| No mixed messages here then..... 07:45 - Jan 23 with 2246 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
.....and because I know how much you all love a Guardian read of a morning....
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/23/rachel-reevess-bid-to-expand-he
....no you can't drive your smelly diesel van here you poor working types however you can suck this up!
Edit....
Reeves told journalists at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Wednesday that she views economic growth in this parliament as more important than net zero. Asked to choose between the two, she said: “Well if [growth is] the number one mission it’s obviously the most important thing.”
2 plus 2 really does equal 5 these days, no wonder things just don't add up. [Post edited 23 Jan 7:49]
|  |
| |  |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 08:01 - Jan 23 with 2143 views | Swansea_Blue |
It’s growth at all costs buh. Increase emissions, reduce regulation… it doesn’t matter as long as the economy grows. I think it’s the wrong tack, but it does seem to be what the majority of the population wants. |  |
| |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 08:04 - Jan 23 with 2114 views | tcblue |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 08:01 - Jan 23 by Swansea_Blue |
It’s growth at all costs buh. Increase emissions, reduce regulation… it doesn’t matter as long as the economy grows. I think it’s the wrong tack, but it does seem to be what the majority of the population wants. |
This is probably true, but it's depressing.
Not so much the population's desires, but the fact we cannot expect government to make unpopular (but important) long term decisions anymore. |  | | |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 08:14 - Jan 23 with 2063 views | Swansea_Blue |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 08:04 - Jan 23 by tcblue |
This is probably true, but it's depressing.
Not so much the population's desires, but the fact we cannot expect government to make unpopular (but important) long term decisions anymore. |
Yes, I suppose that’s another way of looking at what I meant. We ‘want’ growth and a damaged environment (and inequality, etc) based on our continued voting behaviours. Mind you, it’s very rare that anyone offers an alternative. We certainly do need longer term thinking from politicians across the board. | |
| |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 08:23 - Jan 23 with 2004 views | nodge_blue |
It ties backing with your post yesterday about debt and borrowing. If we don't get growth we end up with more borrowing and more paying off debt every year rather than using that money to fund public services. It's already in the region of 10% of all tax and money received by the government.
Its a no win game.
The drill baby drill mantra of the USA and withdrawal from the Paris agreement is far more damaging. But then that cant be an excuse for ourselves to give upon climate ambitions over everything. Though Im not sure if its climate change or your van that's front of mind? |  |
| |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 08:25 - Jan 23 with 1990 views | CoachRob |
This plays into the abundance agenda put forward by the democrats in the US. The agenda is that we can have a mix of fossil fuels and renewables into the future and technology will mop up the overshoot. As far as I can tell Tim Walz seems to be a prominent figure in this unscientific policy agenda. If senior members of the cabinet think economic growth comes before planetary health then I'm afraid physics will win out to the detriment of us all.
Staggering only 48% of democrats believe we should phase out fossil fuels. Presumably tech bros have convinced Americans that their technologies will save the day.
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/06/28/what-americans-think-about-an-ene |  | | |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 08:34 - Jan 23 with 1948 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 08:14 - Jan 23 by Swansea_Blue |
Yes, I suppose that’s another way of looking at what I meant. We ‘want’ growth and a damaged environment (and inequality, etc) based on our continued voting behaviours. Mind you, it’s very rare that anyone offers an alternative. We certainly do need longer term thinking from politicians across the board. |
I disagree to an extent - I think what people want is an increase in living standards. For years we’ve seen little benefit from growth. It’s not even ‘real growth’ as we’ve seen declines on a per capita basis. Real term wage drops for the most part since the GFC, unaffordable housing, record tax burdens when you can’t even see a GP, record population growth. This government has inherited a broken country in many ways. There’s a fag paper between the two parties on economic policy - as with the US it seems elections are now fought primarily on social matters (i.e liberal v illiberal).
Building another runway isn’t going to solve any of that. [Post edited 23 Jan 8:38]
| | | |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 08:48 - Jan 23 with 1869 views | Lord_Lucan |
Having spent my younger years in Hounslow I know first hand the blooming noise Heathrow creates. It's a difficult one though as the south of England is massively under capacity with runways. LHR is the busiest airport in Europe but only has two runways. Schipol has 6 and Charles de Gaulle has 5.
Personally I think a new big feck off airport should be built elsewhere, the problem is you might decimate Hounslow and the surrounding area as LHR employs so many people in the area.
Have to say though, I'm liking Labours stance on a massive building campaign.
Build baby build. |  |
| |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 09:02 - Jan 23 with 1769 views | BloomBlue |
Funny old world.
