Bolitics UKIP Nutters

[Awol]

 

As it is, if people gave up meat ....

Nooooooooooooooooooooo

Can't we just eat vegetarians instead ?

 

...and there, in (Tony's) comedy form is the problem.

 

 

What exactly do you think the rapidly developing and industrialising nations of the world are striving for, lentil soup, no electricity, unheated homes and none of the trappings of the developed world? Similarly it is as unrealistic to expect western democratic societies to elect people who are telling them "vote for us and we'll do everything in our power to drive down your standard of living", not without some catastrophe that actually forces people to change their behaviour first. The only other variable therefore is to try to limit the growth of the overall population

 

 

But surely birth control measures are the only solution. It isn't Mali that is the concern, it's the combination of the whole of Africa, India, China, Bangladesh etc. wanting a western life. This is understandable and they should, but unfortunately the finite Earth cannot support all those demands from 7 billion and climbing people. Just what is the alternative?

We don't have to have unheated homes (though it's worth noting that even in Aberdeenshire, one of the colder parts of the UK, there are modern unheated homes where people live perfectly comfortably because they've been designed well). 

 

We don't have to subsist on lentil soup, but we do have to get away from the late C20 idea that three servings of meat a day is either sensible or sustainable.

 

We don't have to live without using energy, though we do have to live with renewable energy, not having continual wars to drag more fossil fuels out of the ground to poison the earth even more. 

 

We don't have to have a crap standard of living, but we do have to escape from the idea that a good standard of living is buying endless plastic, disposable shite that's deliberately designed to break down once out of guarantee.

 

The idea of continuing with current patterns of consumption, while telling others to reduce their population and at the same time causing wars, crop destruction, forest logging and mass population movement as a consequence of the wars we foment to win and keep control of fossil fuels, is simply insane.  Barking, saucer-eyed, howling-at-the-moon mad.

 

 

I don't disagree with that, it's perfectly rational in theory. How exactly do you suggest that people in the democratic developed world are persuaded to make such an adjustment?  Hopefully that can then be applied to the developing world too, which it would have to be.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I vote for letting someone in the future deal with it.

[villaguy]

I vote for letting someone in the future deal with it.

You're definitely on the side of the majority, that's why democratic governments seem to chose this option. They wouldn't get re-elected if they took the environmentally friendly, harder to stomach and less popular choice

Edited September 21, 2013 by villaguy

[tonyh29]

As it is, if people gave up meat ....

Nooooooooooooooooooooo

Can't we just eat vegetarians instead ?

...and there, in (Tony's) comedy form is the problem.

You think mines bad , Wait until you see Drat's comedy

[peterms]

I don't disagree with that, it's perfectly rational in theory. How exactly do you suggest that people in the democratic developed world are persuaded to make such an adjustment?  Hopefully that can then be applied to the developing world too, which it would have to be.

On energy, it's not a matter of persuading people, so much as redirecting investment, subsidy and taxation away from dirty and into clean energy.  On a smaller scale, when we went from leaded to unleaded petrol, it wasn't a case of persuading people to switch, but of requiring manufacturers to change, allowing a lead-in time, and enforcing it.  Some people didn't like it - they thought they could detect tiny differences in how their engine sounded or performed, which were worth other people's kids having their brains damaged by ingesting lead.  But it happened, because there was political will to make it happen.

 

With energy, some countries are investing a lot in renewables, while others are in hock to the vested interests of corporations whose owners get vastly rich by poisoning the rest of us.  We could do what Germany's doing.  And developing countries in sunny areas (that's quite a few of them) can be helped to develop solar power; they don't need to make coal-burning power plants.  They need help in doing that.  Increasing their wealth via renewable energy will do more for global warming than trying to reduce their populations.  As a side-effect, their increasing wealth will almost certainly mean they choose to produce fewer children anyway; that tends to be what happens.

