backontrack
Established Member
Yes, it really is...Yes, that's also very worrying.
Yes, it really is...Yes, that's also very worrying.
Yes, as the electedI think Ross is planning to contest a Scottish Parliament seat isn't he, and I seem to recall he said that if elected he'd stand down as an MP.
Much the same as my views although my constituency would, in the words of Alan B'stard, "vote for a hatstand if you stuck a blue rosette on it"I went LibDem, but I have to say, without a lot of enthusiasm.
Tories... Absolutely no way until they rediscover the meaning of the phrase 'ethical values' and stop lying about everything and trying to trash our constitution whenever it suits them.
Labour... Better than the Tories and Keir Starmer seems decent, but too much legacy from Corbyn. Too many Labour members (and a few MPs) who seem to hate the market economy, see everyhing in terms of class war and the need to build some utopian (and utterly impractical) socialist promised land.
Greens... Their hearts are in the right place, and they are absolutely right to put the environment, climate change and biodiversity loss etc. as top priority. But their brains seem to disengage whenever it comes to figuring out practical policies to actually Govern the country. Good as a protest vote, but not much more.
So all that's left is the LibDems... Historically not a bad party, and philosophically I probably have a lot in common with them. But at the moment they seem to verge between directionless and still trying to fight yesterday's Brexit battle. On the other hand, at least they have a pretty good record on the environment, and they are reasonably pragmatic rather than idealistic. Which to my mind makes them the least bad option by quite a long way.
There has been a massive turnover in Labour membership in the past year. The most die-hard Corbyn supporters have left, former members have rejoined, and new members have signed up either to support Keir Starmer's leadership bid or after he became leader. The times are changing.Labour... Better than the Tories and Keir Starmer seems decent, but too much legacy from Corbyn. Too many Labour members (and a few MPs) who seem to hate the market economy, see everyhing in terms of class war and the need to build some utopian (and utterly impractical) socialist promised land.
Isn't that Ian Duncan Smith?They could put a potato with a blue ribbon and it will get elected.
That's one tattie I'd be happy to mashIsn't that Ian Duncan Smith?
That's a pretty extensive list of requirements, and some of them are far from the political mainstream. If you ever find a party that's willing to commit to even quarter of them, then bear in mind that they are almost certainly cynically lying to you and wouldn't make any of them happen when in power.None of the current parties would inspire me to cast a vote.
I would like to see a new party that would improve the pay and conditions of the British workers, invest in new infrastructure such as eight laning motorways, rebuilding railways to modern standards, creating state run facilities to build trains, a nationalised network of factories to manufacture vehicles for the police, fire, ambulance, council and government, much more focus on mathematics and information technology at schools, much more physical education at schools.
A robust approach to law and order, permanently breaking up gangs, whole life tariffs for ALL sex offenders.
I'd vote Labour. Why?
Easy: they're a major party who actually gives a toss about the climate emergency. Which is going to make COVID-19 look like absolutely nothing by comparison. This pandemic will ease up one day, but we can't leave the climate alone. We need fossil fuel divestment within the next fifteen years - or, at the very least, net zero.
The climate crisis still isn't treated like the vast problem that it really is on here. It isn't respected and my generation's fears aren't respected. But the climate is still a be-all end-all, and I'm part of an increasing demographic for whom it is THE defining issue at the ballot box. I truly despise lockdowns (and I'm finding this one extremely difficult, let's not beat around the bush here), but I hate - and fear - rising sea levels and global temperatures far, far more. You know, probably because they'll be rising continuously throughout my adult life. And because I want to be able to have kids.
The Tories aren't doing anything about it, and Labour are the only other party in England who could get in (plus they had the most coherent, transformative climate plan last time around, even more so than the Greens who basically junked their whole raison d'être in favour of urban remainism). So I'm voting for climate action in any scenario - which means voting red.
(And I haven't even mentioned the biodiversity crisis, either...)
I'd vote Labour. Why?
Easy: they're a major party who actually gives a toss about the climate emergency. Which is going to make COVID-19 look like absolutely nothing by comparison. This pandemic will ease up one day, but we can't leave the climate alone. We need fossil fuel divestment within the next fifteen years - or, at the very least, net zero.
