Also in the News - Part 2

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Daggers said:

 

Of course it is manufactured.

 

Fear and loathing of the "other" has been a productive output for those with power since time immemorial. The methods have just become more sophisticated.

[Facecloth]

Caroline Lucas, the only Green MP, will stand down at the next election.

 

@leicsmac just wonder on your thoughts on this. On the radio they are talking about why a party like Greens haven't made more impact in politics when the enviroment is such a pressing issue. A member of the party called in and said the reason is they concentrate too much on the environment. They actually have plenty if good social policies but they don't push them enough and they could actually do more for the environment if they actually didn't push their environmental policies so much. As we've discussed before it's hard to get people switched on the the environment issue when they can't feed their kids. So do you think a change of tact, backing off a bit on the environment and offer more in other areas would be beneficial to the fight, because I do tend to agree.

[Dunge]

10 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Caroline Lucas, the only Green MP, will stand down at the next election.

 

@leicsmac just wonder on your thoughts on this. On the radio they are talking about why a party like Greens haven't made more impact in politics when the enviroment is such a pressing issue. A member of the party called in and said the reason is they concentrate too much on the environment. They actually have plenty if good social policies but they don't push them enough and they could actually do more for the environment if they actually didn't push their environmental policies so much. As we've discussed before it's hard to get people switched on the the environment issue when they can't feed their kids. So do you think a change of tact, backing off a bit on the environment and offer more in other areas would be beneficial to the fight, because I do tend to agree.

Speaking personally, I’d say it’s the exact opposite way around. If they were a single-issue environment party I’d be far more inclined to lend them my vote. But their social policies are far too left wing for me and make them impossible to vote for.

 

As I say, speaking personally.

[Facecloth]

24 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Speaking personally, I’d say it’s the exact opposite way around. If they were a single-issue environment party I’d be far more inclined to lend them my vote. But their social policies are far too left wing for me and make them impossible to vote for.

 

As I say, speaking personally.

That's solely your personal opinion though, what you need to do is take yourself out that mindset and think, to the people who would like their social policies, would they be more likely to vote for them if those policies were put out there more than when they just concentrate on green issues. If you can't feed your kids but also care about the environment are you more likely to vote for a party you know will help you but won't help the environment as much or would you vote for a party that you back their environment policies but you don't think will help you feed your family? It's just discussion on what the greens could do to gain more support from people who would genuinely support their social policies, and if that would in turn help them push their environmental policies, not if it would attract yourself as someone who already knows you don't like them.

Edited 8 June 2023 by Facecloth

[Dunge]

9 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

That's solely your personal opinion though, what you need to do is take yourself out that mindset and think, to the people who would like their social policies, would they be more likely to vote for them if those policies were put out there more than when they just concentrate on green issues. If you can't feed your kids but also care about the environment are you more likely to vote for a party you know will help you but won't help the environment as much or would you vote for a party that you back their environment policies but you don't think will help you feed your family? It's just discussion on what the greens could do to gain more support from people who would genuinely support their social policies, and if that would in turn help them push their environmental policies, not if it would attract yourself as someone who already knows you don't like them.

Totally agree, and leaving it open for others to respond. 
 

(I wasn’t trying to offer a conclusion, just an opinion/perspective.)

Edited 8 June 2023 by Dunge

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Facecloth said:

Caroline Lucas, the only Green MP, will stand down at the next election.

 

@leicsmac just wonder on your thoughts on this. On the radio they are talking about why a party like Greens haven't made more impact in politics when the enviroment is such a pressing issue. A member of the party called in and said the reason is they concentrate too much on the environment. They actually have plenty if good social policies but they don't push them enough and they could actually do more for the environment if they actually didn't push their environmental policies so much. As we've discussed before it's hard to get people switched on the the environment issue when they can't feed their kids. So do you think a change of tact, backing off a bit on the environment and offer more in other areas would be beneficial to the fight, because I do tend to agree.

