The 2015 General Election

[lapal_fan]

All this thread is doing is make me hate everyone involved with politics and go live in an igloo in the Arctic circle somewhere.

[chrisp65]

No, it's a statement of fact.

 

What's extracted from that logic, is that the Green Party believe we should stop going on holiday.

We should also by obvious logical extension, stop buying cars, stop using dishwashers and washing machines, stop setting off fireworks, stop buying smartphones, stop eating meat, stop, stop, stop.

 

In an economy driven by GDP figures, where buying any old shit and then buying it again in this month's new colour is a good thing, this is not a message that goes down very well.

[Demitri_C]

im sorry the greens are absolutely unelectable. they dont even know their numbers how can we trust them with our money?

[Rodders]

well we can't trust labour, tory, lib dem or ukip with theirs either tbf.

[mjmooney]

I don't think anybody considers the Greens electable as a majority party, or even want such a thing. But left-leaning voters think that a few Green MPs might pull Labour a bit more to the left, just as right wingers in reverse with UKIP and the Tories.

[tonyh29]

 

I have it here:

 

 

CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: So is flying to Spain the same as knifing someone in the street?

LUCAS: Yes it is.  People are dying from climate change.  It’s very irresponsible.

LUCAS: One person’s freedom is undermining someone else’s freedom… I would think that even you would agree people can’t go round knifing people in the street.

Well, it's a bit of a daft comparison which has been made for effect. Putting the hyperbole aside, though, the point being made is that air travel is enormously polluting and contributes significantly to climate change, which in turn is having seriously detrimental effects on people's livelihoods. There's nothing remotely controversial about that. 

 

I'm sure you'd be so forgiving had Nigel came out with the same statement 

 

was this before or after she flew to Israel on a fact finding mission .. I can't recall  ?

 

 

but anyway  , presumably,  despite her parties war on cars in Brighton , owning a car isn't quite akin to knifing people in the street , so lets see if her killings actually add up

 

 

Let’s start with a look at the most famous of jets, the Boeing 747. The Boeing website states that this model, with a gas tank capacity of 63,500 gallons, may burn five gallons of jet fuel per mile of flight. A 4,000-mile flight, then, requires 20,000 gallons of fuel. Divided among roughly 400 passengers, that’s 50 gallons of fuel to move each person aboard from, say, Chicago to London. A Honda Civic that gets 30 miles per gallon would need 133 gallons of fuel to make a trip of the same distance. Shared between two passengers  that would be 66.5 gallons per traveler. And an RV might move just seven miles on a gallon of gasoline. Split between the two people on board, that would be about 285 gallons of fuel each on a 4,000-mile tour. So far, air travel is looking to be more efficient.

 

more here

 

Edited February 24, 2015 by tonyh29

[tonyh29]

All this thread is doing is make me hate everyone involved with politics and go live in an igloo in the Arctic circle somewhere.

 

 

good luck with that , we'd have melted the Arctic in about 2 years time cause we go on planes and drive cars that don't run on solar power  ..and stuff

[Condimentalist]

No, it's a statement of fact.

 

What's extracted from that logic, is that the Green Party believe we should stop going on holiday.

We should also by obvious logical extension, stop buying cars, stop using dishwashers and washing machines, stop setting off fireworks, stop buying smartphones, stop eating meat, stop, stop, stop.

 

In an economy driven by GDP figures, where buying any old shit and then buying it again in this month's new colour is a good thing, this is not a message that goes down very well.

 

Are you on the wind up again Chris? Honest question as I know you've caught me out before. One thing it clearly isn't is a statement of fact, it might be an opinion, or it might be a deliberately controversial soundbite, but it's not a fact. 

 

The Green party doesn't believe you should stop going on holiday, but it does believe you should fly less. They definitely believe, as you have noted, that you should cut down on unnecessary and environmentally destructive consumption. So do I. 

 

Is it a message that goes down very well by those that benefit from a GDP-driven economy and the inequality that masks? No, absolutely not. That's why it's so important. 

[tonyh29]

I don't think anybody considers the Greens electable as a majority party, or even want such a thing. But left-leaning voters think that a few Green MPs might pull Labour a bit more to the left, just as right wingers in reverse with UKIP and the Tories.

 

In light of Labours leaked paper saying "The “most likely switcher”  to UKIP from Labour is a ‘worn out worker’ – a white man, aged 47 to 66, in low skilled work, unemployed, or with low prospects, living in Yorkshire... ... I understand the sentiment of what you're saying and UKIP are going to hit the Tory's more than they will Labour , but it isn't quite so black and white

[mjmooney]

 

I don't think anybody considers the Greens electable as a majority party, or even want such a thing. But left-leaning voters think that a few Green MPs might pull Labour a bit more to the left, just as right wingers in reverse with UKIP and the Tories.

