The 2015 General Election

[tonyh29]

 

 

 

 

So what does everyone think of the manifestos recently released?

 

My thoughts (main points provided by the Beeb http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/manifesto-guide#tab=issue!issue=priorities!party=con!nation=uk)

 

Tories

Eliminate the deficit and be running a surplus by the end of the Parliament - Impossible.

Extra £8bn above inflation for the NHS by 2020 - Don't believe you. You said no top down reorganisation yet you flog every bit off to the highest bidder. The £8bn will probably just filter through private companies anyway.

Legislate to keep people working 30 hours on minimum wage out of tax - OK but not enough

30 hours of free childcare per week for working parents of 3&4-year-olds - Only affect a small amount of people.

Hold a referendum on Britain’s EU membership - OK

 

Green

End austerity and restore the public sector, creating jobs that pay at least a living wage - Good

End privatisation of the National Health Service - Excellent

Work with other countries to ensure global temperatures do not rise by more than 2C - Why 2C? Is that really the best metric?

£85bn programme of home insulation, renewable electricity generation & flood defences - Excellent. We waste far too much energy.

Provide 500,000 social homes for rent by 2020 and control rent levels

Return the railways to public hands - Absolutely

 

 

you missed the bit where Greens are going to raise the top rate of tax to 60%

 

as for their target of not rising by more that 2c ... it's only risen  0.04 since 1998 and even one of it's recent peaks 90 -98 was 0.18  or so so i think they are trying to hoodwink a few people with that one 

(it also dropped between 1945 -75 )

 

 

You don't really understand how this works do you? 

 

 

 presumably you're are about to enlighten me or does it not work like that  ?

 

 

Well the obvious point to make is that these things are not just linear and never have been, so anecdotes about particular times when temperature cooled etc are just that when plotted against long term trends. Read here for more. The global temperatures chart there should allay any fears you might have that we're not on course to smash through 2 degrees without serious efforts to curtail greenhouse gasses. 

 

This is a longer read but thoroughly recommended.

 

 

 

thanks for the links , an interesting read (though on the second link some of their claims i've also seen counter claimed)   .... the first link you supplied talks about aerosols and specifically mentions China  .. but doesn't 't mention the laws they've recent passed in this regard that should see them drastically reduced as a result  ... doens't invalidate the view they give but for every web site with one theory , there is another web site with another theory  ,only recently one of the co-founders of Greenpeace came out and said there is no scientific proof of man made global warming , of course he may have juts secured himslef a lucrative job with BP , or he may have studied the evidence and come to a new conclusion , or he could just be bonkers

 

I think a few have commented here that the Greens having an influence on UK politics might not be a bad thing  ... they could well be right , but there should still be some debate on the conflciting views relating to climate change rather than a more blinkered approach that tends to be adopted ( by either side)

 

(but we have a climate change thread for that as well so maybe that is the best place for it)

Edited April 15, 2015 by tonyh29

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

 

I think a few have commented here that the Greens having an influence on UK politics might not be a bad thing  ... they could well be right , but there should still be some debate on the conflciting views relating to climate change rather than a more blinkered approach that tends to be adopted ( by either side)

 

 

No. There is one correct view and the other is paid for and voiced by puppets of very rich businesses who have an interest in denial.

 

We've pandered to that lot long enough and sadly it has been made a left/right issue in the most influential country in the world as a result. It'll be a generation before anything useful gets done and that is, put simply, too late in the day.

 

The debate has been had, the science is there and it is clear as day. It is time for action.

[tonyh29]

 

 

I think a few have commented here that the Greens having an influence on UK politics might not be a bad thing  ... they could well be right , but there should still be some debate on the conflciting views relating to climate change rather than a more blinkered approach that tends to be adopted ( by either side)

 

 

No. There is one correct view and the other is paid for and voiced by puppets of very rich businesses who have an interest in denial.