Bit like Norway. Currently ontrack to be the first country to go 100% EV cars. Championed by the green brigade as a great achievement and if Norway can do it why isn't it possible for other countries do the same. The main difference is Norway have invested in the eletric infrastructure, how did they do that, by selling oil to the rest of the world. They even increased oil production in 2023 and 2024. The Norway model to achieve zero emissions is 'drill baby, drill' - maybe Trump has a similar plan |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| No mixed messages here then..... on 09:05 - Jan 23 with 1747 views | Guthrum |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 08:48 - Jan 23 by Lord_Lucan |
Having spent my younger years in Hounslow I know first hand the blooming noise Heathrow creates. It's a difficult one though as the south of England is massively under capacity with runways. LHR is the busiest airport in Europe but only has two runways. Schipol has 6 and Charles de Gaulle has 5.
Personally I think a new big feck off airport should be built elsewhere, the problem is you might decimate Hounslow and the surrounding area as LHR employs so many people in the area.
Have to say though, I'm liking Labours stance on a massive building campaign.
Build baby build. |
The other question is where the new airport could be built. Johnson's idea of an island in the Thames Estuary is a non-starter (it's in the wrong place on several different levels*). A lot of other sites are constrained by hills, rivers or existing built-up areas. Even doubling Gatwick would be tricky.
Not even sure exactly where they're going to put a third runway at Heathrow.
* Transport links, infrastructure, take-off direction. |  |
| |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 09:10 - Jan 23 with 1716 views | Guthrum |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 08:25 - Jan 23 by CoachRob |
This plays into the abundance agenda put forward by the democrats in the US. The agenda is that we can have a mix of fossil fuels and renewables into the future and technology will mop up the overshoot. As far as I can tell Tim Walz seems to be a prominent figure in this unscientific policy agenda. If senior members of the cabinet think economic growth comes before planetary health then I'm afraid physics will win out to the detriment of us all.
Staggering only 48% of democrats believe we should phase out fossil fuels. Presumably tech bros have convinced Americans that their technologies will save the day.
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/06/28/what-americans-think-about-an-ene |
A lot of US wealth was built on fossil fuels and large numbers of people work or have worked in that sector. It's an ingrained part of their economic mindset.
Much of the UK's ire at the end of coal, for example, was subsumed into the person of Margaret Thatcher. They don't have that. | |
| |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 09:17 - Jan 23 with 1664 views | NthQldITFC |
Really good thread.
The democratic majority (en masse) want an 'ever increasing standard of living' therefore 'growth'. This is almost seen as a birthright and unchallengeable to many good people, even many who want to 'save the world' in some kind of woolly way. Many won't or can't accept that the world is a finite place in terms of its 'resources' (whether you consider them as the property of the first human to grab them or otherwise) and its ability to absorb 'waste' materials and energy.
So we're democratically choosing suicide because we all constantly want a little bit more.
We could radically redistribute wealth and give 95% plus of the human race an immediate increase in standard of living - a one-off boost, but also an ongoing sharing economy - an increase in human happiness plus the headroom for it to start to dawn on our species that if we hope or expect our children to live a happy life, perhaps to live at all, we have to cut out the cancer of the predatory capitalist system now.
We can choose to do that. |  |
| |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 09:17 - Jan 23 with 1661 views | Pinewoodblue |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 09:05 - Jan 23 by Guthrum |
The other question is where the new airport could be built. Johnson's idea of an island in the Thames Estuary is a non-starter (it's in the wrong place on several different levels*). A lot of other sites are constrained by hills, rivers or existing built-up areas. Even doubling Gatwick would be tricky.
Not even sure exactly where they're going to put a third runway at Heathrow.
* Transport links, infrastructure, take-off direction. |
https://metro.co.uk/2025/01/21/this-heathrow-airport-look-like-14-000-000-000-ex |  |
| |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 09:50 - Jan 23 with 1541 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 08:01 - Jan 23 by Swansea_Blue |
It’s growth at all costs buh. Increase emissions, reduce regulation… it doesn’t matter as long as the economy grows. I think it’s the wrong tack, but it does seem to be what the majority of the population wants. |
One of these days someone will point out that net zero and global capitalism can not co-exist!
The Emperor has no clothes. | |
| |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 09:57 - Jan 23 with 1499 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 09:17 - Jan 23 by NthQldITFC |
Really good thread.
The democratic majority (en masse) want an 'ever increasing standard of living' therefore 'growth'. This is almost seen as a birthright and unchallengeable to many good people, even many who want to 'save the world' in some kind of woolly way. Many won't or can't accept that the world is a finite place in terms of its 'resources' (whether you consider them as the property of the first human to grab them or otherwise) and its ability to absorb 'waste' materials and energy.
