Anything Political

[DJ360 6,730]

21 minutes ago, Brew said:

!. I would rewrite as 'or' indifferent and contend that they are in the majority.

2. Agreed are a  goodly proportion and have a vague notion of what it's all about, but without some form of enforcement would probably lapse.

3. These are a minority, the 'greens' if you like but I maintain none, or maybe the smallest percentage, would think in  terms of it being a system or recognise the global scale of interconnectivity.

 

1.  OK.

2. But are for e.g. council re-cycling schemes enforcement, or enablement?

3. I'm not so sure about that.. It would make me a 'Green', yet I'm not quite there yet.  I reckon many more than you recognise now see the clear symptoms of environmental interconnectivity in warming, changing/more extreme weather/ population movements, species movement, melting glaciers, shrinking poles, etc.,etc., etc., which are mentioned pretty much daily in the media.

 

21 minutes ago, Brew said:

Going back to Meadows, she died over twenty years ago, how many here had even heard of her and her theory until this discussion? Pontification is no use if no one hears it..

 

Well yes, but clearly many did hear her and I suspect awareness is growing..if not of her, but of the underlying principles of her work.

Someone like Attenborough is continually reinforcing 'green' messages and backing them with evidence.  Is he educating.. or 'pontificating'?

[DJ360 6,730]

And in other news.. what do we think of Sunak's environmental back tracking on North Sea Oil?  

I wonder how much that cost the IEA and other Tuffton St lobbyists?

 

Then his  desperate attempts to 'woo' the motoring lobby with gimmicks and even opposition to his own party's emission reduction policies.?

 

You won't be surprised that I see it as pure hypocrisy, born of a combination of both externally directed electioneering, and internally directed attempts to placate the Tory far right.

[Brew 5,421]

Council recycle centres are covert enforcement, use them or pay to have your unwanted items taken away.

Which ties in nicely with non-system thinking. Forcing people to use them means countless more miles of air polluting journeys and traffic congestion. Whereas a single truck would be a far better solution.

 

----------------------

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

And in other news.. what do we think of Sunak's environmental back tracking on North Sea Oil?

 

I obviously don't know, but there may be more to Sunak's decision and it may be a Brexit bonus/penalty.

We are tied to Europe by 5, soon to be 6 electricity interconnectors and 2 gas connections. We also provide Ireland with 75% of its gas. In the EU we could demand support for our energy needs.

Should the situation in Ukraine deteriorate the security of those supplies, and even the security of the undersea infrastructure, cannot be guaranteed and he may see that as a threat and is taking action to mitigate it.

 

Hopefully it won't, but should the worst happen, and we run out of oil and gas I don't have to think too hard about the screaming from the public and opposition that we were unprepared.

 

The cynic side of me of course thinks much the same as you and it's a knee-jerk reaction to try and win support at the ballot box.

[philmayfield 6,144]

We used to have a recycling centre, hidden from view, up a track near Southwell which also served the surrounding villages. It was always busy. They closed it so now we have to make a 25 mile round trip to take our rubbish. It appears that local authorities, whatever their political colour, are run by blithering idiots.

[DJ360 6,730]

15 hours ago, Brew said:

Council recycle centres are covert enforcement, use them or pay to have your unwanted items taken away.

 

I think it's far from that simple and in any event, when does a council recycling scheme flip from being a service, to enforcement?

 

Local Authorities have Waste Management and increasingly Recycling as part of their statutory duties and there is a long history of such, going back to the days of 'Muck Majors' and 'Night Soil' men and much earlier.

 

Firstly though.. what happened before such recycling centres existed?  My only memory is of the old style galvanised steel bin, which would mostly just contain coal ash and maybe a few cans or jars, but then milk, pop and other bottles carried a returnable deposit or were collected and re-used and plastic bottles were vitually unknown.. Pretty much everything which would burn, would end up on the coal fire.

 

Back in the 19th C, I believe that the coal ash 'Dust', which remained when 'rags and bones' had been separated, also had a value, for brick making.  (This trade was examined through the character of Nicodemus Boffin in Dicken's 'Our Mutual Friend')

 

As I recall, people habitually dumped stuff wherever they could find a bit of wasteland, although far less stuff was just dumped, as few had the wherewithal to be replacing furniture and other large items with anything like the frequency seen today, or the transport to shift large items. Also, good old Bonfire Night was a great way of disposing of old furniture etc.

There may have been Council services for large items back then, but I never heard of them.