 

We've pandered to that lot long enough and sadly it has been made a left/right issue in the most influential country in the world as a result. It'll be a generation before anything useful gets done and that is, put simply, too late in the day.

 

The debate has been had, the science is there and it is clear as day. It is time for action.

 

 

 

[Condimentalist]

 

 

 

 

 

So what does everyone think of the manifestos recently released?

 

My thoughts (main points provided by the Beeb http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/manifesto-guide#tab=issue!issue=priorities!party=con!nation=uk)

 

Tories

Eliminate the deficit and be running a surplus by the end of the Parliament - Impossible.

Extra £8bn above inflation for the NHS by 2020 - Don't believe you. You said no top down reorganisation yet you flog every bit off to the highest bidder. The £8bn will probably just filter through private companies anyway.

Legislate to keep people working 30 hours on minimum wage out of tax - OK but not enough

30 hours of free childcare per week for working parents of 3&4-year-olds - Only affect a small amount of people.

Hold a referendum on Britain’s EU membership - OK

 

Green

End austerity and restore the public sector, creating jobs that pay at least a living wage - Good

End privatisation of the National Health Service - Excellent

Work with other countries to ensure global temperatures do not rise by more than 2C - Why 2C? Is that really the best metric?

£85bn programme of home insulation, renewable electricity generation & flood defences - Excellent. We waste far too much energy.

Provide 500,000 social homes for rent by 2020 and control rent levels

Return the railways to public hands - Absolutely

 

 

you missed the bit where Greens are going to raise the top rate of tax to 60%

 

as for their target of not rising by more that 2c ... it's only risen  0.04 since 1998 and even one of it's recent peaks 90 -98 was 0.18  or so so i think they are trying to hoodwink a few people with that one 

(it also dropped between 1945 -75 )

 

 

You don't really understand how this works do you? 

 

 

 presumably you're are about to enlighten me or does it not work like that  ?

 

 

Well the obvious point to make is that these things are not just linear and never have been, so anecdotes about particular times when temperature cooled etc are just that when plotted against long term trends. Read here for more. The global temperatures chart there should allay any fears you might have that we're not on course to smash through 2 degrees without serious efforts to curtail greenhouse gasses. 

 

This is a longer read but thoroughly recommended.

 

 

 

thanks for the links , an interesting read (though on the second link some of their claims i've also seen counter claimed)   .... the first link you supplied talks about aerosols and specifically mentions China  .. but doesn't 't mention the laws they've recent passed in this regard that should see them drastically reduced as a result  ... doens't invalidate the view they give but for every web site with one theory , there is another web site with another theory  ,only recently one of the co-founders of Greenpeace came out and said there is no scientific proof of man made global warming , of course he may have juts secured himslef a lucrative job with BP , or he may have studied the evidence and come to a new conclusion , or he could just be bonkers

 

I think a few have commented here that the Greens having an influence on UK politics might not be a bad thing  ... they could well be right , but there should still be some debate on the conflciting views relating to climate change rather than a more blinkered approach that tends to be adopted ( by either side)

 

(but we have a climate change thread for that as well so maybe that is the best place for it)

 

 

The anthropogenic basis for climate change is not seriously debated by scientists working on the issue and hasn't been for some time. The idea that there is massive uncertainty around this is unfortunately a deliberate obfuscatory tool. I'd be interested to read the story about the Greenpeace chap. I'll be amazed if the conclusion he has reached is quite as you have portrayed it, but in the end even if it is, it's just another anecdote, and there will always be anecdotal evidence to support any position (including anecdotal scientific evidence). In the end you have to bring all the research together and try to come to a conclusion as to what is going on. This is the job of the IPCC. They are 97% certain of the human basis for climate change, which is a staggering figure in any scientific field.

 

There is a debate to be had about climate change, but it's not about the science, it's about what we're going to do about the situation we find ourselves in. 

[tonyh29]

This is the job of the IPCC. They are 97% certain of the human basis for climate change, which is a staggering figure in any scientific field.

