Of course it has, - and is.
And it's growing in popularity, which is crucial.
Of course you would.
doom, gloom, denial, moan, whinge versus..
creating solutions and practicing them, positive action, lifestyle change, lobbying.
So, you're right. I don't belong in this thread with you.
Bye.
Such a huge difference, in fact, that I've never heard of it - and I take a keen interest in what the AGW community is up to. But then, I like to read science, not meaningless waffle.
Really? A keen interest? But yet you've not bothered with the Centre for Alternative Technology
Why not search for Transition on either of those sites? You might learn something.
Perhaps these organisations are not 'scientific enough for you? In that case, why not read a bit about the Peak Oil problem itself, described as early as 1949 by Dr. M. King Hubbert? Heard of Ron Swenson or Professor Albert Bartlett?
I'll pick another one at random, as an exercise you can get your teeth into. Try Dr. Robert Kaufmann's lecture, available at:
You read minds? How odd.
Thanks but I have enough arsewipe.
Yes, I thought as much. Interesting secret selective snipping there too, - I notice.
I was only providing you with some science because you said you like to read some. I did suspect that your version of 'science' is only credible if it matches your own pre-chosen and entrenched viewpoint. somehow, I knew you would prove me correct.
Goodbye.
Hopefully this bit at least is true.
youre only in a position to credibly claim there's denial if you can scientifically establish your POV. And you certainly cant.
In this thread you havent even tried to.
NT
Rubbish.
So only matters that have been scientifically established (whatever that means) can be denied?
Right; "I deny that GW is caused mainly by natural earth-temperature cycles".
My denial does not lose it's credibility simply because you are not able to scientifically establish that it is.
Issues such as these are impossible to establish as true or false. As you know, it is a balance of probability, - based on thousands of studies and scientific opinions. I am quite convinced that the balance of probability lies heavily in the 'caused by human CO2 emissions' camp. But you may deny my truth, - just as I deny yours.
Oh but they are. I have just been reading an interesting book called "Who owns Britain" which is a fine example of how self interest wins over enlightenment
or a good reason to tighten up on terrorist laws
Indeed. I dont hold a candle to this lot either
True
That has good points and bad
Good, in that Joe down the pub has little or no interest in the workings of government or respect for MPs and I cant see that changing any time soon
Whereas he will get very involved in issues where he feels personally interested, such as closing the local school (or pub) It would be good if the political system made use of this enthusiasm, so he feels that he can, with others, really make a difference
But if devolution happens then it is not on to cry 'postcode lottery' You cant have it both ways
Or maybe you can so shuffling money between (say) Hampstead and Toxteth and drawing up minimum standards is a good function of national (or possibly EU) government
Bad, in that I cant think of a single good example of devolution happening in practice. It is in the power building person's self interest to aggregate but never to devolve
In a similar vein, the tendency is for rules to multiply, there doesnt seem to be any counter mechanism for getting rid of them. Road signs are a good example of this. When did a road sign ever get taken away?
There is a money argument against devolution. In Norfolk, several District Councils are amalgamating back office services to save money. Or is this an argument that there are just too many tiers of government
Anna
It doesn't help when you talk about "your truth". Truth is truth, what you and I have is opinions, nothing more. Don't turn it into a religion.
The balance of probability is that GW is all bollocks, if only because politicians are so keen on it.
snip
ok
well...
I agree. But the green agenda is much more than that single point. It is, in summary:
To warrant following the green agenda all above points would need to be correct. This is far from the case.
NT
Any science, to the uneducated, is indistinguishable from magic. Any bullshit, to the untrained, is indistinguishable from science. Cf the 'New Scientist'
Indeed. I WANT a postcode lottery., Or rather a postcode CHOICE. You move to place X, it has more or less council tax, better or worse schools, better or worse public transport, better or worse hospitals. That's YOUR CHOICE.
If you want 509% of your council tax devoted to gay support groups, move to Brighton.
etc.
If toxteth has special needs, let it get central govt or EU funding, but make that the exception, NIOT the rule.
USA is a federation of quasi autonomous States. Switzerland is a scottish N/.Irish and welsh assemblies have considerable sway over local affirs., As in fact does London. All Swedish schools are semi private, but state funded.,, Certainly no WORSE than ours.
I think you may be in for a shock if the Tories get in. I think it will be red pen through most of the legislation of the last ten years and a 'this is not a governments problem' as a standard response.
It may take lengthy debate and amendments to get statutes ON the books (or indeed, in many cases no debate at all) but it takes no input by the law lords to remove it. Once its been mandated, off it goes. There is nothing to argue about in terms of fine detail.
I suspect the latter. I mean not only those councils, but we have EEDA, EERA..chop the ruddy lot. Never done anyone any good.
I want a parish, or town council with teeth, whose councillors addresses are known and whose windows I can smash if needs be. Pour encourager les autres. I want them to have almost complete power of local affairs. Because I can get to them. And I want my local taxes and VAT to go to them, not central govt, to spend as I want. Not as central govt decrees.
Central government should be there for anything too big for the county to handle. As the county is there for things too big for a parish/borough to handle.
Well yes. That's where the likes of the Daily Mail fail to educate people by one day running a "decisions made by faceless Whitehall mandarins" and the next - in a derogatory way - banging on about postcode lotteries. As you rightly say, devolution does mean that local decision making bodies will set different priorities.
