The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[StanSP]

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

A Director of Humanity if you will, who’s task it is to align the global population via localised pressure

 

Someone fetch me the  @Benguin as they might have an idea….

 

Well, as I've said before, the unified solution has to come about somehow, I'm not massively fussed about the how simply because practically any "how" would be better than the consequences of it not happening.

[Bellend Sebastian]

4 minutes ago, StanSP said:

 

 

I don't think this has sunk in with a lot of people yet. When their current deals come to an end folk will be in for a nasty shock

[fox_up_north]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Market forces haven't exactly been doing a great job of stabilising the global average temperature increase, have they?

 

Government intervention here might not be the worst idea.

I'll let you re read my post and pick up on the tone

[fox_up_north]

27 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I don't think this has sunk in with a lot of people yet. When their current deals come to an end folk will be in for a nasty shock

I'm fixed til 2025 and going to overpay what I can. Hopefully, by then, Labour will be in power and the markets will have calmed down a little. I'm expecting around 4-5% which, if I overpay, should mean I am still paying roughly the same amount as I am now.

 

Of course, this means I have absolutely no incentive to buy a bigger home and contribute to the big housing machine that governments desperately try to keep going. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

I'll let you re read my post and pick up on the tone

 

I've been Poe'd big time. Well played.

[Bellend Sebastian]

8 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

I'm fixed til 2025 and going to overpay what I can. Hopefully, by then, Labour will be in power and the markets will have calmed down a little. I'm expecting around 4-5% which, if I overpay, should mean I am still paying roughly the same amount as I am now.

 

Of course, this means I have absolutely no incentive to buy a bigger home and contribute to the big housing machine that governments desperately try to keep going. 

Barely a couple of weeks ago I was talking to a bloke who fixed for 10 years earlier this year at 3.25% and I thought at the time that was a bold move, but now I think he'll probably be pretty pleased he did that.

 

I fixed MOST of mine earlier this year for 5 years and I'm hoping to have stepped up my overpayments over that period. I really cannot see myself ever moving unless I get an unexpected inheritance or something

[RobHawk]

2 hours ago, Fazzer 7 said:

A labour SNP coalition. The stuff of nightmares for any right leaning person. Labour think they have all the answers, they haven’t. We along with everyone else are suffering because of major global events causing unprecedented global debt. Let’s just hope the Chinese don’t wade into Taiwan otherwise things will get a whole lot worse. 

Oh **** off!! As if it's got nothing to do with the fact the ruling party have strangulated the living shit out of this country since it got into power, then took us out the EU which has cost us a fortune, then decided to spend spend spend on nothing! 

 

The Tory's are the reason we are fairer alot poorer than many other countries around the world. 

[rachhere]

14 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

I'm fixed til 2025 and going to overpay what I can. Hopefully, by then, Labour will be in power and the markets will have calmed down a little. I'm expecting around 4-5% which, if I overpay, should mean I am still paying roughly the same amount as I am now.

 

Of course, this means I have absolutely no incentive to buy a bigger home and contribute to the big housing machine that governments desperately try to keep going. 

I am planning the same approach. Another advantage is that you to unlock better rates by having a lower loan to value, so there's potential benefits to be had there too. 

[fox_up_north]

4 minutes ago, rachhere said:

I am planning the same approach. Another advantage is that you to unlock better rates by having a lower loan to value, so there's potential benefits to be had there too. 

My LTV is likely to be around 30-35% by that point, so it SHOULD be ok. 

[Fazzer 7]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

On the above:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63209451

 

"To meet climate goals, a third of cuts to UK emissions by 2035 must come from people changing their behaviour, it says.

It calls the government's current approach "seriously inadequate"."

 

"The committee was told the public are eager for action and that 85% of people are very concerned by climate change.

Public messaging campaigns have huge power to change behaviour, the report says, highlighting the huge uptake of recycling nationwide.

But it insists that fairness must be at the heart of change. The wealthiest 10% in Britain have a carbon footprint nearly double the national average, and greater responsibility to reduce their emissions, the committee was told.

