How is the Tory Government Doing?

Sluffy wrote:


Thanks Bonce, I somehow think there is in there some form of apology to me in the grief you gave me back in those days.

(Fwiw I wasn't wrong about the Supporters Trust either!).

Johnson was the country's MP and deliberately and constantly lied.

You simply cannot allow that - in completely undermines the credibility of having a Parliament - you might just as well have a dictator like Putin and Xi.

The thing that I was trying to get across to W63, although I know he is not listening, is that Boris - and more in particular the ones behind him, Rabb, Truss, etc - ARE exactly like Trump and his MAGA Republicans because they all follow the same Left wing Libertinism - which in its simplest terms is to get rid of government altogether and the rich 'oligarchs' basically run the country instead with Putin, Xi, Trump, Boris being all powerful.

Rabb Truss etc have crossed the Atlantic many times to attended Right wing Libertinism meetings and in more recent years been guest speakers of them.

They - Trump, the current Republican Party, Rabb, Truss, Kwarteng, all believe in the ideology  and you can even see parallels between the USA and Boris group - such as how Liz Cheney was hounded out of office for speaking against Trump and Dorries stating yesterday that anyone voting against Boris when discussing the inquiry's findings will be de-selected.

I know what I've been saying sounds far fetched but it really is what is happening in the same way Militant tried to take over the Labour Party in Kinnock's day.

I'm not sure myself Boris is such a big Libertinism himself, I tend to think it was more a marriage of convenience for him to use them to get into power and them to use him to push through their polices once he was.  

Clearly he didn't push their polices too hard when be became PM as evidenced in  how Truss did with her mini budget at the very first opportunity.

I tend to think Truss Rees Mogg and the ones that are left have now have lost their power base and the support for Boris has now come to  an end.

Hope so anyway.

Obviously I don’t concur with most of that Sluffy, my “closed mind” of course, but I do agree that Boris is finished, or at least for now. The Tory’s will lose the next election, Labour will implode under Captain Hindsight and by the time of the next election in 5 or 6 years it may well be that Boris is back in charge of a very different Conservative Party. I’m not saying I want that but we know from politics world wide that politicians make comebacks, Berlusconi” the best example although he certainly won’t be coming back again but possibly Trump could and so could Boris who despite everything still somehow retains a core following. Stranger things have happened!! 🥴

Whitesince63 wrote:Sluffy, you’re at it again! We can’t STOP global warming, nobody can, yet you keep insisting that scientists believe we can. Even if you accept that reducing the use of fossil fuels to produce energy will help, it isn’t anywhere near enough to prevent what is naturally occurring. I don’t need to watch the BBC video, not because I have a closed mind but because I believe you and it isn’t just Africa is it? 

I have kids and grandkids and whilst I’d love them to have the FACTS on the whole global warming subject I’m sad to say that all they are being fed is the one sided view that we adults ourselves are being bludgeoned with. Our Universities are the same and not just on Global warming but many other subjects without any counter view being allowed. It’s called brainwashing and it’s going on right now under your nose. I genuinely fear for my grandkids, not because of global warming or something they can’t actually change but because of the mixed up cesspit of a world that we’re leaving them To deal with.

Fwiw, I wasn't talking to you in my post above, I was simply responding to Canjun's cryptic comment that I presumed (maybe wrongly?) was aimed at me.

It is abundantly clear to all of us that wild horses couldn't change your mind and I believe everyone who knows anything about basic chemistry would agree that limiting carbon gasses into the atmosphere would help to stop the growth of global warming - so it's blindingly obvious to reduce the reliance and use of carbon base fossil fuels (which are one of the greatest emitters of carbon into the atmosphere (which helps create the 'greenhouse effect' - and hence global warming) and replace them with carbon neutral energy sources such as wind turbines and solar energy.

You are correct that global warming (and cooling) has taken places many times in the Earth's history - always naturally, such as super-massive volcano outpourings with their carbon gas immersions - and from all these occasions scientists are able to work out the timescales of how quickly Earth heated up due to these natural occurrences.

