news & politics:discussion

[Neil]

59 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

You were against renationalisation yesterday?

i'm against idjuts swallowing a political idea that satisfies their prejudices, and failing to think it thru, if you think the likes of grayling is the fix for trains, your journey is cancelled. and you now have to  blame your mates for the price increases!

[Neil]

2 hours ago, SheffJeff said:

My uncle is in a similar position to you and has a similar philosophy but we always tell him that you need to tell the doctors and the DWP how you are on a bad day rather than how you are on a good day as that's what decisions are made on. Hope it goes well.

think it went well  - i hate long phone calls. just have to wait for the result now.if the result is good thats me done with DWP cos i think the result covers the rest of my working life. 

[Neil]

university of bristol has recently been thru a process to look for and remove links to slavery. i've just discovered that one of their buildings is called " Merchant Venturers Building". it takes a bit of a fool to not question  who the " Merchant Venturers" were , and still are. they were the group of people in bristol who made it big from slavery. they still exist and have their hands in loads of bristol stuff, and they have legal privileges and exemptions. -  today the "Merchant Venturers" are the successors of big slavery. how did the university review miss that????

(they like to keep the slavery bit of their past very quiet - which might be why the review missed it. there'd be big stink if more people realised they're the successors of big slavery).

 

 

[lazyred]

1 hour ago, Skip997 said:

Just maybe the tide is finally turning

You seem to start from the view that mainstream Isrealis and US and the west want to see the palestinians out of gaza and the west bank. I think that's wrong and they do want a 2 state solution part of which is dismantling the settlements in the west bank.

I think there are 2  things going at the moment, a short term effort for a new ceasefire and hostage release which is nearly there. Second a long term effort to build a coalition for a new push towards the 2 states. if Biden moves against the settlers it will help both plans.

[Ozanne]

1 hour ago, lazyred said:

Almost as if the plans were slipped out to deflect criticism of the bonus cap policy

Almost but regardless surely this is another good policy that many have been clamouring for. 

[Ozanne]

 

[steviewevie]

36 minutes ago, lazyred said:

 

I think there are 2  things going at the moment, a short term effort for a new ceasefire and hostage release which is nearly there. Second a long term effort to build a coalition for a new push towards the 2 states. if Biden moves against the settlers it will help both plans.

Need Hamas and Likud removing if that's ever going to work.

[steviewevie]

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...

[Crazyfool01]

spending that now is going to be a fraction of the cost of what it'll cost in the future ... so much short term thinking . this should be one that they should all come together on .... 

[steviewevie]

and also with Labour...these fiscal rules they keep going qualifying everything about and it would seem be pretty much the key factor and what is meant to reassure everyone..what the f**k are they? Will we ever know?

[Skip997]

3 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

spending that now is going to be a fraction of the cost of what it'll cost in the future ... so much short term thinking . this should be one that they should all come together on .... 

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.

[Ozanne]

24 minutes 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...

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. 

Edited February 1 by Ozanne

[Ozanne]

Personally I think Labour should drop the £28b part of the pledge as that’s all the media seem to harp on about and all anyone seems fascinated by. Get rid of that part and talk on the merits of the green policies. If they had no policies people would moan, if they have policies like this then people too. Damned either way. 

[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 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....

[Ozanne]

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.

[Ozanne]

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.