 

this is the same IPCC that doesnt' attribute the increase from 1910 to 1940  (0.50) to "human influence"   yet the virtually identical increase in temperature between 1970 - 2000 (0.57)  , it does  !!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lapal_fan]

Tonezone, you can't not accept the fact the global warming has a direct correlation between when we started farming, industrialisation etc etc.

 

If you don't, frankly you're wrong.

[choffer]

Why does the argument have to be about global warming anyway? The fact is that as a race, we've completely knackered vast swathes of the environment, deforested continents worth of land, filled oceans full of plastic and the rate of species extinction continues to grow (RIP Western Black Rhino). 

I'm no wooly liberal but the fact that the argument seems to only ever be about the melting icecaps seems like another deliberately obfuscatory tool.

[Condimentalist]

 

This is the job of the IPCC. They are 97% certain of the human basis for climate change, which is a staggering figure in any scientific field.

 

this is the same IPCC that doesnt' attribute the increase from 1910 to 1940  (0.50) to "human influence"   yet the virtually identical increase in temperature between 1970 - 2000 (0.57)  , it does  !!!

 

 

 

It would be useful if you link in these sort of discussions, only because without context it's quite difficult to engage with the point. 

 

What I would say is the IPCC are not in themselves a commissioning body - i.e. they don't do their own research - their job is bring together research from across the scientific community. It's never a smart idea to follow uncritically anything that anybody says, but the IPCC reports are essentially a status update on where the whole scientific community working on these issues stands. When they come together in almost total consensus on an issue, it's probably not a bad idea to pay attention.

[tonyh29]

Tonezone, you can't not accept the fact the global warming has a direct correlation between when we started farming, industrialisation etc etc.

 

If you don't, frankly you're wrong.

 those peskey dinosaurs with their Jurassic farming and Industrial methods hey

[tonyh29]

Why does the argument have to be about global warming anyway? The fact is that as a race, we've completely knackered vast swathes of the environment, deforested continents worth of land, filled oceans full of plastic and the rate of species extinction continues to grow (RIP Western Black Rhino). 

I'm no wooly liberal but the fact that the argument seems to only ever be about the melting icecaps seems like another deliberately obfuscatory tool.

 

funnily enough when mentioning the shrinking icecaps in the Antarctic nobody mentions the East Antarctica Ice sheet that is growing at some volume ... it's still melting at a faster rate than it's growing to be clear though

[tonyh29]

 

 

This is the job of the IPCC. They are 97% certain of the human basis for climate change, which is a staggering figure in any scientific field.

 

this is the same IPCC that doesnt' attribute the increase from 1910 to 1940  (0.50) to "human influence"   yet the virtually identical increase in temperature between 1970 - 2000 (0.57)  , it does  !!!

 

 

 

It would be useful if you link in these sort of discussions, only because without context it's quite difficult to engage with the point. 

 

What I would say is the IPCC are not in themselves a commissioning body - i.e. they don't do their own research - their job is bring together research from across the scientific community. It's never a smart idea to follow uncritically anything that anybody says, but the IPCC reports are essentially a status update on where the whole scientific community working on these issues stands. When they come together in almost total consensus on an issue, it's probably not a bad idea to pay attention.

 

 

I suspect anything I linked to would be deemed " in the pocket of big business "  etc but point taken .. ( but we should really go to the climate change thread before this one goes too far away from the election )

[choffer]

 

Why does the argument have to be about global warming anyway? The fact is that as a race, we've completely knackered vast swathes of the environment, deforested continents worth of land, filled oceans full of plastic and the rate of species extinction continues to grow (RIP Western Black Rhino). 

I'm no wooly liberal but the fact that the argument seems to only ever be about the melting icecaps seems like another deliberately obfuscatory tool.

 

funnily enough when mentioning the shrinking icecaps in the Antarctic nobody mentions the East Antarctica Ice sheet that is growing at some volume ... it's still melting at a faster rate than it's growing to be clear though

 

 

You obfuscatory tool! 