Back when I was a BCO it was in a London borough which was formerly three smaller councils, and building control operated as three districts following the former council boundaries. Each of us three district inspectors was allowed to run our patch as we chose, which we did - three very different styles, reflecting our backgrounds and personalities. It was a very happy place to work, and I think that the same standards were achieved in each area, but by different means.
Then we got a new boss who declared that it was ridiculous for someone to submit virtually the same plan three times to the same council and get three different responses - an approval (from someone who was confident that any small things could be resolved on site and who spent most of his time on site inspections), a phone call asking for an amendment letter (me), or a letter with 36 queries (from someone who wanted every last detail right at plan stage). I guess the boss had a point, but within a short time of us being required to implement a unified approach we had all left. But I do see it from the customer's pov: you do expect some consistency.
Not really. There still IS inconsistency between BCO's. And judges. |And magistrates. All part of life's rich tapestry.
Solomons judgement: you want fair, cut the baby in half.
Moral one: the real mother wont stand for it and relinquishes her claim.
Moral two, don't go crying to higher authority when you should be sorting it out earlier at lower level.
Moral three, if you do, dont bitch about summary judgement.
The name of the game is to see which inspector you have, have a nice chat, see what he wants, and give it to him. Respect.
I am interested in what causes a change towards devolution which wasnt in place before, because I dont believe it is likely to happen without a big external push (or maybe I am wrong)
Scottish and Welsh Assemblies - Lots of demand by the electorate of the countries as translated into votes for Plaid Cymru and SNP
Northern Ireland - I'm not sure - was it the compromise that was made between nationalists and unioinists?
London - Again I am not sure. It seems a sensible thing to do, but that was never a good reason for something to happen
Well I hope they do, but I doubt it. Tories are not anarchists, they are more of the same bunch as the current lot, with the added point that most (all?) of the ministers will not have done the job before so civil servants will have more power than now - and civil servants are not known for sweeping away legislation
Yes I want that too. It is how to achieve it that is the difficult (and interesting) consideration
A
There is always inconsistency, but there needs to be some framework for comparison, for the benefit of the judge as well
Eg hospital A and hospital B both offer hip replacement ops, with a X week waiting list and a Y% success rate. Unless Joe Public knows X and Y for each hospital he cant make an informed decision of were to go for his op
A
People who care about a country remaining rich and powerful, and who have more than two brain cells to rub together.
People who understand systems theory, who know that larger feedback loops don't react fast, nor appropriately, to local disturbances.
Peole who feel that ultimately, rather than the government taking half of what they earn and giving them back services they dont want or need, and not giving them what they do want and need, and could pay for if the taxes hadn't gone to support and army of bureaucrats that are employed at huge expense to make sure that, in the name of egalitarianism, everyone gets the same shoddy service and is equally miserable..
esssntially yes. It was the face saving way out. Sinn Fein can claim they 'got the british out of ireland' and the unionists didn't get hung out to dry and could still march up and down in orange T shirts being rude to catholics.
Either at some deep level the concepts of 'good for the nation' and 'efficient delivery of services' actually means more than political sound bites, or it does not. If not then god help us. 1984 looms.
With luck economics will force efficiency rather than egalitarianism on us.
Efficiency is the man on the spot taking responsibility and making a decision, and being held accountable for it, and progressing upwards if his decisions proved effective.
Equality is some overreaching one size fits all regulation, whose origins are lost in the mists of a political compromise at some late night sitting attended by half a dozen people, being handed down to street level and applied completely indiscriminately as a rule to be followed blindly.
Efficiency is educating people about risk, and letting them take them.
Equality is about enforcing no risk policies. And treating the most discerning equally as the most complete plonkers.
Under the law, there is no distinction betweeen doing 50mph down the Finchley road in rush hour (assuming one could) or at 4 a.m, when even the drunks are in the doorways, and its green all the way to Swiss Cottage.
Efficiency menas that when you stop a motorist, and find and unloaded target pistol in a locked trunk in the back of his car, unloaded and with the safety on, and he shows you his membership card of the highgate shooting club, you don't arrest him as a terrorist
Equality means that the only person you don't arrest, is the man with the long beard and turban waving a machine gun, because that's racist.
The civil service has less power. Of decisions at any rate. They are merely the instruments to ruber stamp legislation and apply it.
How many times do we hear Tim and Colin say 'well we can't because government says' etc etc.
The key is efficiency. IF taht becomes the guiding principle, efficiency and cost benefit, then sanity will return. There are a lot of smart radicals in the tory party - not at the center of it, but providing a stream of radical ideas. What is needed is the excuse to apply it: And this recession aint over yet. Far from it. IF there is no return to boom, this country is effectively bankrupt. And its hard to see where growth will come..we are already over crowded, and under resourced, and without the City, which is a busted flush, we dont actually DO anything that anyone else wants or needs.
Right now, we are less effective than India at paying our way, and that's really the sort of standar of living we should be at, instead of living on borrowed time and borrowed money.
Borrowed from Arabs and Chinese. That's who owns the country now.
Vote Tory.
Its supposed to be part of their plan.
I know they will inevitably disappoint, but it's the best hope there is.
At the moment he has no choice. So it matters little.
But see previous post, educate and inform, don't legislate and dictate.
And gives us the choice having made it an INFORMED choice.
Well, we agree on some of the above, at least. I would add at least two other of the above to my 'agree with' list. But that is also assuming that those 6 items make up the difinitive list; which I don't believe it does - even remotely. And I'm clueless about what you mean by 'the green agenda'. Even if there is such a thing, there are many different flavours and concentrations.
We've probably done this to death now.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.