General Erection - 12th December 2019

[TheSage]

If we are talking about the environment then let's examine the Tory Party's record.

We've seen a few belated changes for the better, but very few. They have missed nearly all their professed targets. They have fallen below EU standards and failed to adequately reduce emissions of the 5 major polluting gases. We are not on target to be using more energy from renewables. Water pollution is appalling and the River Authority say it's gone backwards since 2010! Cutting money on flood defences too. Cameron's pledge on tree planting has been missed by 2 million. Recycling has been stuck at 45%, falling short of the EU minimum target of 50%. But we've run into problems because China won't take our rubbish any longer. May ditched an EU commitment to reduce over-fishing. And while we're at it let's support fracking.

Read what Greenpeace says.

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/11/12/environmental-targets-2020-uk/

Two of the governments former environmental advisers have said that their record is shameful. One said he would give them 3/10, the other not even a pass mark.

Johnson fails to turn up for the climate-change debate. Says it all. He tells us proudly he will scrap all the EU environmental standards on health, the environment, food hygiene and animal welfare. It's cheaper of course to ignore them all. The right of course don't like regulation and don't believe in climate change. Johnson until now was a sceptic and Farage in total denial. 

Ten years to be proud of.

 

 

[Bycarsbill]

5 minutes ago, TheSage said:

Debt as a GDP % is one of many measures that economists consider, and as far as I can see it has gone up. 75% in 2010 up to around 84% now so I'm puzzled by your figures. But I always take Tory statistics with a pinch of salt. 

That said, regardless of what the right wing press and Javid tells me, that the economy has flourished since 2010, it has not.  It's largely been a record of economic failure and stagnation. Austerity, in which the poorest paid the highest price, choked off any economic recovery and made life worse for us all. In a recession economists will tell you that you invest to stimulate growth, not slash and burn and cut. That makes things worse.

Take the NHS, for example. If you cut the amount of GDP spending that goes into health you get what we have today - a crisis. When the population is ageing and demands rising it's stupid to cut health spending, but that's what the Tories did. Lower and lower GDP percentages going on health. It's no wonder the NHS is in crisis. 

I will give you one more fact, not a myth, a fact. Growth in GDP per head (which is perhaps the best indicator of all). 1997-2009 it was 1.7% (Labour). Up until the world recession (2008) it was 2.5%. Under the Tories it's been 1.2%. The last quarter's figures are 0.2%.

The idea that the Tories are strong on the economy is a myth, perpetuated by their billionaire friends in the press for political advantage and swallowed by uncritical voters.

 

 

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!

Both main parties seem to have abandoned the usual norm of fiscal rules that require debt to fall as a percentage of GDP every year, to keep the deficit to below 2% of GDP and to deliver a balanced budget by the mid-2020s.  Both parties are planning significant increases in debt-funded spending on infrastructure. Sajiid Javid is proposing to spend up to 3% of GDP each year--a level last seen in the 70s! The only constraint he seems to offer is a commitment to keep debt interest costs to below 6% of tax revenues.  IMO this is bad enough as it would far exceed the current level of around 4.9% of public spending.  McDonnell on the other hand, is only promising to keep debt interest costs below 10% of tax receipts (and that was BEFORE his cavalier promise to compensate the WASPI women!)

Under McDonnell's plans, Labour is looking to increase public spending by more than £130 billion a year.  That's on top of the current base figure of £810 billion that is already being spent. This will increase public spending by about 6%, taking the share spent by a Labour government to levels never seen in peacetime. N.B. These figures don't even include the costs of the nationalisation plans they're promising and also ignore the long-term consequences of one particularly ridiculous promise; that state pension ages will not rise beyond 66 years of age. That alone will mean state spending on pensions rising by more than £60billion a year. No wonder therefore that all sensible commentators and the IFS are flashing up red warning signs about Labour's promised profligacy.  If they're allowed anywhere near the levers of power, it's easy to see how they will once again bankcrupt the economy!

 

[TheSage]

We do need to think outside the box, geo, yes, and we as consumers will have to suck it up and accept change that we don't really want.

Although I live in Stoke it's impossible not to have to use a car. The last bus from Hanley is 7 pm. Bus services have been cut and are - the rush hour apart - unreliable. 

Trains too. Overcrowded and unreliable. I often used to take my brother to Stoke station to catch the train home to Nottingham. 4/10 times the train was delayed for ages or cancelled or went only to Derby.

My friend tells me he was in Shrewsbury last Saturday and got on the 4 pm bus to come back to Stoke, only to be told that the service terminated in M Drayton and the last bus to Stoke was at 3.

Limiting the number of cars we own per family and moving towards electric vehicles would help but that necessarily means public investment on a huge scale. The Tories won't want that and if the opposition propose it they get slated because it's deemed too expensive.

It's amazing though how schoolchildren have contributed as much to this debate than any other sector in society. The rest of us are burying our heads in the sand and paying lip service to it.

[Fosse69]

10 hours ago, geosname said:

How many trees need to be planted to replace the number of trees lost in the last 10 years worldwide ?.... diseased, deforestation, usage etc.

I don't have an issue about planting trees, I have an issue with the effect it will have and the length of time it will have to see the effect...... when other things will have an immediate, greater impact.

My argument would be that people want to drastically impact the environment but not impact their lives.... it's not possible.