 

Back to 'recycle centres'. They are only a part of the story round here.  Yes, we had a small one in the village, another in Rainford, and there was one over the border in Wigan, not too far away. All gone now, but the replacement, in St Helens, is a far better organised, purpose built centre, away from residential property, where you can take Garden Waste, Timber, Scrap Metal, Hard Plastics, Paper, Cardboard,Car Batteries, Old Oil, Small and Large appliances, Building Rubble, etc..etc.. I'd like to think that much of that is sold on for more specialist recycling and to generate revenue. Of course if you resent dumping car batteries, copper,brass etc.. you always have the option to take it to your local scrap dealer who will pay you cash. You'll probably barely recover your fuel costs on small amounts, but at least you'll know it's going to be recycled.

 

So local recycling centres provide a disposal route for anything you can get into your car.

 

Locally, we used to have a free 'bulky rubbish' collection, useful for old beds, mattresses, sofas etc.  They make a charge now, but it's not excessive and they turn up as arranged.

 

We also have a number of charities, who will collect stuff which is still useable and pass it on to those in need.

 

And we  have a couple of 'tatters', who patrol the area on a reasonably frequent basis, such that an old washing machine or whatever will not stay at the end of your drive for long..  We also have a lady scrap collector, who will respond to a text by coming out either same or next day.  She arrived to collect our old gas fire and boiler, only to find that one of the casual 'tatters' had arrived at the same time by coincidence.  They seemed to 'divvy up' the spoils amicably enough.

 

And finally, we have weekly collections of cans, bottles, jars, plastics, food waste and cardboard,the alternate week collections of 'general waste', and the optional (charged) garden waste. We could get picky about the details, but I reckon that's a pretty comprehensive service.

 

It's neither a 'single big truck', nor a single household system. It's effectively a 'hybrid' system. We get a weekly visit from the recycling truck which has separate spaces for the different classes of stuff, and a weekly visit of either the 'General/Residual' Waste, or Garden Waste.

 

I don't feel at all 'compelled' to cooperate with a system which makes sense, and which I'm paying for anyway via my Council Tax.

 

I should add that Mrs Col also takes used batteries, dead light bulbs and soft plastics to local supermarkets for recycling.

 

Very little makes it into our 'Residual Waste'.

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

18 hours ago, Brew said:

Should the situation in Ukraine deteriorate the security of those supplies, and even the security of the undersea infrastructure, cannot be guaranteed and he may see that as a threat and is taking action to mitigate it.

 

And yet..oddly, I don't recall him or anyone else making that point.  Also, it seems that whatever oil is produced will go into the global market which is sewn up by 'interested' parties anyway, so it's all just another triumph for lobbyists and vested interests.

 

It's a bent decision.

 

Warning.. as ever Jonathan Pie is rather sweary, but exceptionally incisive in his analysis.

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

And what, also, of Sunak's 'War on..' 'The War on Motorists'...  You really couldn't make this stuff up..  It's pretty much a re-working of  'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', but in a laughable way.

 

We all know that espansion of the Greater London 'ULEZ' proved very unpopular in Uxbridge when sentiments were whipped up, such that a barely articulate Tory candidate, who was almost certainly put up as a sacrificial lamb in the certainty of his failure..actually scraped through by a few hundred votes.

And yet, my 20 year old car passes the ULEZ test, as will the vast bulk of properly maintained vehilcles...

 

Still Sunak has declared war on his own party's' emission control policies, as well as the expansion of 20 mph zones and other measures..presenting himslef as a 'Friend' of 'The Motorist'.

 

I have no problem with 20 mph zones in residential and shopping areas etc. Nobody should be exceeding those speeds in such places anyway, but I'd prefer them to 'passive' controls such as speed bumps.

 

But the real point here is that Sunak is targetting and inflating the effects of essentially minor changes.. pretty much 'Tilting at Windmills', in a desperate attempt to recruit 'The Motorist', to his side, and to deflect from his monumantal failings over literally every other policy area.

 

And even more telling.. he'd be much more of a 'friend' to 'the motorist', if he actually did something to ensure that Road Tax went into roads, Fuel Tax was reduced, 'Smart Motorways' were reversed, potholes repaired, and Public Transport issues, both road and rail..addressed, to minimise the need for motoring.

 

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Brew 5,421]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Jonathan Pie is rather sweary, but exceptionally incisive in his analysis.