It is quite clear however that none of them have ever increased anything like as quickly as have happened over the last century and a half.

The rate of global warming is increasing on a faster scale as each year goes on.

These findings are unprecedented and leads to the only conclusion that this bout of global warming is man made through carbon release into the atmosphere by fossil fuel, chopping down the jungles (trees release oxygen - so less oxygen going into the atmosphere) and the warming of the land, resulting in releasing carbon gas from the frozen land where it was trapped - which has now defrosted/defrosting.

The evidence is overwhelming.

It seems a no-brainer to move away from carbon based fossil fuel to green carbon neutral energy.

It isn't a question of stopping global warming - it too late for that, it will take the planet millenniums to heal itself - its a question of stop feeding it and making it a whole lot worse!

But if you don't want to believe it is so - then that's entirely your prerogative.

Huge humiliation for Johnson - a crushing victory for the report



Total embarrassment for Sunak who showed absolutely no leadership or any balls at all



So awkward is the Johnson Thing for Rishi Sunak, he is like a downhill skier suddenly taking up the slalom when he is asked about it.

Swerving this way and that to avoid the issue and the questions.

Why?

To make a clear cut statement either way risks, for him, further fracturing a Conservative Party fresh from 10 days of angry shouting.

He would rather talk about anything else.

Rees-Mogg with egg all over his face




This all really matters though because without being able to assume what you are hearing is the truth, what is the point?

To quote....erm...me....

Still getting over Theresa May's speech on the matter.

Whilst Sunak was skulking around somewhere/anywhere he didn't have to show his face, May delivered the statesmanlike speech he should have delivered if he'd had the balls and the brains to do so.
As someone who has never voted Tory I was impressed by her eloquence and honesty as she backed the enquiry to the hilt.
Moreover, for the first time in ages I have to applaud Labour's strategy and in particular this well laid trap and Alan Campbell for securing the division - hence forcing Tory MPs to show their true colours.
So with Blojob finally potted and Sunak demonstrating the backbone of a jellyfish it's going to be interesting to see what the next Tory offering will be.
It'll do well to top Skunk Wig Fabricant getting knighted....

Sluffy, I have never denied that increased CO2 has had an effect on global warming, nor that the climate is changing and the world is getting warmer and that we should do all that we realistically can to reduce that but this totally ridiculous rush to renewable energy is hopelessly unrealistic and damaging. Look to more achievable and sensible policies. Attempting to move to renewables in a completely arbitrary timescale, basically virtue signalling without the technology to achieve it is just crazy. Without acquiescence from the likes of China, Russia, India, Brazil and other really major emitters, what effect is what we do really going to make? 

Of far more concern to me is the subject of population expansion. The worlds population has virtually tripled since 1950, 2.5 billion to nearly 8 billion. How much CO2 has that produced? Clearly all the things human beings need has to increase for us to exist and at the same time CO2. Take into account all that extra farting and gasses produced and all the sewage that’s created and how we dispose of it. They tell us we shouldn’t eat meat because of cows farting but they never like to produce comparison statistics. There are quoted to be about 1.2 billion cattle on the planet yet they ignore the previous billion similar animals like bison and buffalo that roamed the earth before cattle. Let’s all agree that we move towards renewables but only when it’s sensible, realistic and affordable to do so and accept that until we are there fossil fuels should remain a large if reducing part of our energy policy.

I don't know why I'm bothering, I know you won't accept anything I say but here goes anyway.

In the simplest of terms the planet has heated up since the start of the industrial revolution, roughly 150 years ago.

The hotter the planet gets, the more the climate will change - if nothing is done Earth will ultimately become like Venus which is the hottest planet in the solar system, even hotter than Mercury which is the closest planet to the Sun.

It is reckoned that the slippery slope towards that will begin if the Earth's temperature raises just 1.5C above from the pre-industrial  temperature.

In order to stop that global warming MUST be at its peak by 2025 (just two years away) and reduced by 43% by 2030.

This was The Paris Agreement Target of 2016 and was under the umbrella of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change.