All we can do is to try and improve our own situation, talk to other countries or ignore it. The US, China and Brazil don't seem to be bothered, quite the opposite. The only people concerned seem to be children, after all it is their lives which will be shortened, we have had our turn.

[geosname]

2 hours ago, Nofinikea said:

The tree planting idea is a big solution, at least it must be if you think it's too big to achieve.

Bans on packaging would be a bold move and of course we only have so much packaging because we import almost everything from cheap areas.  Banning packaging would have to be offset with increased social spending otherwise the vulnerable will suffer as food prices would increase massively.  

Of course everyone would then be losing there mind about money trees and other media bias soundbites.

The point is, only the Green party has pledged anything like the budget needed to tackle this but everyone has pretty much laughed at them.  So it seems to be an issue that almost everyone gives lip service to but in reality nobody actually wants to do anything too inconvenient or expensive about it.

It's a big project... not a big solution.

How many foam trays and cling wrap were used before big supermarkets used them, it's for their convenience. Go to a traditional butcher or greengrocer,  thats a novel idea, they wouldnt use plastic at all.

Why does everything have to go through a processing plant? It doesn't.

[Andyregs]

6 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

All we can do is to try and improve our own situation, talk to other countries or ignore it. The US, China and Brazil don't seem to be bothered, quite the opposite. The only people concerned seem to be children, after all it is their lives which will be shortened, we have had our turn.

It’s probably fairer to look at the data on a ‘per person’ basis. In that respect a lot of Europe is no better than China, the Middle East are the worst offenders (though I expect that could be to do with the oil industry which all countries play a part in, regardless of where they are). The uk actually comes out of it rather well. We have halved our co2 output per person in the last 40 years. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep Improving though. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

[Andyregs]

1 minute ago, geosname said:

It's a big project... not a big solution.

How many foam trays and cling wrap were used before big supermarkets used them, it's for their convenience. Go to a traditional butcher or greengrocer,  thats a novel idea, they wouldnt use plastic at all.

Why does everything have to go through a processing plant? It doesn't.

If you buy beef or fish, and think your helping the environment by not having a plastic bag, then I’ve got some bad news for you. 

[geosname]

10 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

All we can do is to try and improve our own situation, talk to other countries or ignore it. The US, China and Brazil don't seem to be bothered, quite the opposite. The only people concerned seem to be children, after all it is their lives which will be shortened, we have had our turn.

Why do it on an individual level? Why not government level? Start at the top.

As for we have had our time..... speak for yourself.... my time ceases the moment I die, which I have no plan or control over, after that I don't give a rat's ass and it wouldn't matter if I did.

[geosname]

34 minutes ago, TheSage said:

We do need to think outside the box, geo, yes, and we as consumers will have to suck it up and accept change that we don't really want.

Although I live in Stoke it's impossible not to have to use a car. The last bus from Hanley is 7 pm. Bus services have been cut and are - the rush hour apart - unreliable. 

Trains too. Overcrowded and unreliable. I often used to take my brother to Stoke station to catch the train home to Nottingham. 4/10 times the train was delayed for ages or cancelled or went only to Derby.

My friend tells me he was in Shrewsbury last Saturday and got on the 4 pm bus to come back to Stoke, only to be told that the service terminated in M Drayton and the last bus to Stoke was at 3.

Limiting the number of cars we own per family and moving towards electric vehicles would help but that necessarily means public investment on a huge scale. The Tories won't want that and if the opposition propose it they get slated because it's deemed too expensive.

It's amazing though how schoolchildren have contributed as much to this debate than any other sector in society. The rest of us are burying our heads in the sand and paying lip service to it.

I agree with most of that mate.

[geosname]

4 minutes ago, Andyregs said:

If you buy beef or fish, and think your helping the environment by not having a plastic bag, then I’ve got some bad news for you. 

I am a carnivore by nature and choice. If it walks, crawls, slithers, swims or flies I will give it a try.

[geosname]

1 minute ago, Nofinikea said:

It has to start at the top, unfortunately the top is currently occupied by right wing folk who only care about there own pockets.

It matters little who is occupying No 10..... it's a vote killer

[Andyregs]

4 minutes ago, geosname said:

I am a carnivore by nature and choice. If it walks, crawls, slithers, swims or flies I will give it a try.

So much for ‘big solutions’ and ‘people not wanting to pay the price’. Back to stop using plastic straws then.

[geosname]

4 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

It comes down to mass transportation of products across the globe bringing the cost to the consumer down, not to mention the convenience.

As I have said, removing packaging is a real solution but it would have a serious effect on prices because more produce would have to be sourced locally which would increase the cost.  To do this we would have to adopt a socialist approach and ensure the most vulnerable aren't pushed further into food poverty.

So what you are suggesting is that people want change but don't want to pay for it..... want massive expenditure to solve a serious problem but can't grow money trees fast enough.

Nothing is free mate

[geosname]

2 minutes ago, Andyregs said:

So much for ‘big solutions’ and ‘people not wanting to pay the price’. Back to stop using plastic straws then.

The big solution would be to ban meat.... Will any party do it...... I thought not.

I don't use straws

[Andyregs]

1 minute ago, geosname said:

The big solution would be to ban meat.... Will any party do it...... I thought not.

I don't use straws

No one is forcing you. You’re Blaming governments for what you eat?