Emigration

[Tacascarow]

So how would cycling round the world increase your carbon footprint? If you are not heating a house nor running a car anymore surely your carbon footprint would go down?

Cycling is not carbon free - all those calories you consume cycling have to be replaced. And then there's the small matter of crossing the watery bits.

Still a lot lower than your average consumerist westerner. If I hire a private plane as our political leaders did in the last few days (Natalie Bennett travelled by train & still got criticised by the right wing press for travelling first class), then yes I'm contributing hugely to my carbon footprint.
As for the watery bits I can see a huge part of the world with just short ferry rides between countries & continents.
Boats are about the most efficient forms of mass transport.

[Psamathe]

The UK is amazing IMV but I have a feeling that these Tories (well, Cameron and Osborne) as a government are environmentally illiterate. That means, if they had their way, we would see much more road building in sensitive areas, unlimited fracking, nuclear power stations and Green Belt development. I think even Bill Bryson might quail at some of that. It's odd as these two (DC and GO) were supposed to have gone to a good school but they seem to view the UK through the eyes of 14 year old schoolboys. Hopefully it won't be as bad as that due to a combination of economic reality (the nuclear power stations) and backbench Tory MPs protecting their local areas.

I don't think they are environmentally illiterate. I think they see £££££ in that beautiful countryside, profit for their wealthy top 1% mates. And that (to them as it's their/their mates wealth) takes priority.

They do see the PR/spin value of environmental issues (remember Hug a Husky™). But when your family and friends' ever increasing wealth can be furthered and means destroying the countryside then so be it. They see it as a case of sacrifices have to be made.

But be assured, they will always keep a small pristine area in the Cotswolds for their huntin/shootin/fishin/country suppers (with Rebecca, Jeremy, the Murdoch family, et al).

Ian

[bovlomov]

Yes indeed, Vorpal. But unless you have 40 years experience of running your own business, you aren't qualified to comment (I'm told).

This isn't really a choice between regulation or no regulation, as some would have it. All government is regulation. The moment a law is passed, whether it is about tax, employment or planning, the 'free' market is skewed in one direction or another. In other words, it's complicated - and it is the job of government to understand the complex relationships and manage them effectively.

My point is that no government in recent years has effectively managed the financial sector. Such regulation as there has been has encouraged risk takers and rewarded the reckless - to our detriment.

[Vorpal]

Yes indeed, Vorpal. But unless you have 40 years experience of running your own business, you aren't qualified to comment (I'm told).

Baloney. Running a business is not the only qualification for financial understanding. Managing a household income, managing budget withing a larger company, studying economics, or just observing what is happening in the world around us all qualify people to comment. Frankly, I'd rather trust the opinion of someone who has had to raise a child and pay the bills on a £13000 per year income.

This isn't really a choice between regulation or no regulation, as some would have it. All government is regulation. The moment a law is passed, whether it is about tax, employment or planning, the 'free' market is skewed in one direction or another. In other words, it's complicated - and it is the job of government to understand the complex relationships and manage them effectively.

My point is that no government in recent years has effectively managed the financial sector. Such regulation as there has been has encouraged risk takers and rewarded the reckless - to our detriment.

Indeed. But some governments have done better than others.

[al_yrpal]

When I was a child there were very strict rules on borrowing money, you needed a 30% deposit for anything, that was the law. Back in the Labour years any idea of having rules was finally abandoned. Although similar to the US meltdown our meltdown was caused by irresponsible lending where the spivvy so called banks abandoned all sense of caution, lending with little regard to the ability to repay. We now have a situation where very strict rules on lenders are in place for mortgage borrowing which locks the previously overborrowed into homes they wish to move from and prevents many of the young first time buyers with large deposits getting a home. Its a mess. To control consumer borrowing all you need is a few simple rules in a law. No wonder a lot of young people want to get out.

Al

[townbikemark]

The sick will have proper health care without private medical insurance.

Back OT, I understand that many other countries in Europe and across the world have some sort of insurance based health system - mandatory - (UKIP said they looked at other countries' systems before deciding that free at the point of sale was the best policy, not that it mattered in the end). Would have thought that was anathema to many here?

[Psamathe]

At last I've found a positive aspect to the election result (trivial, but positive). We wont have to keep listening to the "... the mess left by the previous government".

Or, given how it must have been conditioned in to all Conservative MPs as the best answer to any question, I wonder how long it will be until a Conservative MP uses the "clean-up the mess left by the last government" phrase when faced with a question they don't want or can't answer.

I actually find the underlying reasons MPs keep repeating the same rubbish soundbites rather insulting. It's like they think that if they repeat the same rubbish often enough people will start to believe it. It may or may not be true, but that they think is is rather demeans the intelligence of the us all.

Ian

[Tacascarow]

At last I've found a positive aspect to the election result (trivial, but positive). We wont have to keep listening to the "... the mess left by the previous government".