The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted by 196 Parties at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, France, on 12 December 2015. It entered into force on 4 November 2016.

Its overarching goal is to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

However, in recent years, world leaders have stressed the need to limit global warming to 1.5°C by the end of this century.

That’s because the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that crossing the 1.5°C threshold risks unleashing far more severe climate change impacts, including more frequent and severe droughts, heatwaves and rainfall.

To limit global warming to 1.5°C, greenhouse gas emissions must peak before 2025 at the latest and decline 43% by 2030.

https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement#:~:text=That's%20because%20the%20UN's%20Intergovernmental,severe%20droughts%2C%20heatwaves%20and%20rainfall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

The most recent UNCCC get together on the climate issue was COP26 which was held in Glasgow in 2021.

Sadly the Paris targets now look unattainable.

If you want a simplified version of what was said/agreed, here's a link to wiki -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference


In short the planet is hotter than we as human's have ever known it and weather changes are now becoming apparent globally.

The more we drag our heels over climate change, the quicker the world's weather will change for the worst for humankind.


You are correct when you say big countries like Russia, China, India, Brazil, etc, need to play there part - and clearly they are not - and we will all suffer (or rather our children's children will) by the end of this century, because of them.

If you had bothered to watch the 20 minute video, you would have learned that one of the drivers to force countries to comply is world trade embargoes on those that don't.

Whether that would ever happen is another thing entirely.

Should the western world say stuff it, if Russia and China etc, can't be arsed, then we won't be either - what's the point - or should we be doing our best and hopefully slow things down just enough until Russia and China sees the planet begin to fail and finally pull their finger out?

Who knows.

Certainly folk like Trump wants to scrap all the green stuff because it's the rich Republicans who own the coal mines and oil fields there - same with most other countries who have large reserves of fossil fuels - such as South Africa - as per the 20 minute video you can't be arsed to watch.

It's clearly looking like the world doesn't care enough to do anything to stop the coming climate catastrophe.

So I guess the saying 'we get what we deserve' will once again be very apt.

Sadly though for our grandkids who will be the ones suffering (and dying) because of it.

But hey-ho you don't believe in such stuff, so you might as well go and borrow Bonce's new fiddle and play it whilst the world burns to a cinder, eh!



Oh and this is exactly what happened to Venus without human involvement.

Even though Mercury is closer to the Sun, Venus is the hottest planet in our solar system. Its thick atmosphere is full of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, and it has clouds of sulfuric acid. The atmosphere traps heat, making it feel like a furnace on the surface. It's so hot on Venus, the metal lead would melt.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/venus/overview/#:~:text=Even%20though%20Mercury%20is%20closer%20to%20the%20Sun%2C%20Venus%20is,the%20metal%20lead%20would%20melt.

Well then Sluffy, don’t bother responding, nobody’s forcing you. You accuse people of having a closed mind and being unprepared to listen to what you say yet you continually ignore anything that doesn’t agree with your personal view. I’ve already told you that I agree with global warming, the climate is increasing and that CO2 does play a part in that. I also agree that humans have played a part in that with the use of fossil fuels but that doesn’t mean I agree that that is the only cause or even the main cause. 

The FACT is that none of the real major polluters have signed up to the Paris agreement despite all the noise from Europe and smaller nations so whatever we do will make absolutely minimal difference. Even if they did have that damascene conversion and we hit net zero today it would still be at least many decades and more likely centuries before any potential reduction in temperatures results and it’s not even certain it would then. Meanwhile the Cupid stunts running our countries have devastated our economies and impoverished the population as well as seeing businesses crushed by the very countries who have seen the same evidence as everyone else but either questioned it or chosen to ignore it. 

Why can’t you see the total futility of your argument? Yes certainly let’s move away from fossil fuels and develop new forms of energy but not by trashing everything we have now that has brought so many benefits but do it gradually when both the economy and the technology are properly there to do it. We are no nearer 1 fecking minute to midnight than we’ve ever been so let’s cut the crap and see some bloody common sense.

You don't get it do you - I don't have a personal view!