So we're democratically choosing suicide because we all constantly want a little bit more.
We could radically redistribute wealth and give 95% plus of the human race an immediate increase in standard of living - a one-off boost, but also an ongoing sharing economy - an increase in human happiness plus the headroom for it to start to dawn on our species that if we hope or expect our children to live a happy life, perhaps to live at all, we have to cut out the cancer of the predatory capitalist system now.
We can choose to do that. |
Indeed. What we need is zero growth, redistribution and a reset of the notion that more stuff equals a better standard of living.
It really isn't that complicated. All we need now is some honesty. | |
| |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 10:05 - Jan 23 with 1466 views | thebooks |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 08:01 - Jan 23 by Swansea_Blue |
It’s growth at all costs buh. Increase emissions, reduce regulation… it doesn’t matter as long as the economy grows. I think it’s the wrong tack, but it does seem to be what the majority of the population wants. |
Not so sure — I’m guessing a lot of us just want things fixed.
What Labour thinks will grow the economy is very odd as well. I mean, AI will replace loads of jobs and create a few in building the vast energy centres that will boil the planet. Giving Amazon free reign will just create low paid, precarious work. |  | | |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 10:29 - Jan 23 with 1379 views | Meadowlark |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 09:17 - Jan 23 by NthQldITFC |
Really good thread.
The democratic majority (en masse) want an 'ever increasing standard of living' therefore 'growth'. This is almost seen as a birthright and unchallengeable to many good people, even many who want to 'save the world' in some kind of woolly way. Many won't or can't accept that the world is a finite place in terms of its 'resources' (whether you consider them as the property of the first human to grab them or otherwise) and its ability to absorb 'waste' materials and energy.
So we're democratically choosing suicide because we all constantly want a little bit more.
We could radically redistribute wealth and give 95% plus of the human race an immediate increase in standard of living - a one-off boost, but also an ongoing sharing economy - an increase in human happiness plus the headroom for it to start to dawn on our species that if we hope or expect our children to live a happy life, perhaps to live at all, we have to cut out the cancer of the predatory capitalist system now.
We can choose to do that. |
Can we though? |  | | |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 10:34 - Jan 23 with 1348 views | NthQldITFC |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 10:29 - Jan 23 by Meadowlark |
Can we though? |
On the individual level, what's to stop us other than lack of knowledge and fear of change.
Both are ephemeral and can be overcome through communication.
With that done, the behemoth of capitalism can be slain either through democracy or revolution.
Needs must. Pretty pathetic whimpering out of civilisation if we don't try. | |
| |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 10:41 - Jan 23 with 1309 views | lowhouseblue |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 09:17 - Jan 23 by NthQldITFC |
Really good thread.
The democratic majority (en masse) want an 'ever increasing standard of living' therefore 'growth'. This is almost seen as a birthright and unchallengeable to many good people, even many who want to 'save the world' in some kind of woolly way. Many won't or can't accept that the world is a finite place in terms of its 'resources' (whether you consider them as the property of the first human to grab them or otherwise) and its ability to absorb 'waste' materials and energy.
So we're democratically choosing suicide because we all constantly want a little bit more.
We could radically redistribute wealth and give 95% plus of the human race an immediate increase in standard of living - a one-off boost, but also an ongoing sharing economy - an increase in human happiness plus the headroom for it to start to dawn on our species that if we hope or expect our children to live a happy life, perhaps to live at all, we have to cut out the cancer of the predatory capitalist system now.
We can choose to do that. |
you are right that even in the rich west people expect rising living standards. and growth has, until it stopped, become a simple way of providing that. what we've seen when growth has dried up is political and distributional conflicts emerging across western nations - and that's included the rise of populism. the short-term problem that has now arisen is that the debt that has accumulated, in part because spending continued despite the fact that growth had ceased to increase revenues, makes government budgets dangerously unsustainable and the only practical and politically feasible way out of that problem is somehow to resume growth. that's the whole logic of the current government. what they are struggling with is whether you can have growth (in the sense of rising living standards and greater perceived prosperity) without absorbing more resources that contribute to climate change. if that involves a radical change in what people can consume (less travel, less plastic, less shipping, less choice, less convenience and disposability etc), and it must involve that change, will people perceive that as growth or as a fall in what matters to them. politically, if we have growth but you can't still fly to vegas for a stag weekend will people tolerate it or will they think they're poorer? |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 11:01 - Jan 23 with 1217 views | NthQldITFC |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 10:41 - Jan 23 by lowhouseblue |
you are right that even in the rich west people expect rising living standards. and growth has, until it stopped, become a simple way of providing that. what we've seen when growth has dried up is political and distributional conflicts emerging across western nations - and that's included the rise of populism. the short-term problem that has now arisen is that the debt that has accumulated, in part because spending continued despite the fact that growth had ceased to increase revenues, makes government budgets dangerously unsustainable and the only practical and politically feasible way out of that problem is somehow to resume growth. that's the whole logic of the current government. what they are struggling with is whether you can have growth (in the sense of rising living standards and greater perceived prosperity) without absorbing more resources that contribute to climate change. if that involves a radical change in what people can consume (less travel, less plastic, less shipping, less choice, less convenience and disposability etc), and it must involve that change, will people perceive that as growth or as a fall in what matters to them. politically, if we have growth but you can't still fly to vegas for a stag weekend will people tolerate it or will they think they're poorer? |
'...the only practical and politically feasible way out of that problem is somehow to resume growth'
That's why I always think that the way out of this is bottom up - i.e. inform and convince all of us electors in a very real and deep way that we have to reboot our expectations so that we can enable democracy to save us.
