kustomkarkommando posted:

spectralent posted:

"Limit access to foreign nationals" means "People who work and live here and pay taxes to fund this health service, who may even work in this health services, should Go Home if they want medical care for anything less than a heart attack".

ISeeCuckedPeople posted:

Now explain why some people want to do away with fuel subsidies for flights and not expand your airports?

ISeeCuckedPeople posted:

Well as it was presented to me...

None of these seemed to bad of an idea to me....

ISeeCuckedPeople posted:

Now explain why some people want to do away with fuel subsidies for flights and not expand your airports?

ISeeCuckedPeople posted:

Now explain why some people want to do away with fuel subsidies for flights and not expand your airports?

Paperhouse posted:

Still watching the debate - Caroline Lucas is great, isn't she Leanne Wood is also good. Whoever the SNP bloke is has come across pretty well too, and Farron has actually seemed alright as well. Nuttall and Rudd utter poo poo

Vitamin P posted:

On reflection Farrons Cheeky Chappy routine was significantly more embarrassing than Mays no-show.

spectralent posted:

But also yeah the main reason I can never vote green ever is because I studied a science and the Greens either don't understand or don't care about science.

spectralent posted:

Fuel subsidy for flight would make flying cheaper to operate and lead to under-valuing of a carbon source, I assume. Opposing that would be trying to financially encourage people to make less flights. Remember this is the UK, if you need to get to most places in the UK it's like a 6-8 hour train ride at most, there's really no reason to fly within-country.

Airport expansion's a contentious issue since we really really want to have The Biggest Airport Ever but it'd probably be better if we were expanding airport capacity all around the country.

ISeeCuckedPeople posted:

Now explain why some people want to do away with fuel subsidies for flights and not expand your airports?

ISeeCuckedPeople posted:

6 to 8 hours is a long period of time. If I could fly for a reasonable price as I understand you can in England to these places that I go in America I would.

But from my airport a 1.5 hour flight cost $400 and a 3-4 one costs $700. And those are local within the us. Not international.

Vitamin P posted:

On reflection Farrons Cheeky Chappy routine was significantly more embarrassing than Mays no-show.

TACD posted:

You can't realistically tackle climate change while also farting out an ever-increasing number of jumbo jets.

ISeeCuckedPeople posted:

6 to 8 hours is a long period of time. If I could fly for a reasonable price as I understand you can in England to these places that I go in America I would.

But from my airport a 1.5 hour flight cost $400 and a 3-4 one costs $700. And those are local within the us. Not international.

Paperhouse posted:

His opening speech was laughable but he's had some decent rebuttals so far

I don't get why some of the other left parties are attacking Corbyn and Labour on anything that's not the target man

Paperhouse posted:

His opening speech was laughable but he's had some decent rebuttals so far

I don't get why some of the other left parties are attacking Corbyn and Labour on anything that's not the target man

OwlFancier posted:

In fairness nor do most politicians.

ISeeCuckedPeople posted:

6 to 8 hours is a long period of time. If I could fly for a reasonable price as I understand you can in England to these places that I go in America I would.

But from my airport a 1.5 hour flight cost $400 and a 3-4 one costs $700. And those are local within the us. Not international.

ISeeCuckedPeople posted:

Sure you can. 20%-30% of carbon emissions come from livestock. Only like 10% come from planes. If that. Planes are pretty green compared to cars.

spectralent posted:

They make less of a big deal about the environment, though, and the environment is fundamentally a scientific, evidence-based issue. If you care about the environment, pay attention to scientists. Otherwise you're just doing hippy grandstanding.

OwlFancier posted:

And far less so than trains.

Trains are good.


I would probably argue that the prevailing attitude is that the environment doesn't really matter, which is also a bollockfeel position.

spectralent posted:

Well, yes, but "The environment doesn't matter, because capitalism" shouldn't be met with "the environment does matter, because ~gaia~".

Namtab posted:

Realistically their votes are going to come from Labour voters. See: recent Scottish politics

Paperhouse posted:

Yeah but... do they want the Tories to win

I mean I guess everyone know they will so

deletebeepbeepbeep posted:

How big is PISSFLAPS hard on?

ISeeCuckedPeople posted:

Sure you can. 20%-30% of carbon emissions come from livestock. Only like 10% come from planes. If that. Planes are pretty green compared to cars.