I simply follow the facts wherever they lead us to.

If you are a denier to the world's scientific data then that's entirely up to you.

I have, if you remember, asked you if you could kindly provide the facts that you have made your beliefs on - and up to now you haven't provided any.

I'm more than happy to join 'your side' if you can provide such facts - so no I don't believe I have a closed mind in the slightest and more than willing and happy to read whatever facts you have.

You can't even seem to grasp that whatever we do, how ever little that may be, will help to some degree is slowing down the rate of global warming and buying some time for scientists of the future to hopefully come up with some sort of plan to save us from the worst of what we've done to planet Earth.

I look forward to you sharing the facts you have on which you base your views on, if you would be so kind.

Many thanks in anticipation of them.

Oh and just for your information, your FACT is NOT a fact at all...

The FACT is that none of the real major polluters have signed up to the Paris agreement despite all the noise from Europe and smaller nations...


The FACT is that most of the world has!

The EU and 194 states, totalling over 98% of anthropogenic emissions, have ratified or acceded to the agreement. The only countries which have not ratified are some greenhouse gas emitters in the Middle East: Iran with 2% of the world total being the largest. Libya and Yemen have also not ratified the agreement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#:~:text=The%20EU%20and%20194%20states,also%20not%20ratified%20the%20agreement.

Anthropnicoge

(Chiefly of pollution or environmental change) originating in human activity.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=anthropogenic+meaning&biw=1366&bih=657&ei=wXeTZJnKF-uO9u8P1uKtqAU&oq=anthropogenic&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQARgBMhAIABCKBRCxAxCRAhBGEPkBMggIABCABBCxAzIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEOgoIABBHENYEELADOhUIABADEI8BEOoCELQCEIwDEOUCGAE6FQguEAMQjwEQ6gIQtAIQjAMQ5QIYATomCAAQigUQsQMQkQIQRhD5ARCXBRCMBRDdBBBGEPQDEPUDEPYDGAJKBAhBGABQ6xdYtDVg40poBXABeACAAWmIAWmSAQMwLjGYAQCgAQGgAQKwAQrAAQHIAQjaAQQIARgK2gEGCAIQARgT&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Just answer one question then. Have India, Russia, Brazil, China and the Saudi’s signed up and committed to be carbon neutral by 2050 and in line with the Paris Agreement? None have confirmed they will and in fact both China and Russia have only indicated that they may “attempt” to comply by 2070. You keep believing the “experts” but even if they’re right, unless the major polluters do come on board you’re whistling in the wind as much as they are. Look Sluffy, I’ve seen the projections and the evidence used, I’ve considered the calculations and whilst I’m nowhere near knowledgable in these areas I see reasons for concern but Humans are nowhere near the only or main cause of global warming, all scientists accept that but of course you can’t argue that use of fossil fuels have a big effect on the outcome and if we can reduce them it will clearly be beneficial. That doesn’t mean that we should bear the brunt of the damage done to our economies and our way of life to achieve an at best minuscule improvement in CO2 levels but if you’re happy with that then that’s up to you. I’m not until all countries are in total agreement.

To answer your one question - yes they all have apart from Russia.

China has said they will become carbon neutral by 2060, all the rest have pledged to be carbon neutral by 2050.

An energy sector roadmap to carbon neutrality in China

About this report. In September 2020, President Xi Jinping announced that the People's Republic of China will “aim to have CO2 emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060”.
https://www.iea.org/reports/an-energy-sector-roadmap-to-carbon-neutrality-in-china

Russia - Country Summary.

In June 2021 Russia adopted its heavily watered-down climate bill that, unlike the original iteration of the legislation, does not enforce emissions quotas or impose penalties on large GHG emitters. Instead, it simply requires companies to report their emissions starting from 2024.
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/russian-federation/#:~:text=In%20June%202021%20Russia%20adopted,their%20emissions%20starting%20from%202024.


