Net zero is all bollocks anyway. We just buy carbon credits and keep pumping out the stuff. The CO2 panic and climate change, like racism, has become an industry lining the pockets of a few people that regularly appear on TV and radio. One will say we will all be dead in 30 years time, baked to death in the increasing heat caused by CO2. Another person says we are actually in a CO2 deficit as we've planted more trees and crops which need CO2 to grow. It's like these left wing muppets that come on tv and talk down our country whilst living in posh streets in bought with all the appearance money they get and donations from guilty millionaires. BTW, guess how much CO2 is actually in the atmosphere. 5%?, 10 %? It's actually 0.04% of the total atmosphere. If all they world stopped producing CO2 it wouldn't matter because it hangs around for about 300 years or longer. Methane, another greenhouse gas, only hangs around for 10 or 12 years but absorbs more hear, so we should be concentrating on stopping mammals farting to cool the earth. Oh, and dispersing clouds too.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Are you ok?
And this 0.04% tells alone? Like a unique data? Nothing. Absolutely nothing
Now if you take that we were 300 ppm les than 100 years ago. And now 400 ppm, if we reach 500 ppm ( at this pace in 50 yearsl, thr temperature will raise 2-3 degrees. I am not a scientist, but the scientific community who i trust, they said it would be catastrophic. About methane? I agree 100%, but disregarding CO2 like is not one of the main problems is dangerous and a mistake
Last edited:
I think this is the result of taking 2 points from the last three games when we could have taken 9. It has broken me too.
The problem is that whole "it's only 0.04%" rhetoric is that 200 years ago it was half that. It doesn't need to look like a big number to cause a big problem. You don't need 5 or 10% cyanide in you blood stream to kill you, 0.2% will do it, but it's a small number so let's just crack on, eh?
In three or four lifetimes, we've doubled the concentration of a problematic gas in the vastness of our atmosphere. How do people not have any concern over this?
Also, who exactly is saying we're in a carbon defect? There are many many fewer forested areas in the 21st century than there were in the 18th century.
Also, carbon credits don't work like that. They don't count towards net zero.
Last edited:
Nice rant. 8/10
It's good to hear from a real scientist.
Think I read this on a GeoCities site about 20 years ago
GeoCities
Sounds as if his pip has been squeaked.
will anybody notice?Wasn't the message from this Chinese government representative that Britain 'isn't a player anymore', so if he's right, why do we keep up our posturing?
I was listening to David Cameron giving it out recently as Britain's Foreign Secretary!!!
The mind boggles, what must other countries think when the man who as PM set up the biggest political 'cock-up' in living memory in this country with the Referendum. Now he is sent out to face the world as our Foreign Secretary.
Is this just the 'tail-end' of a government with no where else to go, or is it reality?
Why should (at the moment) Israel, Russia and China, etc. give a monkey's about what we say or even do.
Perhaps someone (N. Farage perhaps) should think about launching a new political party the MBGA and throw in our lot with Trump.
Sir Keir come in and save us please!!!
‘Middle-class lefties’ won’t stop Labour using private sector to cut NHS backlog, Streeting says
Shadow health secretary says quicker treatment to stop working class families being left behind is more important than ideology.
I'm sure it will stop with the backlog and this is just to help the working class. Honest Wes.
Shadow health secretary says quicker treatment to stop working class families being left behind is more important than ideology.
I'm sure it will stop with the backlog and this is just to help the working class. Honest Wes.
There's an obvious logic to using the private to clear the backlog and try and improve patient outcomes, but why does he have to couch it in such needlessly confrontational language? The guy is a tool and such a big liability. It never ends well for arrogant gobby shites like him.
Well there is and there isn't. Some of the private hospitals are seemingly not doing a good job. We should only be willing to pay if the care is up to the standard required. Perhaps we ought to be looking at buying the private hospitals or something.
This. Private healthcare is not the rosy world that people think. My daughter is 17 and had suspected heart problem. I have private health cover and obviously wanted her seen ASAP, NHS was 6 month minimum wait. I could not get her seen in the private sector by a heart specialist without travelling at least 80 miles as the private hospitals will not allow adult doctors to work on under 18s and there are very few private specialists in paediatric heart conditions. The NHS appointment came through, down the road and they were brilliant.
I suspect it is not the only area in which the private sector is overly selective.
Genuine question - Is there anything in this country that has been privatised that is now run better? I can't think of anything.
profits.
Telecoms is the only sector where it has seemed to have improved service levels and competition.
Telecoms as in broadband or mobile phones? Because BT were capable of rolling out fibre direct to houses at low cost (due to economies of scale) in the 90s if they hadn’t been broken up by the Tories (Thatcher).
Absolutely not. It’s been a car crash that’s seen rampant profiteering and us left behind in both broadband speed and cell phone coverage.
More mobile than fixed services, although fixed line broadband will be redundant in 5-10 years as 5G becomes more common place.
We have some of the lowest costs and most competitive markets in Europe, you could make a strong argument that privatisation has benefitted consumers. Coverage wise, certainly in rural areas, has been a failure but that’s firmly with the regulator not driving for coverage but more about speed.
I'm not so sure it will, not in those time scales.
Privatisation was never about benefitting the consumer.