It also warned that corporate interest may try to prevent behaviour change - pointing to tobacco companies that undermined anti-smoking campaigns - and the government must guard against this."

What are other Countries who are much larger emitters of greenhouse gases doing to reduce their emissions of co2? To me it seems like the UK is trying to save the planet by ourselves, which, as we're only responsible for around 1% isn't going to save the planet is it. 

[urban.spaceman]

 

 

[WigstonWanderer]

4 hours ago, Daggers said:

Paraphrasing S. Lee esq.: "It wasn't just ***** who voted for poverty, thick twats did too."

 

 

Had to stop watching that. Cringeworthy and embarrassing.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

What are other Countries who are much larger emitters of greenhouse gases doing to reduce their emissions of co2? To me it seems like the UK is trying to save the planet by ourselves, which, as we're only responsible for around 1% isn't going to save the planet is it. 

We've discussed this before and the point remains the same: this is a global effort, the UK included. Either it fulfils its obligation to the future (in which case it helps preserve the world or will be remembered by those few left as one of the ones who tried to stave off failure) or it doesn't and engages the rest of the world in a communal race to the bottom (in which case "those few left" will be the inevitable outcome and they will, rightly, view everyone concerned as genocidal ignoramuses far worse than any others in history).

 

Why is this argument resurfacing when it is both fallacious and actually doesn't supply any kind of solution to the problem, just looks to fob off the blame for the consequences somewhere else (incorrectly, I might add)? Hardly constructive.

[Robo61]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

We've discussed this before and the point remains the same: this is a global effort, the UK included. Either it fulfils its obligation to the future (in which case it helps preserve the world or will be remembered by those few left as one of the ones who tried to stave off failure) or it doesn't and engages the rest of the world in a communal race to the bottom (in which case "those few left" will be the inevitable outcome and they will, rightly, view everyone concerned as genocidal ignoramuses far worse than any others in history).

 

Why is this argument resurfacing when it is both fallacious and actually doesn't supply any kind of solution to the problem, just looks to fob off the blame for the consequences somewhere else (incorrectly, I might add)? Hardly constructive.

Just a few statistics to try to explain why I and I'm guessing you believe we in the west have the greatest resposibiity to change in this area.  Global Co2 emmisions since 1750 amount around 1.5 trillion tone.  North America and Europes share of that is around 62%  despite our share of the worlds population combined amounting to around 17%.  This has contributed greatly to our relative wealth,  wealth which we should be using to help the world overt the impending distater. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

Just a few statistics to try to explain why I and I'm guessing you believe we in the west have the greatest resposibiity to change in this area.  Global Co2 emmisions since 1750 amount around 1.5 trillion tone.  North America and Europes share of that is around 62%  despite our share of the worlds population combined amounting to around 17%.  This has contributed greatly to our relative wealth,  wealth which we should be using to help the world overt the impending distater. 

Yep, that's one big part of it and thank you for coming in with some hard numbers.

 

But another big reason for me is a simple one; this problem will hit everyone. The effects won't stop at national borders and wait to have they passport stamped and/or not go in simply because that country wasn't "all that responsible" in the first place.

 

This is a global problem, requiring a global solution that goes beyond petty nation states. The only reason that nation states should be considered in the equation at all is to facilitate the logistics of the solution...or to know who to hold responsible if it isn't applied (which is the only area where responsibility is relevant at all in this case).

[rachhere]

Anyone got a dummies guide to economic policy to lend them?

[Daggers]

The best outcome now is that no one ever listens to a trickle down, Thatcheresque, “I call myself a traditional liberal”, libertarian cøckwand ever again. Their policies failed last time - they are spectacularly failing again now. 

[Dunge]

3 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

Already been ruled out and would be electoral suicide for Labour even if they did consider it. Have another go.

I think the question here isn’t “what are they promising” but “what would they actually do?”