 

It's not long ago that we used to repair things instead of throw them away.  That's partly about having the skill and time to do it or else access to someone who can do it at reasonable cost, and it's partly about taxing deliberate waste.  We recycle a fair bit more in this country than we used to a few years back, though not as much as we used to a few years before that.  It's not a given that we must be the powerless puppets of corporations who prefer us to buy new than mend and use again.  A combination of community resources and clear political leadership would go a long way.

 

Food production and consumption changes fairly quickly.  Tastes can be influenced and changed by education, by advertising and other propaganda, by taxing some foods highly relative to others.

 

As you mention, crisis would also give a push.  There was a piece on the radio recently about how in Greece, people are being taught again how to grow their own food, including learning from what was done in the UK in the last war to stimulate self-production.  Of course this activity produces all sorts of benefits but doesn't appear in gdp, so it looks as though the economy's getting worse when in fact it's getting better, at least in that limited respect.

 

Instead of allowing land to be hoarded by speculators hoping to make fat profits from doing the square root of ****-all, we could appropriate the land and massively expand access to allotments.  We could limit the amount of land allowed to be used for producing animal feed, and restrict animal imports.  Just punishing people for eating vile burgers made from extruded scraps of cow and horse gristle won't work - you have to provide an accessible, more palatable alternative, and use taxation to change prices to shape behaviour.

 

And so on...

[villaguy]

 

I don't disagree with that, it's perfectly rational in theory. How exactly do you suggest that people in the democratic developed world are persuaded to make such an adjustment?  Hopefully that can then be applied to the developing world too, which it would have to be.

On energy, it's not a matter of persuading people, so much as redirecting investment, subsidy and taxation away from dirty and into clean energy.  On a smaller scale, when we went from leaded to unleaded petrol, it wasn't a case of persuading people to switch, but of requiring manufacturers to change, allowing a lead-in time, and enforcing it.  Some people didn't like it - they thought they could detect tiny differences in how their engine sounded or performed, which were worth other people's kids having their brains damaged by ingesting lead.  But it happened, because there was political will to make it happen.

 

With energy, some countries are investing a lot in renewables, while others are in hock to the vested interests of corporations whose owners get vastly rich by poisoning the rest of us.  We could do what Germany's doing.  And developing countries in sunny areas (that's quite a few of them) can be helped to develop solar power; they don't need to make coal-burning power plants.  They need help in doing that.  Increasing their wealth via renewable energy will do more for global warming than trying to reduce their populations.  As a side-effect, their increasing wealth will almost certainly mean they choose to produce fewer children anyway; that tends to be what happens.

 

It's not long ago that we used to repair things instead of throw them away.  That's partly about having the skill and time to do it or else access to someone who can do it at reasonable cost, and it's partly about taxing deliberate waste.  We recycle a fair bit more in this country than we used to a few years back, though not as much as we used to a few years before that.  It's not a given that we must be the powerless puppets of corporations who prefer us to buy new than mend and use again.  A combination of community resources and clear political leadership would go a long way.

 

Food production and consumption changes fairly quickly.  Tastes can be influenced and changed by education, by advertising and other propaganda, by taxing some foods highly relative to others.

 

As you mention, crisis would also give a push.  There was a piece on the radio recently about how in Greece, people are being taught again how to grow their own food, including learning from what was done in the UK in the last war to stimulate self-production.  Of course this activity produces all sorts of benefits but doesn't appear in gdp, so it looks as though the economy's getting worse when in fact it's getting better, at least in that limited respect.

 

Instead of allowing land to be hoarded by speculators hoping to make fat profits from doing the square root of ****-all, we could appropriate the land and massively expand access to allotments.  We could limit the amount of land allowed to be used for producing animal feed, and restrict animal imports.  Just punishing people for eating vile burgers made from extruded scraps of cow and horse gristle won't work - you have to provide an accessible, more palatable alternative, and use taxation to change prices to shape behaviour.

 

And so on...

