What's the point in trying to save the economy if the environment is being f***ed over at such a pace that two or three generations from now we'll all have to start thinking seriously about life on other planets? There's still a chance to reverse the manmade damage. If I was a politician the environment would be my number one priority. The economy can be shit for decades and people on the whole will survive. The environment needs change now. If that means changing the way we think about travel, by car or otherwise, so be it.

 

It's also one of the few issues which can't be politicised. Everybody who's not in denial knows the environment is a massive problem. All the parties, and the governments of every country on this planet, should be working together to bring about change, and I hope that when the economy does begin to recover, serious money will be poured into such matters. It saddens me that the environment barely ever seems to register on the political agenda in this country nowadays, and presumably in most other countries too. Yet another example of people in power being hideously short sighted and failing to learn from history.

 

Very true. However, the biggest problem with democracy is that politicians find it hard to look beyond the next election, let alone three generations' time. It doesn't help that a number of right-wing papers also constantly peddle the lie that climate change isn't happening. Strangely, on that issue, they go against the only trained scientitst to have become PM, one M Thatcher. OK, so she did little about it apart from make a speech but at least she demonstrated some understanding of the issue which is more than can be said of some of her most devoted followers.

It is very difficult to appear statesmanlike when in opposition. The closest to it in my lifetime was probably Tony Blair.

 

From what I've read Cldement Attlee probably never really came across as statesmanlike. He was generally regarded as being very boring with little or no charisma. However, in my opinion, he was the greatest peacetime PM of the 20th century.

Citing Attlee alongside Thatcher is probably a little misleading as they're pretty much at the opposite ends of the spectrum of PM power. He was nothing without his cabinet (there's a great quote somewhere about him being more of a chairman than a president which I can't be bothered to find) whereas she, erm, wasn't.

If the neo-liberal model was ever going to start working and producing economic growth again then it probably would've happened by now since world leaders have been trying to do it for nearly 5 years now.

The 'model' saw out one of the UK's longest periods of sustained growth so I don't think that's very accurate. This 'Age of Austerity' isn't necessarily part of Blatcherism, or whatever you'd like to call it, and proponents of one don't have to be a proponent of the other.

 

What's the point in trying to save the economy if the environment is being f***ed over at such a pace that two or three generations from now we'll all have to start thinking seriously about life on other planets? There's still a chance to reverse the manmade damage. If I was a politician the environment would be my number one priority. The economy can be shit for decades and people on the whole will survive. The environment needs change now. If that means changing the way we think about travel, by car or otherwise, so be it.

 

It's also one of the few issues which can't be politicised. Everybody who's not in denial knows the environment is a massive problem. All the parties, and the governments of every country on this planet, should be working together to bring about change, and I hope that when the economy does begin to recover, serious money will be poured into such matters. It saddens me that the environment barely ever seems to register on the political agenda in this country nowadays, and presumably in most other countries too. Yet another example of people in power being hideously short sighted and failing to learn from history.

 

YAY JARK.

The 'model' saw out one of the UK's longest periods of sustained growth so I don't think that's very accurate. This 'Age of Austerity' isn't necessarily part of Blatcherism, or whatever you'd like to call it, and proponents of one don't have to be a proponent of the other.

I'd disagree, the economy rising and falling is an inevitable side effect of market deregulation so you have both or neither.

The economy rising and falling is an inevitable side effect of capitalism, not just deregulation.

The economy rising and falling is an inevitable side effect of capitalism, not just deregulation.

Well yes, but it becomes exaggerated the more reliant you are upon markets. He was making the point about Thatcherism, where it's far more obvious than Keynesianism which is designed to iron out the peaks and troughs.

When it comes down to it I think a lot of people will do the same. That's why I still think the Lib Dems will do a lot better (or less badly) than many people think.

 

I know I will vote for 'em. As bad as things have been under the coalition I console myself that things may have been even worse without at least some reigning in of right wing nutjobs. I work for local government and am aware of the backscene councillor Tory landslide decisions that are hidden from the electorate with mediaspeak. Such as transferring workers to a bankrupt company and sacking those who spoke up and pointed out that they were about to go bankrupt...