Whether a business or service is privatised or in public ownership doesn't guarantee it will be run better.
In many privatised areas, businesses or services are not necessarily being run better, for whilst that may be the aim, the bottom line is profit, and the larger the profit the better.
In public services the bottom line is to control spending to within what the government of the day will allow, this inevitable ends up with 'becoming the best it can be' for the money invested, less in, less out is really the mantra.
The difference in the two really boils down to 'the imperative', if a private company/service does not make a profit then it has to change or go under, the owners ultimately decide. With a public service, the imperative is to keep going whatever, efficiency and effectiveness are stipulated, but often sacrificed, in an effort to reduce costs, the owners i.e the public have little if any direct control and the only lever available (GE) has to wait five years or so to get pulled.
Last edited:
You'd imagine they could be used where there are logjams in the NHS.
I'm sure private hospitals do make feck ups, particularly given staff work across both. Surely the NHS can screen out ones that are shite.
If you need to employ (and train) people to go and audit all the private hospitals, is it not just cheaper and more effective to build some new hospitals and/or hire some new NHS staff though? It's potentially nothing more than a sticking plaster solution to turn to the private providers. It's well known for example that the private hospitals generally consider it too expensive to run A&Es and ICUs so they just discharge the patients that need them to the NHS. So at that point are you just creating more work for ambulance drivers, admin staff, all at great expense, and at the risk of lower patient care standards?
I dunno the maths behind it all tbf. But when you have massive waiting lists, you're always going to have private, not to mention all the procedures considered non-essential or cosmetic. They must reduce some of the load on waiting lists, but no idea how it all balances out.
Fully private hospitals would not be too bad if they were heavily taxed so that those who gain from their wealth are at the same time contributing to others. And I'm aware they would be saving the NHS cash by not using it, I would still take that and tax on top.
However people are often not using fully private hospitals, what they're doing is paying for consultations with NHS doctors to jump the queue, meaning everyone else spends longer in the queue than they need to, in effect creating a worse queue for others. Then they might pay for private treatment from NHS staff that again leaves less for those unable to pay that extra.
I spent 2 years fighting with Vodafone in my old house (where a 4G router was my only real option) about why the speeds regularly went from 40 up and down to 0.5 up and down. Every time there was some excuse. Mobile networks aren't mission critical. We expect them to be crap, so they are.
The Streeting suggestion is either efficient or gateway drug.
If the suggestion is that private hospitals cannot sit empty while the NHS is in its knees, and legislation is used to force the companies to be as full as the NHS at sensible recompense… great.
If the suggestion is that Private Hospitals can charge extortionate rates that kneecaps the NHS, with NHS staff moonlighting there to do the same thing for more pay… nah.
Masses of daylight between the two. But I do trust Streeting to make things better. I think his head is on straight and I don’t think he’s aiming at a part-privatised NHS in the long run
The mad nonsensical headlines bear no relation to the policy suggestions, nor the words said. Yes I’m sure that the New-New Labour is closer to the private sector than any of us want. But I simply don’t think there’s a better short term option, and I don’t think they’ll be baking in long term commitments to resolve short term problems.
Non story.
If the suggestion is that private hospitals cannot sit empty while the NHS is in its knees, and legislation is used to force the companies to be as full as the NHS at sensible recompense… great.
If the suggestion is that Private Hospitals can charge extortionate rates that kneecaps the NHS, with NHS staff moonlighting there to do the same thing for more pay… nah.
Masses of daylight between the two. But I do trust Streeting to make things better. I think his head is on straight and I don’t think he’s aiming at a part-privatised NHS in the long run
The mad nonsensical headlines bear no relation to the policy suggestions, nor the words said. Yes I’m sure that the New-New Labour is closer to the private sector than any of us want. But I simply don’t think there’s a better short term option, and I don’t think they’ll be baking in long term commitments to resolve short term problems.
Non story.
The 5G that was advertised is way off arriving in the UK with the wavelength selloff being delayed again last year. What we have so far is a slightly enhanced 4G and isn't going to have any impact on broadband.
When the selloff happens I guess there's a chance, but we'll have to revise how.we use routers. The mmwave bandwidth (which is the one with increased speeds) can't even pass through humans, nevermind walls so will need a decent amount of setup.
I'm genuinely curious as to why? What has he done or said to make you think he's trustworthy?
Do you not find it concerning he's advocating for increased usage of private healthcare whilst also receiving donations from private healthcare companies?
This is true isn’t it ? Getting the private sector to “help” won’t work.
Every single thing he has said is trustable. The headlines are not.
He’s not advocating for increased use of private healthcare care. He’s advocating for use of private healthcare capacity.
I don’t care how much donations he takes. He’s a good egg. He maintains that the NHS should be free at point of use and has a good sense of how that can happen.
The left is so shellshocked at minor shit. He’s advocating for a private usage faaaaar below the Tory subterfuge sell-off plan. People should just roll with it and complain if he goes too far. He’s actually suggesting a regression from what’s actually happening.
The media is twisting reality. As always. It’s trying to stop the left voting for better outcomes. Seems to be succeeding.
Free at the point of use is not the only important factor though. As we've seen, it's private companies profiting from industries that either are, or should be nationalised, which is costing the taxpayer too much to maintain standards.