 

Certainly an expletive laden diatribe; though it was always indicated to me that if you have to resort to bad language and personal attacks - you've already lost the argument.

 

He's only incisive to those who are of  a somewhat extreme mindset. There are no facts, just a rather excitable man expressing an opinion and twisting details to fit with his invective. He hopes to impress  ranting his views to his followers, an  audience that need no convincing really, They're a mutual admiration society cheering him on. The more extreme he gets, the more they cheer. 

He's not incisive, he's biased beyond belief and pandering to the hard of thinking. To those muppets who don't know what they want, and will never be satisfied, nor will they ever accept reality, unless it brings back page three.

Remove the foul language and you could say just as much in about three lines.

[DJ360 6,730]

Jim.. he's a bit of light relief in a world of very serious Govt. malfunction and skullduggery..

 

I'm not sure quite how to pigeonhole him.. .. somewhere between a satirist and a comedian..but I don't take him half as seriously as you do.  I just enjoy his rants. I find them both cathartic, topical and accurate enough for that purpose.

[Brew 5,421]

56 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Jim.. he's a bit of light relief in a world of very serious Govt. malfunction and skullduggery..

 

I'm not sure quite how to pigeonhole him.. .. somewhere between a satirist and a comedian..but I don't take him half as seriously as you do.  I just enjoy his rants. I find them both cathartic, topical and accurate enough for that purpose.

 

A valid view Col, but the pity is he quite clearly, in my mind, believes what he's saying, it's neither satire nor comedy.

[DJ360 6,730]

Does this change your view?

 

 

[Oztalgian 3,298]

15 hours ago, DJ360 said:

And finally, we have weekly collections of cans, bottles, jars, plastics, food waste and cardboard, the alternate week collections of 'general waste', and the optional (charged) garden waste. We could get picky about the details, but I reckon that's a pretty comprehensive service.

We get our general waste bin 140 litres emptied every fortnight and on the alternate fortnight they empty the 240 litre garden/green waste bin that we are now allowed to put food waste in, along with the 240 litre recycling waste bin. In addition they do a free kerbside pick up for "quality items", paid for other stuff and we get extra recycling pick ups over the Christmas holiday periods. All soft drink, beer bottles and cans carry a 10c deposit along with any cardboard drink containers so you don't often see them in the waste stream. Strangely enough wine bottles and plastic milk cartons do not carry a deposit? Most of the waste that you see in the streets comes from cigarettes and fast-food outlets. 

[Brew 5,421]

9 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Does this change your view

 

The interview does go some way to ameliorate my view, particularly his take on free speech. And he does seem anxious to generate debate with which ! totally agree. To my mind however a foul mouthed rant is not the way to do it.

Listeners will hear the expletives, not the underlying message. They will recognise the insults and be amused, but lose much of what follows. Anyone who rants as he does with his alter ego seemingly out of control will almost immediately give the impression of the loony left it its worst. Anyone willing to engage in serious debate will recognise that you can't have a discussion or talk sense with someone screaming obscenities in your face.

[DJ360 6,730]

Why does nobody ever talk about the Loony Right?

[Brew 5,421]

Ooo, I like a quiz, I give up, why don't they?  

 

It's simply a catchy. alliterative and pejorative expression from way back.

Could it be from the days of Daft, Livingstone, Red Robbo Et al. and their ideas/proposals? .

Maybe Tories had a better campaign copy writer.

 

I suppose the best Labour came up with was, "after 12 years of Tory misrule" , 

[Brew 5,421]

On 10/1/2023 at 11:26 AM, DJ360 said:

don't feel at all 'compelled' to cooperate with a system which makes sense, and which I'm paying for anyway via my Council Tax.

 

The fact you agree with it does not mean there will not be consequences should you fail to follow the rules, and many are like your neighbour.

 

I think you missed the point Col. This all stemmed from system thinking, a way of joining the dots to the benefit of all. The point was that councils have a parochial view and do not consider consequences, they do not take into account the ramifications of their policies or see the holistic aspect, nor do they make provision for the hundreds of items they will not accept.

 

Recycle centres are only there to meet statutory obligations, notionally they benefit the environment ,but in doing so generate thousands of car journeys that create congestion and pollution. 

[Brew 5,421]

On 10/1/2023 at 12:05 PM, DJ360 said:

And yet..oddly, I don't recall him or anyone else making that point.

Do you really think any government will openly voice their national defence policy?