 

Even if people chose to be vegetarians, once the population gets to a certain figure, you are still going to need to chop down the rainforests, drain the wetlands etc. to make enough land available for crop production. The conflict between conservation and economics is the fact that bio-diversity doesn't have an intrinsic value, only things that can be profited from will be seen as a priority to be preserved. This will leave a future environment that is very sterile and artificial. Doesn't sound like my idea of a great planet, the economy might be maximised, but at what cost to the quality of life. That's the reason behind my beliefs essentially

Edited September 21, 2013 by villaguy

[chrisp65]

Vast swathes of land are used to graze meat animals and to produce feed for meat animals, it's fantastically inefficient. To make it worse, we pay tax that falsely reduces the price of that meat. As soon as we stop subsidising meat production land will be free for more cereal and vegetable crop AND more housing.

 

As for western consumerism, the tipping point for energy and mineral resouces is just about here for some areas. The result is that we are now, finally,  looking at more efficient use and preservation of energy. But this needs to be two pronged, wind and solar might not be sufficient to power every xbox we want to leave running, so tax inefficient products. We've all got used to it with petrol and diesel, we've accepted that lightbulbs had to change, start chucking tax on phones with poor batteries.

 

We'll be fine if we are less selfish. Earth can be heaven or hell, collectively, we get to choose.

Edited September 21, 2013 by chrisp65

[coda]

 

[PauloBarnesi]

UKIP Plymstock poppy wreath logo sparks political row

 

UKIP has denied a wreath it laid to mark Armistice Day was a political statement after receiving criticism from other political parties.

The wreath - with a UKIP logo in the centre - was laid at the war memorial on Burrow Hill, Plymstock and one of four laid by the party in Plymouth.

The city council's Conservative and Labour leaders said using a political logo on Remembrance Day was wrong.

But UKIP insisted the wreaths were symbols of honour and respect.

'Point scoring'

David Salmon, UKIP party chairman for Plymouth and South West Devon, said it was hypocritical of the Conservatives and Labour to accuse UKIP of "dirty tricks".

"I'm boiling and furious that they're trying to score points over something as important as Remembrance Day," he told BBC News.

"These are the same wreaths we laid last year and nothing was said then - but there were no elections last year - so I think their 'outrage' is more a ploy to besmirch UKIP."

A personalised card on the wreath said: "We come not to mourn our dead, but to praise them".

Tudor Evans, leader of the Labour-controlled city council, said the logo on the wreath should be removed.

Wreaths and remembrance crosses were laid around the Plymstock war memorial by various groups and individuals

"It is very bad taste - we have always made Remembrance Day an apolitical event," he said.

"Propaganda in this way is not at all the right thing in a military city which has seen a lot of war deaths."

The council's Conservative group leader, councillor Ian Bowyer, said he was appalled by the size of the UKIP logo which he described as "overtly political".

"A discreet card on the wreath saying who it's from is one thing, but to have the UKIP logo festooned on it is disrespectful."

'Retain the logo'

Mr Salmon said the wreaths were ordered through the Royal British Legion.

"The logo may be a bit over the top, so next year I'll consider a smaller one," he said.

"But I want to retain the logo because I'm proud of what we stand for."

The Royal British Legion's poppy factory in Richmond said wreaths were produced every year with logos for "all the mainstream political parties".

A statement from the national UKIP party said: "This was far from a malicious act and the local branch just thought it was the nicest way to collectively remember those who have served our country."

 

 

 

elsewhere

 The leader of UKIP in Lincolnshire has apologised after a wreath with the party's logo was placed at the war memorial in Spalding.

UKIP councillor Colin Mair apologised for any offence caused but said he did not know who left the wreath.

Spalding's Conservative district councillor Roger Gambba-Jones said he was "horrified" by what had happened.

In Devon, a UKIP party local chairman defended the use of a UKIP logoat a war memorial in Plymouth.

'Clearly inappropriate'

Mr Mair said: "I have no idea who put it there. But it is possible to buy a wreath with the UKIP label in it from the British Legion shop.

Continue reading the main story “Start Quote Roger Gambba-Jones

I hope it is not a cynical ploy to promote themselves”

Conservative councillor

"This is not a time for politics. It is not the time and place to do that."

Mr Mair said veterans were honoured "because of what they did, not for what political representation they were".

"All I can do is apologise for any offence that has been caused... and express forcibly within UKIP how unhappy people are because of what was done," he said.