This is an interesting topic and thanks for bringing it up. For what it's worth I reckon both you and @Dunge are right but in different ways.

 

I think that the actual problem is a mix of what both you and he have mentioned - there is an issue with the Green Party where they become known as a one-issue party because their other policies aren't communicated as well as they need to be, but at the same time there are a fair few people who look at their non-environmental policies and simply consider them to be too radical. I align with a great deal (though not all) of their social policies, but I also understand that mostly they offer a snapshot of hopefully where humanity will be in a few decades time rather than now. And that serves a purpose in of itself, because parties pushing for radical progress like that does help such progress be made through highlighting what changes we can make for the better, even when they're not in power.

 

And that actually plays rather nicely into my next point, actually - the Greens likely aren't going to get much foothold in terms of policy because any policy that they have that appears popular will be co-opted by the big two parties. I mean, I bet if you look at Green Party policy from the early to late 90's then it will match up pretty well with what we have now.

 

So as such, I think them bringing these issues to the fore isn't going to get them power no matter what they focus on, but they are playing a part in change happening anyway.

 

NB. WRT to environmental policy in general, I've said this before but I'll repeat it - it is a matter of supreme irrelevance what we "think" or "feel" on the matter in terms of policymaking, except as a conduit to what we then "do", because the laws of thermodynamics only care about that. And that is what matters. Our opponent here is the laws of physics, and emotionalism really shouldn't come into the decision making much at all except as a means to generate necessary action, IMO.

[HighPeakFox]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

This is an interesting topic and thanks for bringing it up. For what it's worth I reckon both you and @Dunge are right but in different ways.

 

I think that the actual problem is a mix of what both you and he have mentioned - there is an issue with the Green Party where they become known as a one-issue party because their other policies aren't communicated as well as they need to be, but at the same time there are a fair few people who look at their non-environmental policies and simply consider them to be too radical. I align with a great deal (though not all) of their social policies, but I also understand that mostly they offer a snapshot of hopefully where humanity will be in a few decades time rather than now. And that serves a purpose in of itself, because parties pushing for radical progress like that does help such progress be made through highlighting what changes we can make for the better, even when they're not in power.

 

And that actually plays rather nicely into my next point, actually - the Greens likely aren't going to get much foothold in terms of policy because any policy that they have that appears popular will be co-opted by the big two parties. I mean, I bet if you look at Green Party policy from the early to late 90's then it will match up pretty well with what we have now.

 

So as such, I think them bringing these issues to the fore isn't going to get them power no matter what they focus on, but they are playing a part in change happening anyway.

 

NB. WRT to environmental policy in general, I've said this before but I'll repeat it - it is a matter of supreme irrelevance what we "think" or "feel" on the matter in terms of policymaking, except as a conduit to what we then "do", because the laws of thermodynamics only care about that. And that is what matters. Our opponent here is the laws of physics, and emotionalism really shouldn't come into the decision making much at all except as a means to generate necessary action, IMO.

I agree with Nick.

[Daggers]

50 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

I agree with Nick.

Honestly. I have met @Nick, nobody would ever agree with him on anything. 

[HighPeakFox]

Just now, Daggers said:

Honestly. I have met @Nick, nobody would ever agree with him on anything. 

I knew someone would go there. I wonder how many people know what I was referencing.

[Daggers]

1 minute ago, HighPeakFox said:

I knew someone would go there. I wonder how many people know what I was referencing.

Everyone who also didn’t agree with Nick when he big spoon little spooned his partners in government and enabled their austerity measures. 

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

I agree with Nick.

Those were the days.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65852062

 

"Former US President Donald Trump has been indicted over his handling of classified documents after he left the White House."

 

I don't suppose it's too much to expect that at some point some of this mud might actually stick?

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours ago, Daggers said:

Everyone who also didn’t agree with Nick when he big spoon little spooned his partners in government and enabled their austerity measures. 

Liberal folks certainly don't like compromise.  I remain convinced that the coalition was a lot more centrist than the Conservatives would have been alone, and Nick did a decent job.

