Just now, steviewevie said:

Wow!

Got your own little rainforest there.

Carbon capture inside 

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

They came up with the policy, yet all people are going on about is the £28b which is why they’re trying to veer away from that. They do defend the policy, they do it every time the media spin this story. The media act like this because it works, the cycle continues. 

in the end the whole thing is just a signal...28bn/year is not going to cover it, they need private investment, the state is there to help with that, hence this pledge..infrastructure etc...but business will need reassurance and certainty before they start chucking money at it...this is what Reeves is trying to do...but not confirming this pledge just throws some uncertainty in there. I understand why, because Tories will attack them on it, just wish there could be a bit more honesty with it all.

[steviewevie]

11 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Actually and need to take out my dog the horrible little carnivore c**t.

and I mean "take out"...not go for a poopooweewee in the local park.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

in the end the whole thing is just a signal...28bn/year is not going to cover it, they need private investment, the state is there to help with that, hence this pledge..infrastructure etc...but business will need reassurance and certainty before they start chucking money at it...this is what Reeves is trying to do...but not confirming this pledge just throws some uncertainty in there. I understand why, because Tories will attack them on it, just wish there could be a bit more honesty with it all.

If they say that’s why they are doing it then they look weak and open themselves up to more attacks.

The signal from Labour over and over is that they remain committed to the green policies so I’m not sure how many more times they need to say it. The £28b part has become what Labour feared it would, it’s become this albatross around their neck so they should veer away from that. As long as they remain committed to the policy’s goals then that should give businesses the certainty they need.

I look forward to this exact same chat in a few days time 😉

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

If they say that’s why they are doing it then they look weak and open themselves up to more attacks.

The signal from Labour over and over is that they remain committed to the green policies so I’m not sure how many more times they need to say it. The £28b part has become what Labour feared it would, it’s become this albatross around their neck so they should veer away from that. As long as they remain committed to the policy’s goals then that should give businesses the certainty they need.

I look forward to this exact same chat in a few days time 😉

ok, well they were not forced into the 28bn pledge...they themselves came up with it. I guess the argument will be that the situation has changed and they can't guarantee that amount will be spent...which hardly instils confidence they will meet any targets, it's not as if everything has got cheaper.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

This again...because I know it floats your boats...

yes the destination is the thing and why focus on the cost, and the tories are ready to attack them on this 28bill profligate big spender labour etc etc....but still, they talk about business wanting certainty, and this is a very good example of uncertainty...and kind of makes it all look a bit ambiguous...and just making them look a bit more flipfloppy and indecisive and divided...they have a healthy lead, just say yeah f**k it we're going to borrow 28bn and spend it on green crap, what you going to do? (maybe they could argue it slightly differently). I don't think people are going to ask in a few years why they haven't actually borrowed 28bn (or if they borrowed more). 

But, looks like they will drop that pledge, sooner or later...looks like will be after the budget...

impossible to meaningfully commit to without time travel to know the future situation for how much money is available to be spent - tories could poison pill it with the next budget.