Or, given how it must have been conditioned in to all Conservative MPs as the best answer to any question, I wonder how long it will be until a Conservative MP uses the "clean-up the mess left by the last government" phrase when faced with a question they don't want or can't answer.

I actually find the underlying reasons MPs keep repeating the same rubbish soundbites rather insulting. It's like they think that if they repeat the same rubbish often enough people will start to believe it. It may or may not be true, but that they think is is rather demeans the intelligence of the us all.

Ian

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quote ... 1ulDqjf.99

[Tacascarow]

He also said

“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”

Bear that in mind when you see how many of our rights & liberties have been eroded in the last 15 years.

[Bicycler]

He also said

“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”

Bear that in mind when you see how many of our rights & liberties have been eroded in the last 15 years.

Whilst not buying into all the anti-tory stuff I agree with this and it is where we'll miss the Liberals from the Coalition. There have been some worrying intrusions upon civil liberties since the Blair years and by all accounts May is keen to push through more worrying legislation. Governments are getting more authoritarian

[JohnW]

Now that we have this govt in power again I am considering leaving................The only reasonable care system for somebody who is not rich now is prison.
So before I get I get ill where should I sail to?

Alcatraz?.............but seriously, I don't know the answer Edwards - there are Tories everywhere................but I don't think it's THAT bad really.

I just though I'd throw that in to see if It rattles any cages - I'm good at that...............

[JohnW]

................Whilst not buying into all the anti-tory stuff I agree with this and it is where we'll miss the Liberals from the Coalition. There have been some worrying intrusions upon civil liberties since the Blair years and by all accounts May is keen to push through more worrying legislation. Governments are getting more authoritarian

Yes - I'd endorse all you say Bicycler. We will miss the Liberals from government.

Apparently (and less seriously) there's going to be a new law which says we've all to wear kilts and have haggis for tea .

[Psamathe]

................Whilst not buying into all the anti-tory stuff I agree with this and it is where we'll miss the Liberals from the Coalition. There have been some worrying intrusions upon civil liberties since the Blair years and by all accounts May is keen to push through more worrying legislation. Governments are getting more authoritarian

One slight hope in the shorter term is that there are quite a few EU laws protecting our privacy. I appreciate that the Conservatives intend to take us out of the EU (and out of many other international bodies/treaties that protect us all), but even with no final decision until 2017, it will then take them quite a time to actually sort out how a country leaves the EU and sort out all the paperwork (border regs, everything that has to switch to local UK control that is currently done by the EU, etc.) so EU laws should (hopefully) protect us a little for a bit.

I see that France (or rather the French government) is passing laws allowing greater state snooping.

But, lets look on the bright side. With the government knowing everything about everything we do (from all that snooping they'll be doing), they can sell the data to the highest bidder (or maybe at a knock down price to one of their mates) so there can be even more tax loopholes provided and tax cuts for the top 1%. So maybe not all bad. Now I've just got to work out how to join the top 1%.

Ian

[661-Pete]

Apparently (and less seriously) there's going to be a new law which says we've all to wear kilts and have haggis for tea .

Funny thing this: in that triumphant SNP group photo:

there's not a single kilt on view. I have the feeling they want to dispel, both the 'kilt-wearing toffs' and the 'tartan army' images. Having said that, at my son's grad. ceremony at Stirling Univ, there were kilts galore (my son, being English, didn't wear one - but many other students did). And the students could hardly be called either toffs or louts.

[Vorpal]

The sick will have proper health care without private medical insurance.

Back OT, I understand that many other countries in Europe and across the world have some sort of insurance based health system - mandatory - (UKIP said they looked at other countries' systems before deciding that free at the point of sale was the best policy, not that it mattered in the end). Would have thought that was anathema to many here?

I am originally from the USA, and I experienced the worst and best that system has to offer. And I come of it with a strong belief that profit should never, ever, be part of the equation for health care. I simply don't see how, when the purpose of an organisation is to make money, that they can consistently offer good health care, even with rules and regular inspections by knowledgeable independent organisations, etc. The primary purpose of a health care organisation must be health care. Otherwise money will become cost savings and short cuts. One more case on each GP each day, and consolidation of two suregeries into one is one less GP tp pay, one less building to maintain, and better numbers on the bottom line. Then they use tricks to make sure that targets are met.

In places like the Netherlands, where part of the health care is funded through private insurance, the government heavily controls the costs, and compensates companies for taking on high risk clients. Otherwise, the insurance companies could not make a profit without refusing some clients.

The number of times I've people who were seriously ill in the USA have to quibble about every last penny spent and still end up owing thousands of dollars for health care is riduclous. My dad & step mom had to remortgage their house in their retirement years to pay medical bills. That's where the UK is headed with the privatisation of the health care system, unless there is significant reform.