With Corbyn for instance, I believed it very likely that he would team up with the SNP because there wasn’t that much between them and he would have wanted a majority for his once-in-a-lifetime-chance revolutionary policies. The SNP were demanding that Trident not be renewed, for instance. Corbyn had promised it would, but everyone knew he didn’t believe in it and neither did his inner circle. It could have been a convenient negotiation point for him.

 

This probably didn’t matter so much in terms of votes because I doubt many considering voting Corbyn’s Labour would have been put off by the SNP. But for Milliband I think the effect could have been more pronounced. For Starmer, he has to make sure not only that he says no deal with the SNP, but that people believe him too. (I am inclined to.) It’ll be interesting to see what negotiating platform the SNP stand on at the next election for this, because ultimately the best result for them is propping up a Labour government. But what will they demand? (Aside from the obvious.)

[Rain King]

2 hours ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I don't think this has sunk in with a lot of people yet. When their current deals come to an end folk will be in for a nasty shock

Yep, I have exactly a year til my 5 year fixed term is up.

 

Currently at around 2% dread to think what it will be this time next year.

[Fazzer 7]

45 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

We've discussed this before and the point remains the same: this is a global effort, the UK included. Either it fulfils its obligation to the future (in which case it helps preserve the world or will be remembered by those few left as one of the ones who tried to stave off failure) or it doesn't and engages the rest of the world in a communal race to the bottom (in which case "those few left" will be the inevitable outcome and they will, rightly, view everyone concerned as genocidal ignoramuses far worse than any others in history).

 

Why is this argument resurfacing when it is both fallacious and actually doesn't supply any kind of solution to the problem, just looks to fob off the blame for the consequences somewhere else (incorrectly, I might add)? Hardly constructive.

Whether it's constructive or not. The inescapable fact is, the UK's 1 or even 2% of global emissions is tiny in comparison to just China's alone. 

[Itsthejoeker]

2 hours ago, fox_up_north said:

I'm fixed til 2025 and going to overpay what I can. Hopefully, by then, Labour will be in power and the markets will have calmed down a little. I'm expecting around 4-5% which, if I overpay, should mean I am still paying roughly the same amount as I am now.

 

Of course, this means I have absolutely no incentive to buy a bigger home and contribute to the big housing machine that governments desperately try to keep going. 

Fairly new home owner here, also fixed until 2025. How do you work out overpayments and impact on potential costs post fixed period?

[foxes1988]

5 minutes ago, Itsthejoeker said:

Fairly new home owner here, also fixed until 2025. How do you work out overpayments and impact on potential costs post fixed period?

this is pretty goods at working out what you can save with overpayments whcih you are typically allowed to pay up 10% of the amount you owed at the start of the calender year.  Only thing with the calculator is that you can only enter in one interest rate.

 

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/mortgages/mortgage-overpayment-calculator/

 

 

[foxes1988]

17 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Whether it's constructive or not. The inescapable fact is, the UK's 1 or even 2% of global emissions is tiny in comparison to just China's alone. 

The inescapable fact is earth doesn't care if the UK produces 1 or 2 % emissions it will 'punish' us all the same.  Bare in mind that the UK's accumulative emissions since the industrial revolution is probably higher then 1 or 2 percent total also.  I believe its around 5% when taking into account all time emissions which still doesn't take into account that we outsource our co2 emissions to china and the like so again would probably be higher.  Now when you consider the UK doesn't even account for 1 % of the world population would seem we are definitely in debt to many many countries around the world on this regard. 

Edited 12 October 2022 by foxes1988

[Captain...]

8 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Whether it's constructive or not. The inescapable fact is, the UK's 1 or even 2% of global emissions is tiny in comparison to just China's alone. 

We're also not the only country actively looking to reduce our emissions. Lots of European countries are on a similar path, some are further ahead than us, others have further to go but most of the EU countries are signed up to reducing emissions significantly and that historically accounted for 23% of global emissions but is now down to around 6.5% thanks in part to all these reductions. 

 

I will never understand the argument that someone being worse than you means you shouldn't try to be better.