Paris climate deal: US and China formally join pact

The US and China - together responsible for 40% of the world's carbon emissions - have both formally joined the Paris global climate agreement.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-37265541

India Ratifies Landmark Paris Climate Deal

New Delhi: India on Sunday formally ratified the COP21 Paris climate deal, marking a milestone in a treaty that binds nations to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the threat of global warming due to human activities.



Brazil may fail Paris Agreement targets by 137% if Bolsonaro stays in office

In September 2016, Brazil ratified the Paris Agreement, committing to reduce emissions by 1.2 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent by 2030 (a reduction of 43% based on 2005 emissions) and to submit its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) updated every five years to the United Nations Framework Convention.
https://news.mongabay.com/2022/10/brazil-may-fail-paris-agreement-targets-by-137-if-bolsonaro-keeps-in-office/#:~:text=In%20September%202016%2C%20Brazil%20ratified,United%20Nations%20Framework%20Convention%20on

Saudi Arabia and the Paris Climate Agreement

Saudi Arabia joined the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1994 and, in 2016, ratified the Paris Climate Agreement, which was adopted in 2015.
https://www.kfcris.com/en/view/post/363#:~:text=Saudi%20Arabia%20joined%20the%20United,which%20was%20adopted%20in%202015.

Russia formally joins Paris climate agreement

The world’s fourth largest emitter, Russia, has formally adopted the Paris Agreement, drawing an end to months of national tensions on the subject.

“The Russian Federation has accepted the Paris Agreement and is becoming a full-fledged participant of this international instrument,” Ruslan Edelgeriev, the president’s climate advisor, told the United Nations Climate Action Summit in New York, before proceeding to list the country’s climate contributions.
https://www.climate changenews.com/2019/09/23/russia-formally-joins-paris-climate-agreement/

Is Russia Finally Ready to Tackle Climate Change?

Russia signed the Paris agreement on climate change in 2015, but did not ratify it until September 2019.

The Russian establishment was caught off guard by the long-term threat to the entire functioning of the country’s economy posed by the global goal of decarbonization and net zero emissions. Nearly all of Russia’s main foreign trade partners have declared their ambition to become carbon-neutral by 2050 (or 2060, in China’s case). And the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism—hotly discussed in Russia—is only a small part of the raft of EU regulations.

https://carnegiemoscow.org/commentary/85043#:~:text=Russia%20signed%20the%20Paris%20agreement,ratify%20it%20until%20September%202019.[/b]

Wasn't there a climate change thread somewhere?
Shouldn't we be talking about the government decisions that have led to stubbornly high inflation, B0E having raise interest rates again and Mordaunt fighting to keep Blojob on the Privy Council on this thread?

Can't wait for Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB KC to be PM and then spent 5 years saying he can't do anything because of the crap he was left by the "torays"

Then the torys will get back in and say the same thing... And then. You get the idea. 

Can't stand the bloody lot of them.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Can't wait for Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB KC to be PM and then spent 5 years saying he can't do anything because of the crap he was left by the "torays"

Then the torys will get back in and say the same thing... And then. You get the idea. 

Can't stand the bloody lot of them.

Politics is basically a game of seizing and keeping power and nothing at all to do with whatever are the rights or wrongs of anything.

It's all about doing what they need to, to obtain power for themselves and change the rules if necessary to continue to keep it.

Sooner people realise that, the sooner the scales will fall from their eyes and they see politics for what it really is.

Unfortunately most people aren't bothered about who is in power as long as everything is ok for them, and those who are bothered are usually so biased and prejudicial against everyone who doesn't support whatever political party they do, that there is simply no reasoning with them.

Take for instance two notable posters on here, one with a history of hatred and prejudice against everything the Tory Party has done going back to Thatchers years and beyond and one who loves the Tory party so much that he's too blind to realise that for the last few years that it had been hijacked from the inside by the radical right wing Libertarian faction of the party and its extreme ideology.

Two people, one party yet not everything the Tory party is wrong and not every policy they push is right either.

Common sense should tell them that their own views simply cannot be right, the Tory party does get things right at times and some polices are simply too extreme to be implement at times, such as the grotesquely underfunded and stupefying mini budget  that crashed the economy - even I predicted that before it had even happened!