 

In light of Labours leaked paper saying "The “most likely switcher”  to UKIP from Labour is a ‘worn out worker’ – a white man, aged 47 to 66, in low skilled work, unemployed, or with low prospects, living in Yorkshire... ... I understand the sentiment of what you're saying and UKIP are going to hit the Tory's more than they will Labour , but it isn't quite so black and white

 

 

Oh, I quite agree. In other news... Lucas was interviewed by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman??? 

[tonyh29]

 

No, it's a statement of fact.

 

What's extracted from that logic, is that the Green Party believe we should stop going on holiday.

We should also by obvious logical extension, stop buying cars, stop using dishwashers and washing machines, stop setting off fireworks, stop buying smartphones, stop eating meat, stop, stop, stop.

 

In an economy driven by GDP figures, where buying any old shit and then buying it again in this month's new colour is a good thing, this is not a message that goes down very well.

 

Are you on the wind up again Chris? Honest question as I know you've caught me out before. One thing it clearly isn't is a statement of fact, it might be an opinion, or it might be a deliberately controversial soundbite, but it's not a fact. 

 

The Green party doesn't believe you should stop going on holiday, but it does believe you should fly less. They definitely believe, as you have noted, that you should cut down on unnecessary and environmentally destructive consumption. So do I. 

 

Is it a message that goes down very well by those that benefit from a GDP-driven economy and the inequality that masks? No, absolutely not. That's why it's so important. 

 

 

but adding a fuel levy and VAT on aviation fuel  and planes as per their manifesto is going to add at current rates 20% minimum to the cost of a plane ticket  ... so in effect they do believe you should stop going on holiday but only if you are poor 

[Rodders]

Oh, I quite agree. In other news... Lucas was interviewed by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman???

 

yes, no point using all these short-lived plastic-faced interviewers who pollute the planet with their total rubbish when you can still use the rotting remains of a long dead liberal politician. Renewable energy etc.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Rodders

[Genie]

How on earth does the 'cost of running the office' amount to over £140,000 per year? What kind of costs go into that?

[MakemineVanilla]

Money received for speeches by Rt Hon Gordon Brown 2014:

 

£48803

£28975

£48737

£64965

£48554

£47087

£45039

 

Expenses paid by hosts.

 

Each entry has the following footnote: "I am not receiving any money from this engagement personally. It is being held by the Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown to support my ongoing involvement in public life."

 

It has to be noted that Brown has been receiving this sort of remuneration since he left office in 2010.

 

The Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown is a registered company and so it has to be assumed that forming the company was a means of avoiding income tax.

Edited February 24, 2015 by MakemineVanilla

[Condimentalist]

 

 

No, it's a statement of fact.

 

What's extracted from that logic, is that the Green Party believe we should stop going on holiday.

We should also by obvious logical extension, stop buying cars, stop using dishwashers and washing machines, stop setting off fireworks, stop buying smartphones, stop eating meat, stop, stop, stop.

 

In an economy driven by GDP figures, where buying any old shit and then buying it again in this month's new colour is a good thing, this is not a message that goes down very well.

 

Are you on the wind up again Chris? Honest question as I know you've caught me out before. One thing it clearly isn't is a statement of fact, it might be an opinion, or it might be a deliberately controversial soundbite, but it's not a fact. 

 

The Green party doesn't believe you should stop going on holiday, but it does believe you should fly less. They definitely believe, as you have noted, that you should cut down on unnecessary and environmentally destructive consumption. So do I. 

 

Is it a message that goes down very well by those that benefit from a GDP-driven economy and the inequality that masks? No, absolutely not. That's why it's so important. 

 

 

but adding a fuel levy and VAT on aviation fuel  and planes as per their manifesto is going to add at current rates 20% minimum to the cost of a plane ticket  ... so in effect they do believe you should stop going on holiday but only if you are poor 

 

 

I'd just like to point out the obvious, since it keeps being ignored, and say that going on holiday and flying are not the same thing. 

 

But sure, air fares are too cheap, so if that means that people make different decisions about where they go then that would be a good thing. Although as a leftist party the poor would probably find themselves better off under the Greens anyway; higher minimum wages, more pressure on a living wage, graduated taxation and more public services - thus perhaps they could afford the higher fares, who knows.