Mr Gambba-Jones, a South Holland district councillor, said: "I hope it is not a cynical ploy to promote themselves in a completely inappropriate environment and I hope they never make a similar mistake in the future.

"There are things where politics is appropriate and things where it is clearly inappropriate.

"The last thing you do is go and celebrate your party when we are all supposed to be one nation celebrating our dead."

After several wreaths with UKIP rosettes were laid in Plymouth, UKIP's chairman for the South West, David Salmon, said: "The logo may be a bit over the top, so next year I'll consider a smaller one.

"But I want to retain the logo because I'm proud of what we stand for."

The Royal British Legion says its poppy factory produces logos for "all the mainstream political parties".

 

Truth be told UKIP have a terrible logo. The rest of them are marginally better...

Edited November 13, 2013 by PauloBarnesi

[Danwichmann]

 

A UKIP councillor has blamed the recent storms and heavy floods across Britain on the Government's decision to legalise gay marriage.

David Silvester said the Prime Minister had acted "arrogantly against the Gospel".

In a letter to his local paper he said he had warned David Cameron the legislation would result in "disaster".

UKIP said Mr Silvester's views were "not the party's belief" but defended his right to state his opinions.

Divine retribution

Mr Silvester, from Henley-on-Thames in Oxfordshire, defected from the Tories in protest at David Cameron's support for same-sex unions.

In the letter to the Henley Standard he wrote: "The scriptures make it abundantly clear that a Christian nation that abandons its faith and acts contrary to the Gospel (and in naked breach of a coronation oath) will be beset by natural disasters such as storms, disease, pestilence and war."

He added: "I wrote to David Cameron in April 2012 to warn him that disasters would accompany the passage of his same-sex marriage bill.

"But he went ahead despite a 600,000-signature petition by concerned Christians and more than half of his own parliamentary party saying that he should not do so."

He then went to on blame the Prime Minister for the bad weather:

"It is his fault that large swathes of the nation have been afflicted by storms and floods."

He went on to say that no man, however powerful "can mess with Almighty God with impunity and get away with it".

A UKIP spokeswoman said: "It is quite evident that this is not the party's belief but the councillor's own and he is more than entitled to express independent thought despite whether or not other people may deem it standard or correct."

Independent thought made the UK "a wonderful, proud, diverse and free country".

Henley's Tory MP John Howell, said: "I thought Mr Silvester's letter was not the sort of thing that he should have written in today's age.

"He really needs to consider his position."

Link

[markavfc40]

Unbelievable. That Mr Silvester really is a right wing nut job of the highest order. To think people vote for these idiots.

[bickster]

The UKIP Shipping Forecast

[villa4europe]

[snowychap]

The UKIP Shipping Forecast

Immigration veering north. Figures variable, becoming psychotic.

 

Edit: Actually the 'over to Ambridge ... counting the cost of Adam and Ian's civil partnership' wins.

 

Excellent.

Edited January 19, 2014 by snowychap

[peterms]

Ukip Councillor and benefits fraud.

[peterms]

Ukip housing spokesperson makes vast amounts of money from housing benefit on the back of, er, immigrants.

[Awol]

Interesting that Farage has accepted Clegg's challenge for a televised debate before the EU elections in May.  Will be good to see the representatives of the eurosceptic and europhile viewpoint have a proper head to head and interrogate the other side's claims and counter claims. As equally loathsome individuals personality politics shouldn't come into it allowing a focus on the the actual issues.   

[bickster]

Clegg's that desperate he'd have a debate with Lord Such if he was still alive

[villaajax]

Interesting that Farage has accepted Clegg's challenge for a televised debate before the EU elections in May.  Will be good to see the representatives of the eurosceptic and europhile viewpoint have a proper head to head and interrogate the other side's claims and counter claims. As equally loathsome individuals personality politics shouldn't come into it allowing a focus on the the actual issues.   

 

I'm hoping that during the debate a large Monty Python foot comes down and crushes them.

[peterms]

The key to Ukip's appeal.