General Election - December 12th, 2019

Who will you vote for in the 2019 General Election?

  • Conservative

    Votes: 160 30.9%

  • Labour

    Votes: 230 44.4%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 59 11.4%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 13 2.5%

  • Brexit Party

    Votes: 28 5.4%

  • Plaid Cymru/SNP

    Votes: 7 1.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 21 4.1%
  • Total voters
    518
George Hannah said:
According to McDonnell their current leadership see "a transformative, some would say revolutionary party, aiming at the radical replacement of the existing economic and social system." If they gain power they will implement a programme of spending and asset appropriation on an unprecedented scale which will quickly destroy our wealth creation base.
Click to expand...
You're misquoting.
The question posed was "whether the Labour Party is a party of social reform aiming simply to ameliorate our existing capitalist society, or a reformist party that seeks to replace capitalism by incremental social reform, or a transformative, some would say revolutionary party, aiming at the radical replacement of the existing economic and social system".

His conclusion? "The history of Labour holds open the possibility that the party could move beyond social reform and become a genuinely transformative party once again. A party leadership under Jeremy Corbyn, and a mass membership shaped by the experience of the economic crash, the years of grinding austerity, and its resultant inequality and injustices, are taking their place in the history of the party." That's rather more circumspect. Anyway, if people voted for "transformative" policies, what's the problem? Do things not need transforming?
 
Saddleworth2 said:
I am astounded that nobody thinks climate change is worth discussing or that any party are majoring on it other than the greens. It will quite quickly become the single biggest issue facing all of us and the science says it needs emergency drastic action now. It’s a bit alarming that the one newsworthy event coming out of the leaders climate debate was Johnson’s non attendance. So the choices we make in a few days time will a significant impact on that one issue. We have a unique global responsibility as the nation that invented the industrial revolution. Interesting to see how that will develop under a Tory government outside of the EU.
Click to expand...
Unless you can stop China opening a Coal fired power station every 2 weeks and India one every 2 months we are pissing on the wind.
 
Ban-jani said:
Sea level rise isn’t the main concern in my opinion as we’ll be a type B/2 civilisation by 2100 and parts of our country will be artificial over the sea.

I think the main concern is areas around the equator becoming uninhabitable but they can migrate if needed.

I’ve come to the conclusion that we won’t stop emissions as a planet, even if the UK does get to zero emissions, which will be incredibly hard, even in 30 years.

We need to work on tech to take carbon out of the atmosphere and the UN should take budget from every nation to do so and set up an independent science team.

The hysteria is massively blown out of proportion though, I do now think that.
Click to expand...
Where will they migrate to? Have you got the welcome mat ready?
 
Chippy_boy said:
Utterly pointless exercise however whilst China and the US alone, continue to output 43x what we do. Much more research needed into carbon capture, and more political pressure on the worst offenders. Wearing a hair-shirt on our own, is in no-ones best interest.
Click to expand...
Asia will be one of the worst affected because of the growing coastal population in China, Japan, Indonesia etc. One of the more recent studies estimates 150 million people below the water line by 2050. That should be incentive enough for them to be engaged.
 
Vic said:
Where will they migrate to? Have you got the welcome mat ready?
Click to expand...

Away from the equator to more northern/southern areas of the continent they are already one???

I think that’s the more obvious thing that will happen.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
We need to find a way of taking the excess co2 out of the atmosphere. I feel that’s the only viable solution.
Click to expand...
Methane being released from condensate by the oil and gas industrustyand from melting permafrost is probably the bigest problem.

But yes, extracting from the atmosphere is probably the only way
 
Ban-jani said:
Sea level rise isn’t the main concern in my opinion as we’ll be a type B/2 civilisation by 2100 and parts of our country will be artificial over the sea.

I think the main concern is areas around the equator becoming uninhabitable but they can migrate if needed.

I’ve come to the conclusion that we won’t stop emissions as a planet, even if the UK does get to zero emissions, which will be incredibly hard, even in 30 years.

We need to work on tech to take carbon out of the atmosphere and the UN should take budget from every nation to do so and set up an independent science team.

The hysteria is massively blown out of proportion though, I do now think that.
Click to expand...
I've no idea whether the areas around the equator may be uninhabitable. They may be wetter by then, who knows. Weather patterns are strange things and very very difficult to predict over 1 year, let alone 80.

I am all for "conservation" however, and not dumping plastics into the ocean for example. In fact the whole debate has made me much more aware of just how much shit we all consume and throw away all the time. I'm finding the pointless consumerism of Christmas and everyone frantically running around to buy garbage that no-one wants and half of which will get tossed away by February, all rather depressing. So if people start to be more environmentally aware, then that is surely a good thing.
 
