General Erection - 12th December 2019

[Andyregs]

30 minutes ago, geosname said:

Have other countries reduced? China, India, USA? If they have increased does that lessen the effect we have had.

We can’t vote for them. Which is what you were talking about. 

13 minutes ago, geosname said:

It's rare, as in beef and lamb, because the animals aren't here to produce it.... your thinking meat in a western context.....

No, I’m saying the poorer a country is the less meat they eat, and I provided a source. Again, you’re changing your argument as we go on just for arguments sake, without saying anything .

[geosname]

33 minutes ago, Andyregs said:

We can’t vote for them. Which is what you were talking about. 

No, I’m saying the poorer a country is the less meat they eat, and I provided a source. Again, you’re changing your argument as we go on just for arguments sake, without saying anything .

I said it's not a luxury.... you said it was..... we may differ somewhat on the term meat.... I suspect you are saying beef, lamb, pork etc..... I'm counting everything that has a heartbeat and moves of its own free will.... as indicated in the partial list provided.

Your first paragraph suggests that even if we spend billions and reduced to zero tomorrow it wouldn't make a difference to the world climate.... except the bragging rights to "We did our bit"

[geosname]

As to your reference.....

It compares meat production, I'm assuming that means farming etc.

A large proportion of meat eaten here isn't produced/farmed.

[Andyregs]

1 hour ago, geosname said:

I said it's not a luxury.... you said it was..... we may differ somewhat on the term meat.... I suspect you are saying beef, lamb, pork etc..... I'm counting everything that has a heartbeat and moves of its own free will.... as indicated in the partial list provided.

Your first paragraph suggests that even if we spend billions and reduced to zero tomorrow it wouldn't make a difference to the world climate.... except the bragging rights to "We did our bit"

 It doesn’t suggest anything if the sort, only what you’re now trying to twist to make gods know what point. 

1 hour ago, geosname said:

As to your reference.....

It compares meat production, I'm assuming that means farming etc.

A large proportion of meat eaten here isn't produced/farmed.

If you’re talking about the link I provided, all you had to do was read it before you argued against for the sake of it.

”It is clear that the richest countries eat a lot of meat, and those on low incomes eat little.”

[geosname]

45 minutes ago, Andyregs said:

 It doesn’t suggest anything if the sort, only what you’re now trying to twist to make gods know what point. 

If you’re talking about the link I provided, all you had to do was read it before you argued against for the sake of it.

”It is clear that the richest countries eat a lot of meat, and those on low incomes eat little.”

It suggests it to me.

It's because people are on a low income that they eat meat..... the meat is mostly free that they eat..... out of the city centres anyway.... they don't need money to buy it, it's all around them for free. They catch it, trap it, collect it, shoot it, fish for it and so on.... it's the same with a lot of the vegetation and vegetables.... there is still a lot of trading going on.... if they have a glut of bananas in their garden they trade them for something they want..... they rarely pay money to process their rice, one guy in the village or close village will have a machine, they drop it off, he splits off the husk, they collect the rice he keeps the husk(?) To feed to his pigs.

I agree they don't spend as much money as the West to buy meat but it's difficult to compare volume by money spent and it's not a luxury.... rice is more expensive than a lot of meat here and they grow it.... in fact there has been a spate of rice thefts recently from farmers homes, a sack of rice is quite a weight to carry off.... no one takes the chickens, ducks, pigs etc.

But it's all by the by..... vale won.... which is far more important to me than what politicians promise to do to make the population feel good

[TheSage]

I agree.

You two I suggest have gone off on a tangent in what is supposed to be an election thread. 🤐

But after yesterday's terrible events (I have a daughter who works very close to that incident) and the Vale's uplifting win today we can at least take a break from swapping opinions and raise a glass to the Valiants while thinking about those involved yesterday. It could have been any of us and puts everything else into sharp perspective.

 

[geosname]

5 hours ago, TheSage said:

I agree.

You two I suggest have gone off on a tangent in what is supposed to be an election thread. 🤐

But after yesterday's terrible events (I have a daughter who works very close to that incident) and the Vale's uplifting win today we can at least take a break from swapping opinions and raise a glass to the Valiants while thinking about those involved yesterday. It could have been any of us and puts everything else into sharp perspective.

 

We have sage..... my apologies. 

[Regal Beagle]

Interesting article in the Times regarding the internal tension in the labour party.

 

Apparently the reason Starmer and Thornberry have not been doing interviews in the run up to the election is not because they are useless (well, not solely anyway) but because they refused to sign up to the whole "neutral" brexit thing.

At least they're mildly honest.

 

The article goes on to say that the public shift towards the pro brexit voters is not a last minute panic but the labour party setting up the southern pro remain voices to blame when the election is lost.