Politicians are trapped bailing out the sinking ship until we, the passengers, start to wake up to our impending drowning, put down the pink gin, and lend a fkn hand. | |
| |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 11:05 - Jan 23 with 1178 views | lowhouseblue |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 11:01 - Jan 23 by NthQldITFC |
'...the only practical and politically feasible way out of that problem is somehow to resume growth'
That's why I always think that the way out of this is bottom up - i.e. inform and convince all of us electors in a very real and deep way that we have to reboot our expectations so that we can enable democracy to save us.
Politicians are trapped bailing out the sinking ship until we, the passengers, start to wake up to our impending drowning, put down the pink gin, and lend a fkn hand. |
i've always thought that the analogy economically is with the second world war. in that scenario people accepted very reduced living standards because they knew resources needed to be allocated for another very urgent problem. you need to have the same sort or urgency and sense of willing sacrifice - and we're not there yet with climate change. [Post edited 23 Jan 11:07]
| |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 11:36 - Jan 23 with 1070 views | nodge_blue |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 09:17 - Jan 23 by NthQldITFC |
Really good thread.
The democratic majority (en masse) want an 'ever increasing standard of living' therefore 'growth'. This is almost seen as a birthright and unchallengeable to many good people, even many who want to 'save the world' in some kind of woolly way. Many won't or can't accept that the world is a finite place in terms of its 'resources' (whether you consider them as the property of the first human to grab them or otherwise) and its ability to absorb 'waste' materials and energy.
So we're democratically choosing suicide because we all constantly want a little bit more.
We could radically redistribute wealth and give 95% plus of the human race an immediate increase in standard of living - a one-off boost, but also an ongoing sharing economy - an increase in human happiness plus the headroom for it to start to dawn on our species that if we hope or expect our children to live a happy life, perhaps to live at all, we have to cut out the cancer of the predatory capitalist system now.
We can choose to do that. |
You make some good points there. It does feel that we can't keep growing given population and resources already consumed. And indeed we shouldn't expect to and why cant we just be happy, batten down and live better lives within our means.
But what you are describing is essentially austerity as we no longer have the ability to support a society of our size and with its current demands for pensions and health care.
We rail against all of this without acknowledging the consequences of those choices.
I only want growth to help support society. Not as a wish to see the rich get richer. | |
| |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 15:24 - Jan 23 with 852 views | Clapham_Junction |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 09:50 - Jan 23 by BanksterDebtSlave |
One of these days someone will point out that net zero and global capitalism can not co-exist!
The Emperor has no clothes. |
That someone would presumably have little understanding of energy.
It's perfectly possible for them to co-exist, and I'd argue that net zero can't exist without global capitalism, because not every country has the natural resources needed for net zero.
Many countries have already passed the point at which renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel generated energy. With battery technology improving, at some point EVs will be as attractive as fossil fuel vehicles.
The issue is not really capitalism but rather government policies and personal attitudes (I do agree with you on the having less stuff thing). |  | | |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 15:58 - Jan 23 with 782 views | Lord_Lucan |
| No mixed messages here then..... on 09:05 - Jan 23 by Guthrum |
The other question is where the new airport could be built. Johnson's idea of an island in the Thames Estuary is a non-starter (it's in the wrong place on several different levels*). A lot of other sites are constrained by hills, rivers or existing built-up areas. Even doubling Gatwick would be tricky.
Not even sure exactly where they're going to put a third runway at Heathrow.
* Transport links, infrastructure, take-off direction. |
I'm not sure I completely agree that Boris Island is such a non starter.
Should have got on with it years ago.
I think the talk of the third runway at LHR was west towards Longford. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
