Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Owlbread]

A great victory has been won in Scottish and British politics. According to these articles the Green Party, the SNP and Plaid Cymru are to join the rest of the main UK parties in two out of three of the TV debates coming up for the general election. The BBC debate and the ITV debate will have 7 parties present, kind of like a Scandinavian debate; including Labour, Conservative, UKIP, SNP, Green, Plaid Cymru and Liberal Democrat Parties. The final debate on Channel 4/Sky will be hosted by Jeremy Paxman and Kay Burleigh and will be Ed Miliband vs David Cameron. 

I am, needless to say, very happy with this settlement. Previously it seemed as though UKIP were the only party besides Labour and the Tories that were going to get on the debates. After a particularly ferocious outcry from the Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru it seems like the broadcasters have changed their mind. Quite tellingly the excuse they gave originally was that there should only be "national parties" present - evidently Scotland is not a nation, nor is Wales. Rather, the only national parties are English ones - because Labour and the Tories don't stand in Northern Ireland. No party is truly "national". If only more people understood that Scotland and Wales are not viewed as equal nations within a union of equals or whatever the hell it's supposed to be, maybe we'd make more breakthroughs in future referendums.

Interestingly Northern Irish parties are nowhere to be seen, but it seems like Northern Ireland isn't really a part of the UK in the eyes of the broadcasters so it's not included. Certainly its politics are so far removed it would be difficult to include them, but I still think it's a failing on the part of the BBC/ITV.

[hector13]

I don't even understand why UKIP are on it. They've got what, 2 seats in parliament?

Fine they'll get the alt/protest votes, probably, in England and maybe Wales, but come on man. Farage is a fucking clown!

Also, what would happen if Farage didn't get a seat in parliament? Would he have to step down as leader so we don't have to hear the nonsense he spouts?

[TD1]

Whoot.

I could make a long post, but I can't be bothered, so I'm gonna be a bit juvenile.

"No, your politician is a clown!"

[hector13]

Yes I know, but I've been up for 26 hours, so my argument is less eloquent than it needs to be

He has yet to win a seat in an actual national election. The two seats he does have were from defections from another party, though through by-elections.

etc. etc. tired.

[TD1]

What in particular about Farage do you deem makes him "a fucking clown."

[Fniff]

The way he is constantly shown drinking in pubs, yet you never see him drunk.

[hector13]

When he blamed immigrants for the state of the M4.

[TD1]

Look back, we've already been over that I think.

The way he is constantly shown drinking in pubs, yet you never see him drunk.

PR. He's a politician. Gonna happen.

[Fniff]

I think debates would attract a larger audience if the politicians had to be constantly drinking through the entire debate yet still keep talking.

[hector13]

I know, but he thought that a comment like that would garner him votes, hence "fucking clown".

[TD1]

Every politician will say anything to garner votes.

They're all fucking clowns.

[hector13]

Every politician will say anything to garner votes.

They're all fucking clowns.

This is true, but it's like a black belt. There are degrees of fucking clown-ishness. He just happens to be of a higher degree than others, in my opinion.

[Sheb]

No, some will say clownish things to get vote. Those are the fucking clowns.

[hector13]

No, some will say clownish things to get vote. Those are the fucking clowns.

Wiff waff.

[mainiac]

Sheb, if net emissions responsibility (or whatever term you want to coin) stayed flat as growth increased and part of manufacturing shifted to a less efficient sector, that means that the carbon efficiency rose faster then growth.  That means that if we imagined a counter-factual world without globalization where carbon intensive industries weren't shifted out of the west we would have still seen reductions in western emissions.

And it's not very helpful to talk about the "west" as you do.  The US wasn't trying to reduce emissions during the Bush presidency.  Lumping countries that dont give a shit in with countries that are trying muddles the water a lot.  The upshot is that you are going by a very, very indirect metric.

And there's some real mission creep here.  I was objecting to the notion that growth and emissions must go hand in hand and I think other people were too.  Suggesting an exact level of emissions is a much more ambitious question then the simple one I was considering.