Rishi too!!!

Do our pair of esteemed posters have the required common sense, rationality and understanding about this though - clearly not.

They just stick to their cast iron 'beliefs' no matter what - and no doubt always will.

To be fair to one of them though he doesn't believe in all their polices and wants them to drop some if them - such as the one trying to save the planet!

The same can be said for the Labour Party and those who love it or hate it - it simply isn't all bad or all good.

Same for all political parties anywhere in a 'free' democracy - it's  much worse in the Russia's, China's and a whole lot other autocratic countries!

We get what we deserve unfortunately.

At least Johnson is out and Truss and her nutjobs seem to be on the retreat.

Could well be Labours turn next - if so at least they have got rid of the loonies of Corbyn and his Corbynites - so should be electable this time around.

What a great choice we the country has between the two, eh!

Rishi or Kier.


Note what I've said above is intended to be illustrative of how folk view the same things from opposite ends of the spectrum.

Their views all well known on here, so I'm not having a pop at them, merely showing how people see things in black or white when really everything is shades of grey.

(And please anyone don't tell me there is a book of 50 shades of grey - it is neither clever or funny!)

So Sluffy it’s a no from Russia on net zero by 2050, an “attempt” to reach net zero by 2060 from China, similar fudging in wording by India who will “try” before 2070, equal uncommitted remarks from the Saudis, the Brazilians and the Indonesians. As I said, sign up to it but don’t actually commit to doing it and all the time building a new coal fired power station every 3 days like China and collectively purchase over 8 billion tonnes of coal, the highest in history and climbing. Are you completely stupid or just incredibly naive if you believe these serial polluters are ever going to seriously deliver on targets we’ve set in stone despite the damage it’s doing to our economies.

Sluffy wrote:

Politics is basically a game of seizing and keeping power and nothing at all to do with whatever are the rights or wrongs of anything.

It's all about doing what they need to, to obtain power for themselves and change the rules if necessary to continue to keep it.

Sooner people realise that, the sooner the scales will fall from their eyes and they see politics for what it really is.

Unfortunately most people aren't bothered about who is in power as long as everything is ok for them, and those who are bothered are usually so biased and prejudicial against everyone who doesn't support whatever political party they do, that there is simply no reasoning with them.

Take for instance two notable posters on here, one with a history of hatred and prejudice against everything the Tory Party has done going back to Thatchers years and beyond and one who loves the Tory party so much that he's too blind to realise that for the last few years that it had been hijacked from the inside by the radical right wing Libertarian faction of the party and its extreme ideology.

Two people, one party yet not everything the Tory party is wrong and not every policy they push is right either.

Common sense should tell them that their own views simply cannot be right, the Tory party does get things right at times and some polices are simply too extreme to be implement at times, such as the grotesquely underfunded and stupefying mini budget  that crashed the economy - even I predicted that before it had even happened!

Rishi too!!!

Do our pair of esteemed posters have the required common sense, rationality and understanding about this though - clearly not.

They just stick to their cast iron 'beliefs' no matter what - and no doubt always will.

To be fair to one of them though he doesn't believe in all their polices and wants them to drop some if them - such as the one trying to save the planet!

The same can be said for the Labour Party and those who love it or hate it - it simply isn't all bad or all good.

Same for all political parties anywhere in a 'free' democracy - it's  much worse in the Russia's, China's and a whole lot other autocratic countries!

We get what we deserve unfortunately.

At least Johnson is out and Truss and her nutjobs seem to be on the retreat.

Could well be Labours turn next - if so at least they have got rid of the loonies of Corbyn and his Corbynites - so should be electable this time around.

What a great choice we the country has between the two, eh!

Rishi or Kier.


Note what I've said above is intended to be illustrative of how folk view the same things from opposite ends of the spectrum.

Their views all well known on here, so I'm not having a pop at them, merely showing how people see things in black or white when really everything is shades of grey.

(And please anyone don't tell me there is a book of 50 shades of grey - it is neither clever or funny!)