 

(Post-on-poster, I know)  

[darrenm]

But back into the context of the election, all of this stuff is pretty important, and the Greens are the only ones who say they'll do anything about it.

 

The biggest bit for me is the get people more active stuff - (http://road.cc/content/news/148235-election-2015-what-are-political-parties-promising-cycling-their-election) - pretty much exactly what I've been banging on about for ages

 

Perhaps unsurprisingly the Greens are keen as mustard on the bike, and say they would spend £30 per head per year on walking and cycling.

The Green Party manifesto says "we need to rescue our towns and cities from traffic and turn them back into places where we want to be. The Green Party will support an [Welsh-style] Active Travel Bill for England in order to achieve this."

It says it will "make streets healthy and safe places for people to cycle and walk and for children to play, while building physical activity into their daily journeys."

Cycling is second in the party's transport hierarchy, below walking and disabled access to transport, and above public transport. Walking, cycling and public transport, it says, should be taken into account in all planning decisions, and the different modes linked to one another.

On-street parking spaces, say the Greens, should be reallocated to pedestrians and cyclists, with pavement parking eliminated altogether, while cycle parking should be provided wherever there is demand, including secure cycle parking on residential streets.

The Greens also support presumed liability of motor vehicle drivers when pedestrians and cyclists are injured. They would require all newly manufactured lorries to be fitted with "best practice technology to make sure that drivers are fully aware of the presence of all pedestrians and cyclists". As well as improving rail freight to reduce lorries on the roads the Greens would  incentivise consolidation of deliveries to encourage more cargo bike use.

Key to encouraging cycling for transport, the Green manifesto says, is reducing the distance people need to travel for work, leisure and shopping, and switching more journeys away from the car. It says local government transport departments need to work with health departments to promote active travel.

[gharperr]

Why does the argument have to be about global warming anyway? The fact is that as a race, we've completely knackered vast swathes of the environment, deforested continents worth of land, filled oceans full of plastic and the rate of species extinction continues to grow (RIP Western Black Rhino). 

I'm no wooly liberal but the fact that the argument seems to only ever be about the melting icecaps seems like another deliberately obfuscatory tool.

sorry ive only sort of read this comment and not the context youre replying to. But people care far more about the destruction of the earth which leads to human population ending (aka 'think of the children') than they do about plastic bottles and animals....thats why

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I think it's easier for people to care about animals and stuff because we can see the effect. Climate change is a slower process and far more long term - well, to us comfy in the West, people on islands and other vulnerable countries have been rallying against carbon emissions and the like for some time because the danger is imminent. We need to bang on about it at the expense of other causes because you can't sign a piece of legislation and make a change over night. There needs to be a systematic restructuring to how we run things if we are going to deal with it accordingly. This is where a lot of right-wing antagonism comes from: they don't want change because things are going OK in their book.

 

Jonathan Frazen wrote a (somewhat misguided) essay recently about how that bigger debate has led to smaller causes being drowned out. That may be true but there will always be people looking to protect birds, and governments happy to comply because it doesn't cost much to help. With climate change, despite the evidence, despite the impact it will have, a lot of people just don't care enough.

 

I'd like to say **** 'em then and be done with it, but it won't be people that suffer (in the wider sense, millions are buggered) but animals, and I think it's a bit shitty on our part to let it happen.

[blandy]

I think a few have commented here that the Greens having an influence on UK politics might not be a bad thing  ... they could well be right , but there should still be some debate on the conflicting views relating to climate change rather than a more blinkered approach that tends to be adopted ( by either side)

 

(but we have a climate change thread for that as well so maybe that is the best place for it)

 

Re the highlighted bit. I think it's important to separate valid debate from invalid debate.