The recent data cable cuts were in my estimation clearly downplayed, yet the number interruptions grows year on year - not always accidental.

 

All this of course is just me exploring what might be and probably bears no relation to what is in Sunak's mind.

[DJ360 6,730]

On 10/3/2023 at 1:03 PM, Brew said:

Ooo, I like a quiz, I give up, why don't they?  

 

It's simply a catchy. alliterative and pejorative expression from way back.

Could it be from the days of Daft, Livingstone, Red Robbo Et al. and their ideas/proposals? .

Maybe Tories had a better campaign copy writer.

 

I suppose the best Labour came up with was, "after 12 years of Tory misrule" , 

 

Somebody, I think it was pre Thatcher P.M. Edward Heath who.. came up with 'The unacceptable face of Capitalism' in reference to the well known spiv 'Tiny' Rowland. Also 'The Nasty Party', as  general characterisations of the Tories used by their own Chair, Theresa May, to reproach them at their own conference., and they have clearly become far more extreme since... After May, and Johnson's purge..the far right of the Tory Party (and arguable even further right wing forces) took over the Tories.  They haven't gone away.

 

I'm busy with a lot of stuff at present so maybe here is good point for me to throw in a few observations on the antics of the Tories at Play (I.E. The Conservative Party Conference.)

 

1. Whether you support it or not, Sunak and his numerous predecessors have royally messed up the implementation of HS2. 

They were in charge of the project and its management. The failure is on them. 

Of course now Sunak is trying to re-frame it as alternative spending plans (they ALWAYS 'have plans'..)

But even there, he ignores the obvious neglect of the North, in terms of Rail Infrastructure modernisation and development, and tries to gain wider votes by promising 'hundreds of projects, across the country' or whatever.

The only hope left for travellers in general and rail travellers in the North, is that Sunak puts OUR money where HIS mouth is.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

2. Cruella Braverman giving her updated version of Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech.  Yes, she's right, there is a huge northward migration pressure affecting the whole of Europe.  But she chooses to frame it in local parochial, 'Little Englander' and near hysterical ranting about a 'Hurricane' of Migration, without bothering to mention the causes (political instability in Sub Saharan Africa,) or even consider the need for action from the whole of Europe to look at ways of both mitigating the migratory pressures, and spreading the burden fairly.

 

3.  I have heard some truly scary pronouncements sneaking through the Tory Conference, almost 'Under the Radar', whilst everyone is busy arguing about HS2.

 

-Michelle Donelan the 'Science Secretary'  ranting about her imaginary fear that 'Woke' has taken over science and assuring us all that:

 

Quote

they (the Tories) are “kicking woke ideology out of science”, thereby “safeguarding scientific research from the denial of biology and the steady creep of political correctness”.

 

In case it's not clear, that is pure Culture Wars stuff and very dangerous.  The last time I'm aware that a particular party put its own sick ideology above the integrity of Scientific Research was under Hitler.

 

-Sunak himself turning to simplistic 'dog whistle' electioneering with:

 

Quote

“And we shouldn’t get bullied into believing that people can be any sex they want to be. They can’t; a man is a man and a woman is a woman. That’s just common sense.”

 

Err, sorry to disappoint, but anyone with a functioning brain cell knows that statement is just wrong, whether some people like it or not. For a start it confuses 'sex' and 'gender', and 'gender identity', without even getting into a whole raft of more delicate and subtle issues.

 

- And finally.. for now.. the disgusting spectacle of a Tory Party Member, quietly voicing his disapproval of the homo/transphobic language employed by Braverman in her speech, being ejected from Conference by 'Security', and according to some reports, also Police.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tory-politician-ejected-from-conference-for-heckling-suella-braverman-s-speech/ar-AA1hDxwz

 

P.S. even the Torygraph is unimpressed.

 

https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVbbyzMW.png&hash=88c82f08ccb088403da31b892577a8de

 

 

[Brew 5,421]

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

1. Whether you support it or not, Sunak and his numerous predecessors have royally messed up the implementation of HS2. 

From the start I've had doubts and objections vis-à-vis HS2. It was proposed at a cost of £37/40 million and an estimated reduction in journey time of 40 of minutes. Hardly value  in my opinion.

Like many major schemes it was also seen as a boost to the economy, not from journey but the trickle down in increased employment and the resultant tax take. It's clearly not working and successive governments have found themselves riding a horse they can't get off. It's now projected to cost around £100 billion and probably more if it carries on the way it has; for comparison at that price we could have two more channel tunnels.