Sluffy, I did (for 1 nanosecond) think about responding to this load of pathetic drivel but life’s just too short and it would be totally futile anyway and only prolong the agony so I’ll pass instead.

Whitesince63 wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Politics is basically a game of seizing and keeping power and nothing at all to do with whatever are the rights or wrongs of anything.

It's all about doing what they need to, to obtain power for themselves and change the rules if necessary to continue to keep it.

Sooner people realise that, the sooner the scales will fall from their eyes and they see politics for what it really is.

Unfortunately most people aren't bothered about who is in power as long as everything is ok for them, and those who are bothered are usually so biased and prejudicial against everyone who doesn't support whatever political party they do, that there is simply no reasoning with them.

Take for instance two notable posters on here, one with a history of hatred and prejudice against everything the Tory Party has done going back to Thatchers years and beyond and one who loves the Tory party so much that he's too blind to realise that for the last few years that it had been hijacked from the inside by the radical right wing Libertarian faction of the party and its extreme ideology.

Two people, one party yet not everything the Tory party is wrong and not every policy they push is right either.

Common sense should tell them that their own views simply cannot be right, the Tory party does get things right at times and some polices are simply too extreme to be implement at times, such as the grotesquely underfunded and stupefying mini budget  that crashed the economy - even I predicted that before it had even happened!

Rishi too!!!

Do our pair of esteemed posters have the required common sense, rationality and understanding about this though - clearly not.

They just stick to their cast iron 'beliefs' no matter what - and no doubt always will.

To be fair to one of them though he doesn't believe in all their polices and wants them to drop some if them - such as the one trying to save the planet!

The same can be said for the Labour Party and those who love it or hate it - it simply isn't all bad or all good.

Same for all political parties anywhere in a 'free' democracy - it's  much worse in the Russia's, China's and a whole lot other autocratic countries!

We get what we deserve unfortunately.

At least Johnson is out and Truss and her nutjobs seem to be on the retreat.

Could well be Labours turn next - if so at least they have got rid of the loonies of Corbyn and his Corbynites - so should be electable this time around.

What a great choice we the country has between the two, eh!

Rishi or Kier.


Note what I've said above is intended to be illustrative of how folk view the same things from opposite ends of the spectrum.

Their views all well known on here, so I'm not having a pop at them, merely showing how people see things in black or white when really everything is shades of grey.

(And please anyone don't tell me there is a book of 50 shades of grey - it is neither clever or funny!)

Sluffy, I did (for 1 nanosecond) think about responding to this load of pathetic drivel but life’s just too short and it would be totally futile anyway and only prolong the agony so I’ll pass instead.

Fwiw you did respond by writing what you did.

So you don't believe politics is about obtaining and then retaining power?

Some chap called Machiavelli wrote a book called The Prince which was first published in 1532, five years after his death - it basically describes how politics works - so there's absolutely nothing new in what I've said above!

The book is still in print, you should get hold of a copy and read it - you might learn something!

The Prince

The Prince (Italian: Il Principe [il ˈprintʃipe]; Latin: De Principatibus) is a 16th-century political treatise written by Italian diplomat and political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli as an instruction guide for new princes and royals. The general theme of The Prince is of accepting that the aims of princes – such as glory and survival – can justify the use of immoral means to achieve those ends.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince


His name has even become a word in English (probably other languages too?)

Machiavellian
adjective

Cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous, especially in politics.
"a whole range of outrageous Machiavellian manoeuvres"

And you really think politics isn't like that at all these days???

Well you're very much mistaken if you do!

Thanks a bunch, Sluffy. There's already a queue forming outside Waterstones. Most likely Nutters trying to get a copy. I'll never get in tomorrow to collect my violin sheet music. You need to think these things through. Any mention of Machiavelli is always going to start trouble.  

