Jump to content


  • Post count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,337 Excellent

About Kopfkino

  • Rank
    Key Player

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

8,859 profile views
  1. Always caveated with "but I'll be happy if we do" or "I'm just pointing out they kept mentioning sustainable" to give themselves a route out after they decided to lecture everyone about something they had no idea about.
  2. Surely the point is less inane party politics but instead that the current Labour Party is nothing like the Labour Party that governed for 13 years, hence why the Corbynites denigrate pretty much anyone that served in it. Whether you agree or disagree with the policies or choices of the last Labour government you can at least say they governed from a position of sense and pragmatism. Whereas Corbynism advocates purism. The denial that it's just a case of taxing the rich a bit more and investing a bit more, as Toddy (rip) used to tell us, pretends that it's Brown seeking to be in Number 10 and Darling in Number 11, rather than Corbyn and McDonnell. But as Toddy also used to tell us (it changed depending on the topic of the day) it's really about a significant departure from the current economic system which the state rather than just being more active (as Brown, Darling and Balls would have advocated to varying degrees), it seeks to control economic activity. Hence rather than just nationalising companies at their market price, companies are nationalised at a price the state says. Or rather than higher or different taxes for large companies, the state seizes 10% of them. So yeah Labour's record and choices can be debated and scrutinised but the name is pretty much the only thing that's the same about its current form and its government form.
  3. How can people still not understand the difference between intergovernmentalism and supranationalism? Dreadful.
  4. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/air-travellers-to-be-hit-by-carbon-charge-on-all-tickets-hz2dnmzfp "Air passengers face having a carbon charge added to the price of tickets automatically under government plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Ministers are considering measures that would require all airlines to introduce carbon offsetting payments at the point of ticket sale. Payments would be voluntary but could work on an “opt-out” system. Similar measures could also be applied to trains, buses and ferries." The UK government in terrible policy shocker. Fair enough adding a charge to air travel for carbon offsetting (probably be badly designed so it ends up just being pocketed by airlines and doing little to help) but by making it opt-out it's likely to be infrequent fliers paying it and frequent fliers avoiding it. To then compound the misery it then might be extended to trains and buses. Genius.
  5. I think Buce is right that sending an aircraft carrier to the South China Sea was solely willy waving but it doesn't fool anyone into estimating upwards our capability. It all just goes to show that continuing to chip away at the defence budget (and having no real strategy as with everything in Westminster) to help fund the modern welfare state has led us woefully short of capability and increases risk.
  6. A half credible news source, even an opinion piece, would at least state the situation as is before the nonsense about piracy. That the UK, on request from Gibraltar and possibly acting on intelligence from the US, legally intercepted a ship en route to deliver oil to Syria which is in contravention of EU sanctions. It might also note that the two sources saying the UK's actions were just down to it being the US's lapdog are Iran, no shock to anyone, and Spain who are more interested in a spat about Gibraltar and whose waters surround it. Tbf looking at the rest of it, it isn't as bad as I thought, just an American lefty version of Guido. But funnily enough there's a huge chunk of credible sources between the 'mainstream media' (itself a lamentable phrase) and biased asf echo chamber blogs for people that can't think.
  7. You need to find a better news source. State of that
  8. Sadiq Khan intent on making housing and living in London even worse. Should be enough to stop people re-electing him tbh https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49020361
  9. This is interesting https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/jul/19/carbon-calculator-how-taking-one-flight-emits-as-much-as-many-people-do-in-a-year Solving the air travel problem is a real conundrum. Obviously everyone knows its a big polluter and its emissions probably cause more damage than those that ground level but coming up with a reasonable solution is tough. There was the little electric aircraft at Paris but I imagine alternate energy sources for commercial flying is a way off.
  10. Anybody talking in terms of relative pricing when talking about the value of footballers. The transfer of player X in year T between two clubs under particular circumstances is not particularly relevant to the transfer of player Y this year between two other clubs under different circumstances.
  11. Where was the trolling? The 2 apologists might be tedious but as far as I can tell that's actually their view and it'd be weird to have a forum with a narrow viewset.
  12. Yeah let's punish those for whom public transport is non-existent and young workers working unsocial hours. Typical policy idea of someone sat in London just looking at figures.
  13. It's not meant personally. I don't mean to cast aspersions towards any specific personality on here, I don't know you from Adam so I'm certainly not interested in making judgements on anyone beyond the specific content of any individual post. However, there seems to be an element of environmentalists that are so occupied by the matter that they think they should/can do what they like, make impractical demands and seek to run rule over the rest and that's all completely fine because the environment. Practicalities don't matter, protecting the environment is sacrosanct and anyone who isn't fully subscribed is a problem. I'm not throwing moral righteousness around, but I find it appalling how we are moving to situations where some will believe you to be morally inferior because you're not quite as preoccupied by the environment. From personal experience these can be genuinely vile people. If you think you're in that category, fine, but I wouldn't have thought so myself. Do you not see the fundy element within the environmentalist movement? Or do you not want to see it because it's useful for your own feelings? What someone makes of it all does indeed come down to their weighting of those matters. Moreover, if you choose to weight such that your preoccupation is the future of the environment and you worry what the science says, reason is still needed for why that requires action and change now and why we should be arsed about the future. The philosophical case isn't actually as cut and dry as is implicit in the idea we desperately must do something. That goes for both sides actually because if you believe in the individual and the individual's liberty, you have to somehow navigate the harm principal with respect to the individual and climate change. But it's so rarely discussed and the assumption seems to be that we must do this thing for the sake of the future but I'm yet to be sold by the idea we must protect mankind for mankind's sake. My personal take on it is that if humans kick the environment out of equilibrium such that humans, and much of the natural world, suffer (or maybe go extinct) then so be it. Ultimately, either the world adapts to the new equilibrium or we return to a previous equilibrium. As a result, whilst I think environmental policy has to be a priority and that would be optimal, I don't buy the 'we must do whatever it takes' idea and mankind shouldn't be willing to go to the ends of the earth to forego what it currently has. I don't deny the science, I don't deny its happening with the help of humans, I'm just pretty relaxed about it. I also think the way to inspire action is not by saying "you're all ****ed unless you do what we say". As I've said before, governments should be leading the strategy on this, working multilaterally of course and investing domestically. Take advantage of low interest rates and unproductive economies to issue super long-term debt (Austria has issued 100-year bonds with just a 1.2% yield) and create new financial products to help evolve our economies, push clean energy and restructure consumption. At this point, if that's enough great, if it's not then I'm not willing to go much further.
  14. I agree with this. Environmentalism now has fundy elements increasingly akin to religion, the environment being the deity and a pre occupation with organising mankind in such a way as to serve that deity to ensure eternalness. And such is the moral high ground of some, everything that isn't about that is morally inferior and thus the ends will justify the means.
  • Create New...