Webbo Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 There's a 'bleedin obvious' thread round here somewhere for this stuff! Then what are you arguing about? We don't have experts running things but it's obvious we do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 We have people paid to design and present shoddily researched strategies that demonstrate government policy direction in a positive light. Its not independent. There are areas I'd vote Tory and areas I'd vote Labour, Green and Lib Dem - I want to vote for individuals not ideological collectives. Your faith in the system is actually refreshing and quite admirable but not something I could entertain the idea of being satisfied with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Until someone comes up with a workable alternative it's the best system we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Until someone comes up with a workable alternative it's the best system we have. There's lots of workable alternatives though no party would implement them because they wouldn't take the risk of losing the next vote. It's the same company just a different set of accountants and advertising each time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Majesty%27s_Civil_Service Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 I have a communist friend I used to go to school with on Facebook, he claims Cuba is. Really? Well...that's a point of view, I suppose. Horribly erroneous, but a point of view. Being an expert in medicine won't help save a steel works. Being an expert in chemistry won't reduce unemployment. The expert predictions we had five years ago that told us e expect triple dip recessions, mass unemployment and raising crime have all proven disastrously wrong. Let's not pretend that the govt don't have experts guiding them in every aspect of policy anyway. As always you can pick your expert to tell you what you want to hear. Oh yeah, I'm not doubting that economic predictions are about as good as sticking all your money on red or black down the local Grosvenor. I'm referring to hard sciences, and quite frankly given the policy of multiple governments in the recent past (not only in the UK either) they're either not listening to the scientific community or they're listening to the few that are telling them what they want to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Governments struggle with scientists because they invariably don't understand them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 I'm referring to hard sciences, and quite frankly given the policy of multiple governments in the recent past (not only in the UK either) they're either not listening to the scientific community or they're listening to the few that are telling them what they want to hear. We all do that. The people who tell us that global warming is a certainty because scientists tell us are usually the same people who tell us fracking' s not safe despite scientists telling us that it is. We're all hypocrites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 We all do that. The people who tell us that global warming is a certainty because scientists tell us are usually the same people who tell us fracking' s not safe despite scientists telling us that it is. We're all hypocrites. Fracking is decidedly not environmentally safe (at least the way it's being carried out now), and CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising, with global effects unknown and to be found out. Those two things are verifiable, data-backed scientific fact and anyone who tries to make more of them than just what has been said there is pushing an agenda. But in any case, the issue here is such things being turned into political footballs for use in ideological policy, with scant attention actually being given to the facts as presented by the scientific community. Your point about only listening to what is wanted to hear is salient, but governments have a duty to be above that kind of hypocrisy as part of serving their constituents - particularly when it comes to the hard sciences, one of the very few areas where accurate, objective figures and facts can be derived to help with deciding policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Fracking is decidedly not environmentally safe (at least the way it's being carried out now), and CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising, with global effects unknown and to be found out. Those two things are verifiable, data-backed scientific fact and anyone who tries to make more of them than just what has been said there is pushing an agenda. But in any case, the issue here is such things being turned into political footballs for use in ideological policy, with scant attention actually being given to the facts as presented by the scientific community. Your point about only listening to what is wanted to hear is salient, but governments have a duty to be above that kind of hypocrisy as part of serving their constituents - particularly when it comes to the hard sciences, one of the very few areas where accurate, objective figures and facts can be derived to help with deciding policy. According to experts it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Fracking is decidedly not environmentally safe (at least the way it's being carried out now), and CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising, with global effects unknown and to be found out. Those two things are verifiable, data-backed scientific fact and anyone who tries to make more of them than just what has been said there is pushing an agenda. But in any case, the issue here is such things being turned into political footballs for use in ideological policy, with scant attention actually being given to the facts as presented by the scientific community. Your point about only listening to what is wanted to hear is salient, but governments have a duty to be above that kind of hypocrisy as part of serving their constituents - particularly when it comes to the hard sciences, one of the very few areas where accurate, objective figures and facts can be derived to help with deciding policy. Climate change has been happening for centuries, how else did we come out of the ice-age, i know I'm only a simpleton but I haven't seen any conclusive evidence to prove mankind has had a significant impact on this.For the record, I believe we should always look to produce clean energy where we can but it has to be efficient and practical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 According to experts it is. From what it looks like and I can tell, there doesn't seem to be a consensus regarding fracking, so it appears both you and I are wrong. That'll teach me to stick my head above the parapet. Not enough long term data regarding potential contamination etc, though there seems to be a general opinion (as voiced in an EPA report) that it is possible for it to be safe, but it would need to be very, very carefully