 

 

What's the point in trying to save the economy if the environment is being f***ed over at such a pace that two or three generations from now we'll all have to start thinking seriously about life on other planets? There's still a chance to reverse the manmade damage. If I was a politician the environment would be my number one priority. The economy can be shit for decades and people on the whole will survive. The environment needs change now. If that means changing the way we think about travel, by car or otherwise, so be it.

 

It's also one of the few issues which can't be politicised. Everybody who's not in denial knows the environment is a massive problem. All the parties, and the governments of every country on this planet, should be working together to bring about change, and I hope that when the economy does begin to recover, serious money will be poured into such matters. It saddens me that the environment barely ever seems to register on the political agenda in this country nowadays, and presumably in most other countries too. Yet another example of people in power being hideously short sighted and failing to learn from history.

 

 

hear hear, but most people dont seem bothered by mass extinctions of fellow species (or fellow human beings) and try to justify selfish views by challenging the bloody obvious facts. Fairly obvious human population cant increase exponentially forever without catastrophe, but then looking longterm the planet will outlive Man, it seems to get over massive catastrophe and re-balance regularly. Man, as you say, will have to go the stars to avoid extinction, there's bound to be an earth-shattering natural cataclysm sooner or later.

 

Just call me Senna (I think). (Up Pompeii):)

The basic problem of overpopulation at the moment is that countries' populations tend to shoot up when they are just starting on their way towards conventional Western development. Basic tribal societies have such poor health and understanding of it that their death rate is virtually as high as their births so they don't tend to grow in size an awful lot. It's only as basic healthcare and medical knowledge are introduced that death rate begins to fall, but births are still sky high - as is the case in much of sub-Saharan Africa now where most of the rising world population is coming from.

 

Countries like Brazil, which became independent centuries ago, are seeing far lower population increase as their birth rate falls. It's those that were decolonised in the 20th century, stuck to the biased policies of institutions like the IMF, that are now in some kind of seemingly permanent development limbo whereby their population will carry on rising.

 

I actually think that the Earth can hold a lot more people - we're just spread far too unevenly compared to resources and are being incredibly wasteful with energy.

 

Sorry for the GCSE Geography rant.

 

I know I will vote for 'em. As bad as things have been under the coalition I console myself that things may have been even worse without at least some reigning in of right wing nutjobs. I work for local government and am aware of the backscene councillor Tory landslide decisions that are hidden from the electorate with mediaspeak. Such as transferring workers to a bankrupt company and sacking those who spoke up and pointed out that they were about to go bankrupt...

If you hate right wingers so much, why vote for a party that got into bed with them and has largely rolled over to their proposals as opposed to one less right wing in the first place?

The basic problem of overpopulation at the moment is that countries' populations tend to shoot up when they are just starting on their way towards conventional Western development. Basic tribal societies have such poor health and understanding of it that their death rate is virtually as high as their births so they don't tend to grow in size an awful lot. It's only as basic healthcare and medical knowledge are introduced that death rate begins to fall, but births are still sky high - as is the case in much of sub-Saharan Africa now where most of the rising world population is coming from.

 

Countries like Brazil, which became independent centuries ago, are seeing far lower population increase as their birth rate falls. It's those that were decolonised in the 20th century, stuck to the biased policies of institutions like the IMF, that are now in some kind of seemingly permanent development limbo whereby their population will carry on rising.

 

I actually think that the Earth can hold a lot more people - we're just spread far too unevenly compared to resources and are being incredibly wasteful with energy.

 

Sorry for the GCSE Geography rant.

If you hate right wingers so much, why vote for a party that got into bed with them and has largely rolled over to their proposals as opposed to one less right wing in the first place?

 

The earth's resources are finite - I'm not saying they are going to be used up any century soon, and i'm not talking metals - and of course the earth can hold a lot more people. At the cost of the natural world, land and sea. Might not bother most people but it bothers me....