BlueAnorak said:
Methane being released from condensate by the oil and gas industrustyand from melting permafrost is probably the bigest problem.

But yes, extracting from the atmosphere is probably the only way
Click to expand...
To be honest, in a century or so, who knows what might be possible. We could float graphene sheets 100's of miles across, into lower earth orbit to block out sunlight. Honestly it's impossible to predict what technologies could be at our disposal. Which is why the current mass hysteria about the "Climate Crisis" etc is so over the top.

It's become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Politicians and commentators have drummed it into people for 20 years; people have become convinced it's a crisis; politicians wanting to appeal to voters tell the public they think it's a crisis and more must be done; the public think it's even more of a crisis - and around the loop we go. People need to get a grip. Sea levels going up 2 feet over 80 years is NOT a crisis.
 
blueparrot said:
Still no excuse to do nothing , we can only do what we can do.Doing nothing and hoping for the best shouldn’t be an option.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest building tidal barriers to prevent the flooding of major UK cities and the fenlands, because unless China and India stop producing CO2 nothing else is going to help the UK.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Sorry mate, but I need to correct you here.

We could do all of those things and we would not see any change AT ALL, for many, many decades, IF EVER. It would be a 100.0% absolute, complete and utter waste of time, money and effort. For no gain whatsoever, nil, none, nada.

But far, far worse, it would divert significant funds away from genuine good causes. We could solve ALL homelessness, for example, easily by diverting just a fraction of this sort of government spending and effort. Doing more than we are doing already is the biggest con, the biggest waste of time ever to be foisted on an electorate. Simply done by politicians who at best, know no better and are just after our votes.
Click to expand...
Oh there'd be a change. It'd be minute, and most likely the Earth would increase in temperature regardless, but we'd at the very least improve our air quality.

That's what i'm more concerned with at present.
 
Chippy_boy said:
To be honest, in a century or so, who knows what might be possible. We could float graphene sheets 100's of miles across, into lower earth orbit to block out sunlight. Honestly it's impossible to predict what technologies could be at our disposal. Which is why the current mass hysteria about the "Climate Crisis" etc is so over the top.

It's become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Politicians and commentators have drummed it into people for 20 years; people have become convinced it's a crisis; politicians wanting to appeal to voters tell the public they think it's a crisis and more must be done; the public think it's even more of a crisis - and around the loop we go. People need to get a grip. Sea levels going up 2 feet over 80 years is NOT a crisis.
Click to expand...
It is for London and Glasgow.
On second thoughts, let's not bother.
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
Not what she said on the radio yesterday...... the right to hold an Indy ref yes ...... but at the request of the population only...... gET THE tories out, resolve Brexit , remove Trident and there would be no cry for another referendum
Click to expand...

Have you ever thought that the largest demographic of union members in the largest union in the country are defence workers?

Yet you want a Labour government to make a chunk of them redundant by doing a deal with the SNP?

Labour do not represent the working class.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I've no idea whether the areas around the equator may be uninhabitable. They may be wetter by then, who knows. Weather patterns are strange things and very very difficult to predict over 1 year, let alone 80.

I am all for "conservation" however, and not dumping plastics into the ocean for example. In fact the whole debate has made me much more aware of just how much shit we all consume and throw away all the time. I'm finding the pointless consumerism of Christmas and everyone frantically running around to buy garbage that no-one wants and half of which will get tossed away by February, all rather depressing. So if people start to be more environmentally aware, then that is surely a good thing.
Click to expand...

Yeah I’m not sure they will I just thing that’s the bigger risk.

Agree with the 2nd point completely.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
Oh there'd be a change. It'd be minute, and most likely the Earth would increase in temperature regardless, but we'd at the very least improve our air quality.

That's what i'm more concerned with at present.
Click to expand...
Yes, as a side effect, of course more electric cars would improve urban air quality. Not that CO2 is bad for air quality of course. It's the other things you get when burning (especially) diesel.

As an aside, the zero carbon idea by <date> is completely ridiculous anyway. We've no practical way to power aeroplanes any time over the next few decades without burning fossil fuels. Let alone ships, lorries, factories and everything else. We've fleetingly managed to produce half our electricity, but NOTHING LIKE half our energy consumption (most of which is burning gas). We are MILES off being zero carbon and no chance whatsoever of hitting it before 2050, and probably not that date either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top