[Jattdogg]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65852062

 

"Former US President Donald Trump has been indicted over his handling of classified documents after he left the White House."

 

I don't suppose it's too much to expect that at some point some of this mud might actually stick?

Debbie downer here.

 

This will propel him to the presidency

 

Hope the charges stick but this man is the Everton equivalent.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Jattdogg said:

Debbie downer here.

 

This will propel him to the presidency

 

Hope the charges stick but this man is the Everton equivalent.

Yeah, Teflon Don, the turd that won't flush. I can certainly see the point of view.

 

I guess we'll find out in due course.

[Jattdogg]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, Teflon Don, the turd that won't flush. I can certainly see the point of view.

 

I guess we'll find out in due course.

Yes.

 

See McCarthy already sucking trumps sausage.

 

Republicans are a joke of a party. Not to say dema arent either but sure take the cake.

[Jon the Hat]

Not so convinced Trump is unbeatable.  Seems to have a solid base but needs more than that.  A few pointing out he seems isolated - no family around him this time.

[BKLFox]

Anyone can pluck a higher number out the air to beat off the competition but this just goes to show all the promises & pledges made during an election campaign are worthless until your sat in charge of the purse strings & living in the moment.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65853872

[leicsmac]

48 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

Anyone can pluck a higher number out the air to beat off the competition but this just goes to show all the promises & pledges made during an election campaign are worthless until your sat in charge of the purse strings & living in the moment.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65853872

Yep. It is what people - and parties - do - which is what matters.

 

Of course, inaction on this particular matter itself has a future cost that will be extremely high.

[Zear0]

 

[spacemunky]

3 hours ago, BKLFox said:

 to beat off the competition

 

In before @Jattdogg

 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Zear0 said:

 

There's always a quote. Or a Tweet.

 

The truly depressing - and scary - thing is that he has managed to motivate a statistically significant number of voters and Repub politicians to buy into his hypocrisy and faux victim narrative and subvert the very idea of truth.

[grobyfox1990]

6 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

 

Yeh exactly, he's not broken any laws and (in the name of almighty God and the American people) he's going to drain the swamp of all those who do break the law. We all know this. What is this tweet meant to be other than a Trump promotional video, not clever or new

[RobHawk]

4 hours ago, BKLFox said:

Anyone can pluck a higher number out the air to beat off the competition but this just goes to show all the promises & pledges made during an election campaign are worthless until your sat in charge of the purse strings & living in the moment.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65853872

I'm pretty sure (happy to be proved wrong) that this pledge was initially made around a year ago before Liz truss was let loose on the country purse strings. 

 

After that, I remember labour saying it was committed to it's pledges but would need to review them to ensure they remained affordable in light of the change to the country's finances. 

 

This seems to me to be that review.

 

So the whole point you are making is null and void, no promises have been made during an election campaign as there has been no election campaign.

 

This appears to be labour trying to be fiscally responsible, whilst presenting some of what they would do if they were in power. The Tory's, whilst not such a shitshow right now, still seem void of ideas to actually move the country forward. 

[BKLFox]

21 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

I'm pretty sure (happy to be proved wrong) that this pledge was initially made around a year ago before Liz truss was let loose on the country purse strings. 

 

After that, I remember labour saying it was committed to it's pledges but would need to review them to ensure they remained affordable in light of the change to the country's finances. 

 

This seems to me to be that review.

 

So the whole point you are making is null and void, no promises have been made during an election campaign as there has been no election campaign.

 

This appears to be labour trying to be fiscally responsible, whilst presenting some of what they would do if they were in power. The Tory's, whilst not such a shitshow right now, still seem void of ideas to actually move the country forward. 

The comment wasn't an attack on any party but a generalisation on promises & pledges (by any party), i just used that story as it came out today & fits the generalisation.

I'm big enough to correct the words ".......made during an election campaign" to ".....'made at anytime' are worthless until your sat in charge of the purse strings & living in the moment"