By this I mean it's absolutely valid to say what should be done, or if nothing should be done. What is totally invalid and downright harmful is "debate" over established fact. Climate Change is FACT. It's as fact-y as you will ever get with science. Science is the studying of evidence and data and experimentation and publishing the results for peer review, and for challenge, and then any challenge or interpretation is again open to peer review and so it goes on. That's what science is.

What it isn't, is people going "no that's rubbish", not publishing their data, the results of their measurements, their experiments, their modelling, their methods of modelling, their backers names and all the rest of it. That's just outside science and outside the rigour of science.

 

It is absolutely vital to base discussion and debate around facts. People are entitled to whatever opinion they wish, they are not entitled to their own facts. It is also the case that they are not entitled to have their opinion as a non-scientist given the same weight as that of an expert.

 

People are also entitled to ignore scientific evidence, if they so wish, but they do not merit any credibility if they do so.

 

Scientific evidence and the sheer wieight of it on this (or any other subject) means it's heavy going sometimes making head or tail of all of it. That's why it's important that scientist in the field are able to communicate their findings, the collective findings of science clearly. If they don't (and sometimes even when they do) non-scientists, particularly people with an agenda will do everything they can to muddy the waters and try and further confuse, or to change the discussion from science and evidence, to non-science based topics.

[Demitri_C]

i like under labours manifesto they say they will gurantee patients can be seen within 48hours in GPS's but dont actually say how

[bickster]

i like under labours manifesto they say they will gurantee patients can be seen within 48hours in GPS's but dont actually say how

Its a common theme with all of them

[tonyh29]

I think a few have commented here that the Greens having an influence on UK politics might not be a bad thing ... they could well be right , but there should still be some debate on the conflicting views relating to climate change rather than a more blinkered approach that tends to be adopted ( by either side)

(but we have a climate change thread for that as well so maybe that is the best place for it)

Re the highlighted bit. I think it's important to separate valid debate from invalid debate.

By this I mean it's absolutely valid to say what should be done, or if nothing should be done. What is totally invalid and downright harmful is "debate" over established fact. Climate Change is FACT. It's as fact-y as you will ever get with science. Science is the studying of evidence and data and experimentation and publishing the results for peer review, and for challenge, and then any challenge or interpretation is again open to peer review and so it goes on. That's what science is.

What it isn't, is people going "no that's rubbish", not publishing their data, the results of their measurements, their experiments, their modelling, their methods of modelling, their backers names and all the rest of it. That's just outside science and outside the rigour of science.

It is absolutely vital to base discussion and debate around facts. People are entitled to whatever opinion they wish, they are not entitled to their own facts. It is also the case that they are not entitled to have their opinion as a non-scientist given the same weight as that of an expert.

People are also entitled to ignore scientific evidence, if they so wish, but they do not merit any credibility if they do so.

Scientific evidence and the sheer wieight of it on this (or any other subject) means it's heavy going sometimes making head or tail of all of it. That's why it's important that scientist in the field are able to communicate their findings, the collective findings of science clearly. If they don't (and sometimes even when they do) non-scientists, particularly people with an agenda will do everything they can to muddy the waters and try and further confuse, or to change the discussion from science and evidence, to non-science based topics.

Any history book will tell you when science thought the brain was a useless part of the body or that the sun revolved around the earth

But back to modern times Google Eisenman who found flaws in the science , flaws that have been ackowledged , he still supports climate change so he isn't a maverick or in the pocket of BP .... But he does show that science can get it wrong and therefore you claims of "fact" whilst likely are not actually conclusively fact

[OutByEaster?]

I think it reflects so many issues in this election - corporations will do what they are designed for, they will make profit at the expense of anything else, the chairman of Shell will not have to answer to the population if there's a global energy catastrophe, he'll just have to find a way to make a profit from it - the role of politicians I think increasingly is to protect the population from those corporate interests, they should be the defenders of "society" i.e. those things that are more important than profit. We know they're not, and we know they'll lie through their teeth in order to protect corporate interests and it colours our opinions on everything we see, read or imagine to be true.