Namtab posted:

Tintowers been quiet lately

forkboy84 posted:

Planes are bad for nearby transport. It's just a wasteful way to travel if you're not going hundreds of miles. Britain just isn't a big enough island for it to be a necessity. Especially not if we renationalise the railways and actually make train travel affordable again. It's a loving outrage that it's almost half the cost to fly to London & back from Inverness get a return to London on the train.

nothing to seehere posted:

That's because your airlines are bad. You can quite easily get £100 2-hour flights around the EU, so airfares are cheap enough subsidy isn't needed, decreased emissions are.

ISeeCuckedPeople posted:

The airlines would all convene together to do massive price hikes and blame the party who removed the subsidies and they would lose the next election based off that attack.

Trin Tragula posted:

I've been bored and trying to avoid things, so I decided to go poke around at these magical new YouGov polls and projections that we're all relying on for a little hope, instead of the diabolical TNS ones that Theresa May is taking to bed with her at night. YouGov has also produced a very clever thingy which is currently attempting to give (sort of) bespoke constituency-by-constituency results rather than trying to extrapolate from a national uniform swing (a concept that's been steadily declining towards irrelevance since 2010).

What I was trying to do was figure out how they think Labour might get near the Times headline projection of a hung parliament. Since the referendum I've been absolutely fascinated by the potential effect of voters who went for UKIP in 2015 thinking "job done" and going back to an established party; there are a lot of constituencies out there, the pattern is repeated again and again, in which the incumbent MP has a reasonable-but-not-safe majority of somewhere between 2,000 and 5,000. The UKIP vote is higher than the majority (so if they all switched to the party who finished second in 2015, the seat would flip), and there's also somewhere between 1,500 and 4,000 (again, depending on the constituency) combined Lib Dem and Green voters who might just be tempted to vote tactically this time. I reckon these are the seats they're looking at; they're thinking that there's a reasonable chance of Labour taking enough of them off the Tories, and holding on when they hold a seat with those demographics, to swing it.

(n.b. this ignores the potential effect of increased youth turnout because I've seen enough elections to believe that when I see it and not before)

Here's an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. Hastings & Rye is a Tory-held seat with a majority of 4,796 (9.4% of all votes cast). The UKIP vote last time was 6,786 (11%). The Lib Dems and Greens combine for about 3,500 votes. The current YouGov prediction* has the seat pissing all over national swing, with Labour winning on about 45%, the Tories on about 42%, and UKIP nowhere at about 5%. There's also a major comedy wild card here that they don't mention or attempt to quantify; this is Amber Rudd's seat. God knows what that's going to mean. The election is full of these seats: Ipswich, Reading East, Dudley North, Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland. They're going to be where the election is decided. Which way does the UKIP vote swing, are the kids going to turn out, and are there any local peculiarities?

*Even YouGov themselves don't really know because they can't poll most individual constituencies in enough detail, so are trying to guess based on cleverly extrapolating from people they are polling in other constituencies, and weighting them and unskewing them and . The headline numbers in H&R are a predicted 45-42 Labour victory, but you look at that for half a second and you quickly see that there's a gargantuan margin of error; the actual prediction is Labour on anywhere between 38% and 52%, and the Tories on anywhere between 36% and 47%. And the worst-case scenario of the Tories on 47% and Labour on 38% in the constituency lines up nicely inside the margin of error on that national TNS poll. They don't loving know what the seat breakdown's going to be! Nobody knows. But it's fun when the Times splashes their numbers on the front page as gospel...

(There's also a second interesting category; seats where UKIP finished in second place, or with more than 10,000 votes, or both. Penistone & Stocksbridge has a Labour majority of over 6,000. UKIP were third last time on 10,738. This constituency literally has the potential to turn into an ultra-safe Labour seat, or a safe Tory seat. Rotherham; 8,400 majority for Labour, 11,400 UKIP voters out there who boosted them into second last time.)

Julio Cruz posted:

High-speed rail is the other way to cut right down on intra-UK flights but of course we can't do that because ~the fields~

ISeeCuckedPeople posted:

The airlines would all convene together to do massive price hikes and blame the party who removed the subsidies and they would lose the next election based off that attack.

Trin Tragula posted:

I've been bored and trying to avoid things, so I decided to go poke around at these magical new YouGov polls and projections that we're all relying on for a little hope, instead of the diabolical TNS ones that Theresa May is taking to bed with her at night. YouGov has also produced a very clever thingy which is currently attempting to give (sort of) bespoke constituency-by-constituency results rather than trying to extrapolate from a national uniform swing (a concept that's been steadily declining towards irrelevance since 2010).