With delays, protests, public enquiries, covid and various degrees of government dithering etc. costs have spiralled out of control.

When do we say stop? Time will tell if Sunak's decision is brave or foolish.

 

Sometimes you just have a bite the bullet and say enough is enough.

 

Cancelling a major project is not new. Harold Wilson cancelled TSR2, P1154 and HS681, potentially world beating aircraft and all within 6 months of taking power. There was also at the time some rumour of a deal between Dennis Healey and the US secretary of state that sealed the aircrafts fate.

 

 

[Brew 5,421]

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

And finally.. for now.. the disgusting spectacle of a Tory Party Member, quietly voicing his disapproval of the homo/transphobic language employed by Braverman in her speech, being ejected from Conference by 'Security', and according to some reports, also Police.

 

I most definitely do not agree with him being thrown out but disgusting?

 

Was it any more disgusting than Walter Wolfgang, an 82 yr old man, a card carrying, life long member of the Labour party who was physically dragged out of conference for protesting about something a little more serious than a few bruised egos. The Iraq war.

[philmayfield 6,144]

I remember seeing a TSR2 prototype close up parked on a stand at Cranfield airfield, looking rather sorry for itself, many years ago. I believe there are two prototypes remaining, one at the RAF museum at Cosford and one at the Imperial War Museum at Duxford. Wilson had all of the tools and jigs destroyed.

[Brew 5,421]

51 minutes ago, philmayfield said:

Wilson had all of the tools and jigs destroyed

I wonder why? It could a good start to conspiracy theory..

[Rob.L 1,090]

46 minutes ago, Brew said:

I wonder why? It could a good start to conspiracy theory..

Apparently, F-111 was cheaper, at a time when TSR2’s costs were going through the roof (and Wilson wanted to keep on the good side of the USA). But even that was cancelled when its production costs rose, so we got Phantoms and Buccaneers instead.

 

Shame, really.

[Brew 5,421]

I didn't know that... maybe the US did  make a deal, and renege on it as usual

[DJ360 6,730]

Quote

I think you missed the point Col. This all stemmed from system thinking, a way of joining the dots to the benefit of all. The point was that councils have a parochial view and do not consider consequences, they do not take into account the ramifications of their policies or see the holistic aspect, nor do they make provision for the hundreds of items they will not accept.

 

Reading between the lines, I detect serious dissatisfaction with you local council..

 

I'm not aware of any  individual consequences for not using the recycling containers provided. She's the only one in our street to ignore the recycling and although I've not done a scientific survey, she could well be the only one on this development of several hundred dwellings.

 

All you could ever wish to know about recycling in St Helens Borough..  https://www.sthelens.gov.uk/rubbish

 

Where is your evidence to support the massive generalisation that 'councils have a parochial view' et,seq.'? If, as you claim, council re-cycling activities are fundamentally irresponsible.. what are the resulting problems and if they exist, how much responsibility lies with Central Govt., which instructs local councils?

 

Yes, we were discussing 'systems' thinking, but your suspicions around that don't negate the value of recycling, however it is theoretically viewed.  Still, as I said above, earlier re-cycling might have been better described as 'reclamation', since most was driven by profit. The motivations are rather different now, as we also struggle to minimise pollution and the effects of the rampant consumerism etc., which has led to a huge increase in 'throwaway' products from plastic bottles to kitchen appliances and fabrics which are essentially plastics, to flat pack chipboard furniture. The result is that in addition to reclaiming stuff which has value, we also have to contend with masses of stuff which needs a lot of processing to recover 'value', or simply to make it safe.

 

I don't recognise the 'hundreds of items they won't accept'. they are set up to deal with household waste and the only thing I've seen 'proscribed' at our centre is plasterboard, which is not allowed in building rubble for some reason.

I'm pretty sure that they would turn their noses up at radioactive materials, spent fuel rods, toxic chemicals, explosives and general industrial waste, but that's not the sort of stuff typically generated by households, and in any case, there are alternative provisions in place.

 

As for the 'thousands of car journeys'. I think you'd need to provide evidence that they caused more pollution than their purpose ameliorated. I'd agree that driving miles just to dispose of a single item makes little sense, but how else would you arrange things? Maybe we all just dump everything from paint tins to broken garden furniture and broken tellies to worn carpets, in the street and leave them there for a council truck to come around 'on spec' and collect it all? Then what?