The climate crisis still isn't treated like the vast problem that it really is on here. It isn't respected and my generation's fears aren't respected. But the climate is still a be-all end-all, and I'm part of an increasing demographic for whom it is THE defining issue at the ballot box. I truly despise lockdowns (and I'm finding this one extremely difficult, let's not beat around the bush here), but I hate - and fear - rising sea levels and global temperatures far, far more. You know, probably because they'll be rising continuously throughout my adult life. And because I want to be able to have kids.
The Tories aren't doing anything about it, and Labour are the only other party in England who could get in (plus they had the most coherent, transformative climate plan last time around, even more so than the Greens who basically junked their whole raison d'être in favour of urban remainism). So I'm voting for climate action in any scenario - which means voting red.
(And I haven't even mentioned the biodiversity crisis, either...)
The entire point is that this is the thing that we need to change.Everything requires fossil fuels in one way or another, unless you want to go back to pre-industrial times.
The entire point is that this is the thing that we need to change.
There has been a consensus among the scientific community for several years now that total divestment of fossil fuels is a necessity. Why? Because their findings bear it out.
I'm not naïve; you're wilfully ignorant about the state of the issue, and it is the same kind of ignorance and obstructionist logic that pervades this government and many globally.
Zero carbon policies do not export the problem elsewhere, because the problem will exist elsewhere whether or not zero carbon policies are implemented here. (It's not exactly complex logic...) But if prominent western governments do adopt zero carbon policies, we reduce our total carbon footprint and international countries become more likely to do the same. "Working internationally" with other nations (interesting that you mention China and India, yet the highest per-head polluter in the world is the US) is useless unless we put ourselves on a matching footing.
Today, the Guardian is reporting that we have reached the fastest overall ice melt speed since global records began - and we are now matching our worst case-scenario forecasts. Seeing as several major cities are already on track to be underwater by 2050, I'd argue that your fears of a "pre-industrial" regression are the least of our concerns. +1.5° looks increasingly fantastical unless major governments announce Green New Deal-style undertakings within the next decade. Quite simply, we don't have any choice by this point. We're going to have to start preparing for fossil fuel divestment, and investing unprecedented amounts in renewable energy, with an eye on reaching domestically net-zero emissions by 2035. It's literally the only way.
(Well, unless we all choose to lay down and die.)
To quote Saruman:The Green New deal would be a disaster for the UK. It's red state socialism dressed up as a green policy. Since when has reforming banks got anything to do with climate change?
I'm a realist. Unless you want to live in a medieval style mud house, carbon emissions are necessary. It's impossible to make raw materials such as steal without carbon ( in the form of coal)
Without steel you can't construct buildings, cars or trains.
Then you have plastics which make up almost everything from food packaging, interiors, furniture, computers and chemicals. It's not practical to ditch them yet.
Without the two, fundamentally the economy will collapse, causing mass starvations and deaths.
I believe it's possible to reduce carbon emissions, but cutting them to zero is impossible without wholesale changes to lifestyles which would be untenable for most people.
To quote Saruman:
"So you have chosen...death."
(No, but seriously: this is fanciful red-scarism that fails to properly understand the threat that the climate crisis actually poses. You can attack individual components, but the GND is the only solution that actually realises the scale of the crisis. You can propose alternative solutions but nothing that actually rises up to the challenge. We are talking about a fundamental, massive to change - because otherwise we threaten civilisation itself. It's interesting seeing your answer reach for increasingly absurd mud-house imagery in the face of such a serious crisis - but I think you'll find the trouble is that it's not a viewpoint you're strawmanning, but a very daunting emergency situation. Still, I doubt the oil tycoons will mind your strange defence - as if billions worldwide aren't going to die. Yes, I know it's going to be unprecedentedly difficult, but trust me: you don't want to wait and see on this one...)
Steel production isn't inherently tied to fossil fuels in the long-term, just in the short-term. We're going to have to rise to this crisis in a truly transformational way; things are going to change. I didn't say that GND was perfect; I said a Green New Deal-style package is literally the only solution I've seen that is big enough to be a proper response to the situation. And that's still true. None of the "practical pragmatic solutions" I've seen mentioned actually respect the scale of the climate crisis, which is itself equal to a form of denialism - it's denying the scale of the crisis, suggesting that scientists are overestimating (when in reality their findings are generally drawn from the lower end of their estimations in order to generate a more reliable number).So how would you build proper houses, that meet modern building regulations, without steel then?
The GND is a solution, but not necessarily the right one.
I don't doubt the climate crisis is a problem, but it needs practical pragmatic solutions.