Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
I would also not underestimate how much some of the white voters in the north distrust Labour after the cover ups over muslim grooming gangs.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)
- Thread starter SpurMeUp
- Start date
I would also not underestimate how much some of the white voters in the north distrust Labour after the cover ups over muslim grooming gangs.
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
It was on a climate Change debate thats why I asked the question
But the person was saying that because of having to switch to coal to support the use of Solar the experiment failed after a year..
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
I haven't heard that, to be honest. I've have read they are having grid balancing problems where renewable generation in the north is not getting down south where there is more demand. Renewable counts for about 50% of Germany's energy output or thereabouts which is not bad.
Don't they count burning trees as "renewable" over there? I'm sure I remember reading about some kind of fuel from fresh trees they use.
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
Im sure this was mentioned. Apparently there were issues that the Solar project was dire in the winter because of the lack of sun, let me see if I can dig this out, was a while back.
Apparently there are too many points to the plan for it to be effective, should be less more achievable goals to really tackle climate change.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
If you mean biomass I don't know if they count it. It might depend on who is reporting the numbers I suppose. They shouldn't count it though.
Or wood pellet burners is another fairly dubious one though I don't think there is much demand for them. Practically speaking they are a pain in the ass to run.
Biomass is what I was thinking of, yes.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
An ethical question, if the opposition does not approve of the governments actions, but voting against the government causes more harm to the nation, what should the opposition do?
For example, the latest lockdown. Labour said it should have happened earlier and that would have made it shorter. The government disagreed. But then a month later they proposed a lockdown. Labour wanted to vote for a shorter lockdown a month prior so don't support the government's action. How can you support failure? But for the good of the nation, you have to vote for the late and longer lockdown, despite not wanting this or wanting to back a poor decision.
Similar rings true for Brexit. What do you do when it comes to voting for the EU-UK trade deal? If the reality is a hit to UK GDP and it does not appear to be in the nation's interests, do you vote for it anyway because a no-deal is even worse?
Regardless of the particular examples, it's an interesting political philosophy question.
For example, the latest lockdown. Labour said it should have happened earlier and that would have made it shorter. The government disagreed. But then a month later they proposed a lockdown. Labour wanted to vote for a shorter lockdown a month prior so don't support the government's action. How can you support failure? But for the good of the nation, you have to vote for the late and longer lockdown, despite not wanting this or wanting to back a poor decision.
Similar rings true for Brexit. What do you do when it comes to voting for the EU-UK trade deal? If the reality is a hit to UK GDP and it does not appear to be in the nation's interests, do you vote for it anyway because a no-deal is even worse?
Regardless of the particular examples, it's an interesting political philosophy question.
You obviously do what's best for the country every time.
The fact that this question is even being asked shows just how broken and tribal politics has become.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
I think the point is, it is not 'the best' for the country. It is better than the alternative. The best is something else. Is it like backing a regime that proposes to hurt you less? When actually what you want is not at all!
ricky2tricky4city
Tom Huddlestone
The choices are the choices at that moment in time. They may have been different further back down the timeline and more aligned to to the outcomes you desired. But if you had trouble hanging your hat on one direction or another back then , you can't really moan about having unpalatable choices to make now.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Interesting one. These choices are possibly the most difficult for politicians. Going to war is more extreme but similar. Politicians know there is likely loss of life from it, but by doing so, you could save more lives in the end. If you back a failing regime to do something which is better but still bad, I am not sure that is ultimately productive. There is no 'right' vote in such instances.
If it were you, would you abstain? Or vote for something which is an improvement but still suboptimal? Or would you disrupt a failing government and vote against them?
As stated above, opposition should never be for political gain, it should be to make the case for alternative options at the point those choices were available.
Had the opposition been criticising the government for not preparing for a pandemic that effects us once every hundred years or so in November 19, they would have a point. What they appear to be doing is using hindsight to criticise the govt (much of it valid) without ever showing that they would have done something different or better.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Did Stammer suggest a shorter less impactful lockdown 2 months ago? The government ruled this out, but then put a longer more damaging lockdown to the commons a month later! What do you vote for? More incompetence? Or make a stand?
ricky2tricky4city
Tom Huddlestone
I was referring more to the Brexit decisions.
The unknowns, challenges, decisions to make, and curve balls of a pandemic are constantly coming from all directions. It's fast moving and decisions have to be made in a timely fashion. Whoever was into bat would have had a difficult time of it, to what level, we'll obviously (hopefully) never know. You'd think that a pandemic crisis would be one time that everyone (politically) would try their best to pull in the same direction and political point scoring would be off the agenda.
That said, I can see how politicians (even from their own party) could/can become exasperated with this government, and perhaps the most damning thing I could say is, if we were to encounter another pandemic then I'd 100% suggest someone else should have a go. And for a group of politicians who have been thru the experience, the challenges, been privvy to all the tasks and tactics, the wealth of information...to think 'despite that, im standing you down, you were so sh.it' ...is damning.
Think I've digressed
ricky2tricky4city
Tom Huddlestone
I was referring more to Brexit decisions mate.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Similar applies. If the EU trade deal is bad for the UK, do you vote for it anyway?
Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Alternative is no deal then, those are the options at the moment in time the vote comes assuming a deal is agreed. Pick which one you'd prefer and vote for it.
ricky2tricky4city
Tom Huddlestone
I refer my right honourable gentlemen to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Basically, as the opposition, if you fence sit when the the opportunity was there to gain power with a strong message, then you might have to suck these decisions up further down the line.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Abstain is also an option.
I don't like the notion of going through the motions and not asserting what you think is right. Stand up for what you believe and what you believe is the right thing for your constituents, even if that means abstaining as you don't support either option. To go along with suboptimal, or evening damaging, policies and put your name to it, is cowardly in my eyes. Will be interesting to see how MPs deal with this.