regulated. But even that is in dispute. Next time I'm going to stick to physics - the biggest argument they've got into recently is about whether or not Pluto is a planet or not and at least that one got solved quick. Climate change has been happening for centuries, how else did we come out of the ice-age, i know I'm only a simpleton but I haven't seen any conclusive evidence to prove mankind has had a significant impact on this. For the record, I believe we should always look to produce clean energy where we can but it has to be efficient and practical. I agree, hence my careful use of the only fact in the matter - the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing at a rapid clip. What effect that will have and the degree of human influence on that rise is entirely open to speculation. We can expect some kind of change, but sadly lacking a geographic-era detailed timeline of such changes in the past it's very difficult to tell what that change and the action to deal with it should be. The whole issue being used as a political football doesn't help either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgy Bob Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Climate change has been happening for centuries, how else did we come out of the ice-age, i know I'm only a simpleton but I haven't seen any conclusive evidence to prove mankind has had a significant impact on this. For the record, I believe we should always look to produce clean energy where we can but it has to be efficient and practical. I read somewhere that we are still actually in an ice age, it's just in temporary remission. Apparently ice ages do that, and it could sweep back in at any time. We'd definitely want to be in the EU, if that happened. Even southern Spain would be seriously chilly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 The whole issue being used as a political football doesn't help either. Sadly this where a lot of things like this lose credibility, when politics get involved and agendas surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 I read somewhere that we are still actually in an ice age, it's just in temporary remission. Apparently ice ages do that, and it could sweep back in at any time. We'd definitely want to be in the EU, if that happened. Even southern Spain would be seriously chilly. I look forward to the eating or heating debate resurfacing then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 To bring this back to the EU for a moment... I caught the "Them and us" programme on the Beeb last night presented by Nick Robinson and it's well worth a watch if you fancy searching for it on the iPlayer. One of the things it highlighted to me is why the Tory party are so split on Europe, because the parties beliefs in a Free Market economy match up well with the European idea, but the nationalistic part doesn't like giving up control to an outside body (if things aren't in their control that's a little too free market). Add into the fact that Thatcher was all for the project at the start, only to get cold feet and then ended up losing the leadership of the country and her party because of Europe, it's no suprise to see Thatcherite style politicians lining up on the leave side and... well what do we call them? I'll be kind and say 'new wave' more centralist Tories on the remain side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadt Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Liam Fox speaks well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Liam Fox speaks well I don't recognise that user name. Is he a member on here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalalba Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 I'm half way throught tonight's QT, and Paddy ashdown had just be roasted by the audience. THAT, is a first. The audience renewed my faith in the democratic process of the Brexit campaign. Anyone hear that audience member who's an economist, claiming that in the next 14 years if we leave, we'll save the current 'national debt' owed to the banking industry. Unbeliveable. Lets get the feck oot!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadt Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 I'm half way throught tonight's QT, and Paddy ashdown had just be roasted by the audience. THAT, is a first. The audience renewed my faith in the democratic process of the Brexit campaign. Anyone hear that audience member who's an economist, claiming that in the next 14 years if we leave, we'll save the current 'national debt' owed to the banking industry. Unbeliveable. Lets get the feck oot!! I think if those figures were likely to be correct we would have heard them by now, I'm slightly eurosceptic and I think he was being optimistic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Ashdown really does have some front, he was as insistent as anyone we HAD to join the Euro yet he still display such arrogant snobbery against anyone who supports British independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMX11 Posted 22 April 2016 Share Posted 22 April 2016 Ashdown is so disconnected from the opinions of the public it is laughable. The shock when he saw the exit poll at the election was a classic moment for an elite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 22 April 2016 Share Posted 22 April 2016 Three quarters of a million pounds per year in EU subsidies raked-in by the Duke of Westminster (worth 7 billion), and similar amounts going to other 'landed gentry'. I feel instinctively that I should vote to remain, but things like this make me want to vote to leave. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2016/apr/21/why-our-landed-gentry-are-so-desperate-to-stay-in-the-eu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 22 April 2016 Share Posted 22 April 2016 An interesting article from the FT: https://next.ft.com/content/8b5907c4-0797-11e6-a70d-4e39ac32c284 It looks at the potential aftermath of a Brexit vote in more detail than most coverage does.- glancing at different economic sectors, negotiating issues etc. Pro-Brexit people criticise the Remain camp for "fear tactics". While I agree that the Remain people are employing fear tactics, the Brexit camp need to offer a much better explanation of what they will do if they win a "Leave" vote. At the moment, their response doesn't seem to amount to much more than: "We'll be alright, the EU needs our trade at least as much as we need theirs, so they'll negotiate a favorable deal....we've no idea on what terms yet, maybe something like Norway or Switzerland or Canada, we're not really sure. We'll sort that out after the referendum. It'll all be OK, don't worry". Brexit need to come up with responses to some of the specific risks raised in this article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 22 April 2016 Share Posted 22 April 2016 "Maybe something like Norway" so still paying a shit load for the privilege. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.