 

 

 

 

(obviously for the purposes of this hypothetical argument I'm ignoring the economic collapse that would probably occur if they did actually lead a government  )

[villaajax]

Natalie Bennett trying to avoid discussing her party's social housing policy.

 

This is the worst political interview I've heard since Ben Swain in The Thick of It. It's painful to listen to.

 

I thought it was the worst since... her last one.

[blandy]

No, it's a statement of fact.

 

What's extracted from that logic, is that the Green Party believe we should stop going on holiday.

We should also by obvious logical extension, stop buying cars, stop using dishwashers and washing machines, stop setting off fireworks, stop buying smartphones, stop eating meat, stop, stop, stop.

 

In an economy driven by GDP figures, where buying any old shit and then buying it again in this month's new colour is a good thing, this is not a message that goes down very well.

As Patrick said, extracting that conclusion (from an admittedly imperfect response to being talked over and trying to get a point across) is accidentally or deliberately misconstruing the basic point made, which was that climate change kills people via its consequences, and that actions which lessen the impact of it are good, actions which increase the impact are bad. Going on holiday without flying would be one way to reduce a person's impact. which is far from "not going on holiday".

 

I don't think anybody considers the Greens electable as a majority party, or even want such a thing. But left-leaning voters think that a few Green MPs might pull Labour a bit more to the left, just as right wingers in reverse with UKIP and the Tories.

Spot on.

 

...but anyway  , presumably,  despite her parties war on cars in Brighton , owning a car isn't quite akin to knifing people in the street , so lets see if her killings actually add up

 

 

Let’s start with a look at the most famous of jets, the Boeing 747. The Boeing website states that this model, with a gas tank capacity of 63,500 gallons, may burn five gallons of jet fuel per mile of flight. A 4,000-mile flight, then, requires 20,000 gallons of fuel. Divided among roughly 400 passengers, that’s 50 gallons of fuel to move each person aboard from, say, Chicago to London. A Honda Civic that gets 30 miles per gallon would need 133 gallons of fuel to make a trip of the same distance. Shared between two passengers  that would be 66.5 gallons per traveler. And an RV might move just seven miles on a gallon of gasoline. Split between the two people on board, that would be about 285 gallons of fuel each on a 4,000-mile tour. So far, air travel is looking to be more efficient.

 

more here

 

The thing with aircraft emissions isn't just about the quantity of emissions, or quantity of fuel used per person, it's about the emissions being at 30,000 feet which is far more damaging than at ground level. While efficiency  may be at the ratio given above, harmful effects of burning the fuel are far greater for aircraft.

 

Also the comparison on "efficiency" are factoring in motor vehicle occupancy and aircraft occupancy levels at a way which probably, on average per journey favours the car. For holiday travel, maybe 2 people per car is fair enough, it may even be more. For daily journeys, average occupancy is probably less than 2 per car, and aircraft occupancy is also proably not at the ratio used - a 747 may be, but a smaller aircraft? fuel costs spread amongst less people.

 

It's not so simple as the example.

 

Natalie Bennett is probably going to be replaced as Leader, along with Clegg and one of Milliband/Cameron after the election  - none of them are any good.

[blandy]

Money received for speeches by Rt Hon Gordon Brown 2014:

 

£48803

£28975

£48737

£64965

£48554

£47087

£45039

 

Expenses paid by hosts.

 

Each entry has the following footnote: "I am not receiving any money from this engagement personally. It is being held by the Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown to support my ongoing involvement in public life."

 

It has to be noted that Brown has been receiving this sort of remuneration since he left office in 2010.

 

The Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown is a registered company and so it has to be assumed that forming the company was a means of avoiding income tax.

He spends ALL of it on Charity. And serious good on him for that.

[snowychap]

Straw: 

 

...

Turkish hospitality £2.6k

Turkish hospitality £1.5k

Is that a euphemism for a sauna with a happy ending?

[markavfc40]

 

Money received for speeches by Rt Hon Gordon Brown 2014:

 

£48803

£28975

£48737

£64965

£48554

£47087

£45039

 

Expenses paid by hosts.

 

Each entry has the following footnote: "I am not receiving any money from this engagement personally. It is being held by the Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown to support my ongoing involvement in public life."

 

It has to be noted that Brown has been receiving this sort of remuneration since he left office in 2010.

 

The Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown is a registered company and so it has to be assumed that forming the company was a means of avoiding income tax.

He spends ALL of it on Charity. And serious good on him for that.

 

 

 

Good point Pete. I am sure makeminevanilla was intending to use his post to praise Gordon Brown for his charitable donations but just forgot to include a line doing so thus making it seem like a post having a dig at him.