 

I don't hate right wingers, some of my best friends are right wing staunch Tory supporters, but I feel justified in pointing out (as I did when the extreme left was just a nut-job) that extreme nutjob policies result in disaster. I was whingeing about the (Tory & Labour supported) reckless bank behaviour and ridiculous property market years before 2008 in the pages of a comic fanzine I belong to - the right-leaning members thought I was just whingeing and had utter trust that heads of rich companies knew what they were doing - it was so bleeding obvious it would all explode horribly. Whatever anyone's political views I think we can all agree now that unbridled capitalism doesn't work because individual greed and greed for power corrupts logical decision-making processes, just as unbridled socialism did. Everything in balance....

 

 

The earth's resources are finite - I'm not saying they are going to be used up any century soon, and i'm not talking metals - and of course the earth can hold a lot more people. At the cost of the natural world, land and sea. Might not bother most people but it bothers me....

 

I don't hate right wingers, some of my best friends are right wing staunch Tory supporters, but I feel justified in pointing out (as I did when the extreme left was just a nut-job) that extreme nutjob policies result in disaster. I was whingeing about the (Tory & Labour supported) reckless bank behaviour and ridiculous property market years before 2008 in the pages of a comic fanzine I belong to - the right-leaning members thought I was just whingeing and had utter trust that heads of rich companies knew what they were doing - it was so bleeding obvious it would all explode horribly. Whatever anyone's political views I think we can all agree now that unbridled capitalism doesn't work because individual greed and greed for power corrupts logical decision-making processes, just as unbridled socialism did. Everything in balance....

Was this before or after the recent report on HBOS? Not that there haven't been plenty of other examples to contradict their blind faith.

The earth's resources are finite - I'm not saying they are going to be used up any century soon, and i'm not talking metals - and of course the earth can hold a lot more people. At the cost of the natural world, land and sea. Might not bother most people but it bothers me....

There's a current estimate that we're using 2.5 times the resources that the Earth can naturally replace. That's with the two biggest populations on Earth still going up and the USA showing a complete disregard for the environment. It's not too late, although it'll probably take something like oil to run out before people start actually doing something about it - by which time it might be.

Was this before or after the recent report on HBOS? Not that there haven't been plenty of other examples to contradict their blind faith.

 

Yes this was 2005/6 when everything looked rosy and house prices were rocketing. Newsnight did a programme about it all a couple of years before so it's not as if the warnings weren't there already. A young yuppie once tried to get me to invest my savings (I dont own a house) in one of those vague banking schemes. He was very assured at the profits to be made but couldnt actually list WHAT exactly I was investing IN, just that it was a package of various things. I politely declined and it was obvious to me at that point that the banks (this was Lloyds) were employing people, none of whom had a clue what they were doing.

Last night on BBC Question Time saw the most blatant attempt to rewrite the history of the Thatcher years so far. Amanda Platell (spin doctor for William Hague when he was Tory leader, now working for the Daily Mail) claimed that she reduced unemployment. The truth is very different. She inherited an unemployment figure or just over one million and a downward trend. That trend was reversed immediately. In fact, in the whole 18 years of Tory government (under Major as well as Thatcher), the unemployment figure did not go below the figure they inherited for a single month. That was despite over 30 changes to the way unemployment was counted, almost all of which reduced the published figure. Unfortunately, nobody on the panel or in the audience challenged Platell's blatant lie.

Ridiculous, and the Satacchi poster was one of the biggest pieces of political lies of the 20th century, Labour have always been the workers party!

Ridiculous, and the Satacchi poster was one of the biggest pieces of political lies of the 20th century, Labour have always been the workers party!

 

And also the party for anyone who doesn't bother to work lol

 

There's so much wrong with that I can't even be bothered.

And also the party for anyone who doesn't bother to work lol

 

Doesn't bother? Thats a sweeping statement!

Doesn't bother? Thats a sweeping statement!

 

I meant that they enjoy helping people who don't help themselves and ignore the people who do a lot of the time, as I've seen from my own experience. I didn't mean anyone unemployed doesn't bother but there are many irresponsible people out there. I don't think the Tories are much better in this regard but at least they promote self help in some ways.

Edited May 10, 201312 yr by torresgirl

I meant that they enjoy helping people who don't help themselves and ignore the people who do a lot of the time, as I've seen from my own experience. I didn't mean anyone unemployed doesn't bother but there are many irresponsible people out there. I don't think the Tories are much better in this regard but at least they promote self help in some ways.

More like they promote self help-yourself