 

[Andyregs]

23 hours ago, geosname said:

It suggests it to me.

It's because people are on a low income that they eat meat..... the meat is mostly free that they eat..... out of the city centres anyway.... they don't need money to buy it, it's all around them for free. They catch it, trap it, collect it, shoot it, fish for it and so on.... it's the same with a lot of the vegetation and vegetables.... there is still a lot of trading going on.... if they have a glut of bananas in their garden they trade them for something they want..... they rarely pay money to process their rice, one guy in the village or close village will have a machine, they drop it off, he splits off the husk, they collect the rice he keeps the husk(?) To feed to his pigs.

I agree they don't spend as much money as the West to buy meat but it's difficult to compare volume by money spent and it's not a luxury.... rice is more expensive than a lot of meat here and they grow it.... in fact there has been a spate of rice thefts recently from farmers homes, a sack of rice is quite a weight to carry off.... no one takes the chickens, ducks, pigs etc.

But it's all by the by..... vale won.... which is far more important to me than what politicians promise to do to make the population feel good

The article literally state ‘consumed’, not ‘spent’, again, all you had to do was read it, but you anecdote obviously makes it meaningless. 

[TheSage]

On 30/11/2019 at 11:04, Bycarsbill said:

Fact #1: Though painful, austerity helped enable the Tory government to bring down the deficit from a peak of 10% of GDP in 2009 (Labour's time in office) to 1.2% of GDP in the year ending March 2019.  Fact #2; Conservative government policies over the last few years mean that today employment numbers are at their highest levels since the 70s Fact #3: Action taken by the Conservative government has at last succeeded in putting debt on a downward trajectory from 87.9% of GDP to 86.8% at the end of last year.  But only a proportion of what it will rise to if Labour get their hands on the exchequor again.

I can't let this go unchallenged! You have not refuted my post, given me two alternative facts, but your third one is misleading and bogus.

I accept your first two points, but they are only two economic indicators that pale in comparison with the overwhelming majority of evidence. Yes, the deficit has come down but what good use has been made of it? It's a means to an end not an end in itself. The more important statistic as I said above is GDP growth per head of population - what it means for the man in the street, and that was around 2.5% before the crash. It's 1.2% under the Tories and dropped to around 0.3% last quarter. Very poor.

Employment has increased, yes. And in general terms that is clearly "a good thing". But if you look at the context much of that growth has been in zero hours & low wage jobs. Those on the minimum wage have doubled. It's interesting to note that under the Tories anyone working for just one hour a week is classified as being in work. Amazing what you can do if you massage the figures. 

Fact 3 doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The Tories have let it skyrocket. It went up to 65% by 2010 but now stands at over 80%. In raw figures it has increased from £1.1 to £1.8 trillion - hardly the results of an economically competent government. But then throughout history the Tories always borrow more than Labour.

In overall terms, since 2010 we have had slow/stagnant growth, low investment, manufacturing has flat-lined and we've been saddled with the economic stupidity of Brexit - £80 billion in lost revenue to date and rising.

The IFS is but one economic body that looks at these things. 163 economists in the Times recently stated that Labour's plans would tackle climate change and kick start the economy. 163. But of course it's right that we listen to the IFS and take note. But the same IFS tell us that Brexit will damage our economy and for them it's almost as worrying as Labour's manifesto. And a No Deal Brexit will be far worse than that and totally destroy the UK economy. Labour's state spending would put us about half way in the OECD league table and is not extreme by international standards. France and Germany spend more on their public services. Creeping up to 45% GDP is a lot, but it's around 39% for the USA (with no NHS) and 50% in Sweden, a big Scandinavian success story.

Abstract figures apart, we should judge a government's economic competency on how it has impacted on its people. And here is a ten year record of abject failure (unless you are one of the top 5% of earners!) Wages for most (inflation noted) are barely back to 2008 levels. Many people have had wage cuts or freezes for ten years. Child poverty is about to rise to a 60 year high. Living standards have deteriorated. Record use of food banks. Record numbers of homeless people. Record numbers of beggars on the streets. Personal debt at an all time record high. Financial inequality at its widest. For the first time ever, life expectancy in some northern towns had dropped! Record waiting lists for the NHS. Need I list any more damning figures? 

We are consistently paying more tax than ever before. Increases in VAT, the bedroom tax and NI contributions have meant that we're paying more but getting far less. The government has missed its financial targets x5 since 2010.

But the biggest danger to the economy is Brexit. No less than 4 ex-PMs have told us that. The damage it is causing and will cause is incalculable. Bar Minford and his nutcases there are no credible economists or organisations anywhere that will tell you that Brexit will be good for our economy. Not one.

But let's pretend that the Tories are good for our economy. I'm sorry, Bill, but we'll have to disagree on this one.