Whitesince63 wrote:So Sluffy it’s a no from Russia on net zero by 2050, an “attempt” to reach net zero by 2060 from China, similar fudging in wording by India who will “try” before 2070, equal uncommitted remarks from the Saudis, the Brazilians and the Indonesians. As I said, sign up to it but don’t actually commit to doing it and all the time building a new coal fired power station every 3 days like China and collectively purchase over 8 billion tonnes of coal, the highest in history and climbing. Are you completely stupid or just incredibly naive if you believe these serial polluters are ever going to seriously deliver on targets we’ve set in stone despite the damage it’s doing to our economies.

You asked, may I remind you, as to had a number of specific countries signed up and committed to be Carbon Neutral by 2050 in line with the Paris Agreement.

The answer was yes in respect of Brazil and Saudi, yes also for China and India but with an extensions to 2060 and 2070 respectively and although Russia has signed up, it hasn't committed to Carbon neutral - so that's a no.

Of course actions always speak louder than words but that IS the direction the whole word is heading in - towards being carbon neutral.

Who would have thought Europe would free itself of its dependency on Russian coal, gas and oil, just two years ago - but that is what has happened.

Needs must and all that.

I may be as you say be completely stupid or incredibly naive but I reckon the world will be a whole different place by the time we get to 2040, let alone 2050, 2060 or 2070 - so I think there is a chance that countries will start to worry about the growing climate effects on the planet due to ongoing global warming and get their finger out and actually do something about it before it gets to late for all of us.

What would you rather us do instead - bugger all?

If we are still about by 2040, maybe we should revisit this thread and see which one of us was closest to getting our predictions right - and I do hope for the sake of the planet that it won't be you.

boltonbonce wrote:Thanks a bunch, Sluffy. There's already a queue forming outside Waterstones. Most likely Nutters trying to get a copy. I'll never get in tomorrow to collect my violin sheet music. You need to think these things through. Any mention of Machiavelli is always going to start trouble.  

To be honest it isn't the most exciting book I've ever read but it does make the point that you get power and cling on to it by playing dirty and not by playing by the rules all the time.

A much better read imo is The Art of War by Sun Tsu which was written in the fifth century BC.

The strategies it contains can still apply to modern day real life in how to beat your rivals - politically rather than in actual warfare.

The Art of War

The Art of War (Chinese: 孫子兵法; lit. 'Sun Tzu's Military Method', pinyin: Sūnzǐ bīngfǎ) is an ancient Chinese military treatise dating from the Late Spring and Autumn Period (roughly 5th century BC). The work, which is attributed to the ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu ("Master Sun"), is composed of 13 chapters. Each one is devoted to a different set of skills or art related to warfare and how it applies to military strategy and tactics. For almost 1,500 years it was the lead text in an anthology that was formalized as the Seven Military Classics by Emperor Shenzong of Song in 1080. The Art of War remains the most influential strategy text in East Asian warfare[1] and has influenced both East Asian and Western military theory and thinking and has found a variety of applications in a myriad of competitive non-military endeavors across the modern world including espionage,[2] culture, politics, business, and sports.[3][4][5][6]

The book contains a detailed explanation and analysis of the 5th-century BC Chinese military, from weapons, environmental conditions, and strategy to rank and discipline. Sun also stressed the importance of intelligence operatives and espionage to the war effort. Considered one of history's finest military tacticians and analysts, his teachings and strategies formed the basis of advanced military training for millennia to come.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War


Oh and to give you something back by way of making you queue for your sheet music, I highly recommended this 30 minute BBC programme - Stradivarius and me.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0376h9w/secret-knowledge-stradivarius-and-me

It is a kind of personal tale by the narrator by Clemency Burton-Hill which turns somewhat bitter sweet if you knew what happened to her a few years after she made the program (I won't spoil it for you but it is so sad).

I'm not really into music but it was wonderful to watch Clemency and her friend play a piece of Bach's Concerto for two violins (in D Minor) around the 10 minute mark.

Anyway as the nursery rhyme goes - hey diddle diddle, Bonce and his fiddle, the dog jumped over the moon...

Glad i didn't watch the question time Brexit special last night judging on the clips i've seen on twitter 

One chap insisted he had seen asylum seekers and refugees landing in this country and then going straight to the benefits office, what a lying bellend!