[geosname]

40 minutes ago, Andyregs said:

The article literally state ‘consumed’, not ‘spent’, again, all you had to do was read it, but you anecdote obviously makes it meaningless. 

As it's off topic I will give this last reply.

The article does not state precisely how the information is gathered or compared, the meat they specifically talk about is beef, pork, poultry. I doubt it considers other types of none produced meat, rat, snake, dog, turtle, scorpions, locusts, silk worm, ants, land crabs and many others, all of which are consumed here and many other eastern countries..... meat is not a luxury here, the comment that it is is incorrect.

[TheSage]

2 hours ago, Regal Beagle said:

Interesting article in the Times regarding the internal tension in the labour party.

 

Apparently the reason Starmer and Thornberry have not been doing interviews in the run up to the election is not because they are useless (well, not solely anyway) but because they refused to sign up to the whole "neutral" brexit thing.

At least they're mildly honest.

 

The article goes on to say that the public shift towards the pro brexit voters is not a last minute panic but the labour party setting up the southern pro remain voices to blame when the election is lost.

 

Is that the paper owned by Murdoch - one of the billionaires who bankrolls the Tories? 

[TheSage]

My apologies geo (and Andy). I didn't mean to stop you debating. It's the most important aspect of the whole election but has got very little coverage, although I note that David Attenborough has slated Johnson for not turning up to the climate change debate the other night.

[geosname]

4 minutes ago, TheSage said:

I can't let this go unchallenged! You have not refuted my post, given me two alternative facts, but your third one is misleading and bogus.

I accept your first two points, but they are only two economic indicators that pale in comparison with the overwhelming majority of evidence. Yes, the deficit has come down but what good use has been made of it? It's a means to an end not an end in itself. The more important statistic as I said above is GDP growth per head of population - what it means for the man in the street, and that was around 2.5% before the crash. It's 1.2% under the Tories and dropped to around 0.3% last quarter. Very poor.

Employment has increased, yes. And in general terms that is clearly "a good thing". But if you look at the context much of that growth has been in zero hours & low wage jobs. Those on the minimum wage have doubled. It's interesting to note that under the Tories anyone working for just one hour a week is classified as being in work. Amazing what you can do if you massage the figures. 

Fact 3 doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The Tories have let it skyrocket. It went up to 65% by 2010 but now stands at over 80%. In raw figures it has increased from £1.1 to £1.8 trillion - hardly the results of an economically competent government. But then throughout history the Tories always borrow more than Labour.

In overall terms, since 2010 we have had slow/stagnant growth, low investment, manufacturing has flat-lined and we've been saddled with the economic stupidity of Brexit - £80 billion in lost revenue to date and rising.

The IFS is but one economic body that looks at these things. 163 economists in the Times recently stated that Labour's plans would tackle climate change and kick start the economy. 163. But of course it's right that we listen to the IFS and take note. But the same IFS tell us that Brexit will damage our economy and for them it's almost as worrying as Labour's manifesto. And a No Deal Brexit will be far worse than that and totally destroy the UK economy. Labour's state spending would put us about half way in the OECD league table and is not extreme by international standards. France and Germany spend more on their public services. Creeping up to 45% GDP is a lot, but it's around 39% for the USA (with no NHS) and 50% in Sweden, a big Scandinavian success story.

Abstract figures apart, we should judge a government's economic competency on how it has impacted on its people. And here is a ten year record of abject failure (unless you are one of the top 5% of earners!) Wages for most (inflation noted) are barely back to 2008 levels. Many people have had wage cuts or freezes for ten years. Child poverty is about to rise to a 60 year high. Living standards have deteriorated. Record use of food banks. Record numbers of homeless people. Record numbers of beggars on the streets. Personal debt at an all time record high. Financial inequality at its widest. For the first time ever, life expectancy in some northern towns had dropped! Record waiting lists for the NHS. Need I list any more damning figures? 

We are consistently paying more tax than ever before. Increases in VAT, the bedroom tax and NI contributions have meant that we're paying more but getting far less. The government has missed its financial targets x5 since 2010.

But the biggest danger to the economy is Brexit. No less than 4 ex-PMs have told us that. The damage it is causing and will cause is incalculable. Bar Minford and his nutcases there are no credible economists or organisations anywhere that will tell you that Brexit will be good for our economy. Not one.

But let's pretend that the Tories are good for our economy. I'm sorry, Bill, but we'll have to disagree on this one.

Someone once said....

There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

I think....

[geosname]

1 minute ago, TheSage said:

My apologies geo (and Andy). I didn't mean to stop you debating. It's the most important aspect of the whole election but has got very little coverage, although I note that David Attenborough has slated Johnson for not turning up to the climate change debate the other night.

No need to apologise mate, it was off topic, it ran off climate change into what is meat which has nothing to do with the election.