BBC Blog Network

User Profile

stevemrsteve

Listed below are comments made by stevemrsteve between Saturday, 6th June 2009 and Saturday, 31st October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

"No backroom deals" 8:14pm on 31 Oct 2009 Disgusted,

First up Jim Nicholson is an MEP from NI taking the Conservative whip (and having been elected explicitly on that basis) so yes they do have representation here.

Secondly they'll comfortably win the general election without seats from NI. This points out to the observant that they are taking a massive, electorally unnecessary, risk getting seriously involved here. Consequently it is reasonable to assume that it must be because they actually do want NI treated as part of the country they seek to govern rather than a "problem" to be dealt with.

As an Irishman myself I cannot say that history teaches me that the Tories are "brutal, anti-Irish". Furthermore even though they have undoubtedly made mistakes in the past (as has everybody) the reality is that parties are constantly changing as people come and go. The days even of Thatcher are ancient history now as all the folk in power then are long long gone - new faces, new policies, new party: they have moved on why don't you?

So all in all if you want a NI to be prosperous and peaceful corner of the UK they look like the only game in town to me. And if you want it to be a peaceful prosperous corner of a united ireland then they are still the best to vote for because the only thing that will change that is a "border poll" and in the meantime you presumably want the other two parts... So I reckon they've won my vote!
"No backroom deals" 00:04am on 31 Oct 2009 There really is such rubbish written about the Tories - they are the only party with elected reps in all 4 home nations of the UK. While they may be somewhat less strong in Scotland (a fairly recent phenomenon that will no doubt recover), they topped the poll in Wales at the European Parliament elections and came second in NI.

Opposition parties in the 3 nations other than England often try and paint the Tories as English but the honest reality is that they have members in every devolved nation and that their candidates and elected reps in those nations are, the vast majority, local folk. Even in England their opponents try and paint them as only from the South but the truth is that they control almost every county council in the North of England.

So don't believe Labour, SNP, DUP and other eejits when considering the Tories - look at the reality!
Don't hold your breath 12:44pm on 24 Jul 2009 Thankfully Stormontspy has filled in the answers so I won't bother.

But I do want to ask why you are proud of:
"Who stopped the irish langauge act?"
"Who increased funding for ulster scots culture and heritage?"

As a unionist voter I have no desire to crush the Irish language nor any desire to throw any more money at the Ulster Scots stuff. Your comments appear to me like casual cultural bigotry! I would be more impressed if you negotiated a tightly costed ILA which firmly embeds the Irish language within the UK as a sign of goodwill to your neighbours but without wasting a lot of scare taxpayers money.

Also on this one:
"Who is fighting in Europe to get all pesticides and fertiliser banned in the euro parliament to be tested in REACH guidelines before permanent bans?"

The sole DUP MEP is not part of any group and has, I would suggest, precisely zero influence within the (admittedly corrupt) European Parliament system.

My overall impression of the executive is that it is useless. On e.g. water rates, when are they going to engage with reality and realise that they have to charge and then focus on installing meters so it is charged fairly - but as with all things they just complain and go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying "Big Issue, Big Issue, Spare change please Meester Darling, Spare change please"
A Toxic Shock 1:15pm on 10 Jul 2009 madge - Paisley claimed the £400 food allowance (the maximum available without receipts) consistently every month over many years, as indeed did quite a number of the DUP MPs, irrespective of how often they were in London. As the Daily Telegraph put it "Who ate all the pies?"

Now what is your DUP Press Office spin on that?
One relative only 6:24pm on 26 Jun 2009 majesticfilibuster,

So you'll be voting for your local Conservative & Unionist candidate at the next general election then? To solve this problem of NI MPs having no influence and little chance to speak (not that the current lot are ever there anyway).
The official turnout figure 2:15pm on 07 Jun 2009 Richard_SM

You have tempted me back :-)

(1) mea culpa - I left out the word anthropogenic in the bit you quoted me on.

(2) Might I enquire as to what your job is that had you appraising the reports and what manner of organisation it is in? Or to put it bluntly are you a lobbyist, activist, politician (doubt it if you can read scientific reports), researcher for a politician/party, etc.?
A count and a coup 12:48pm on 07 Jun 2009 It will be fascinating what the DUP come up with to spin this result! Or perhaps they will learn some humility? I personally doubt but interesting times indeed.
The official turnout figure 12:39pm on 07 Jun 2009 Richard_SM

Al Gore's piece is a polemic not a documentary. Go look at any serious critique of it. I note that you have resorted to belittling me and my understanding. Go read the research (i.e. the scientific stuff not the one-sided "documentaries" and press-releases from enviro-lobby groups). For the record I used to lazily assume global warming theory was true, just like everyone else, then I took an interest and started reading and quickly realised how shaky are its foundations.

In any case this blog not the place for this, so I shall desist - sorry Mark!
The official turnout figure 5:13pm on 06 Jun 2009 LisburnDUP

Your numbers are funny :-) see you back commenting on Monday?

Off-topic:

Richard_SM

I agree re finite resources and pollution BUT CO2 is not pollution, in fact it is food for plants who use CO2 & sunlight to make energy... So yes reduce fossil fuel use but not because of CO2, but because of the actual pollutants, and no need to take crazy measures to do it - do it gradually.

So forget CO2 - deal with real pollution - we agree on that much.

My problem is that this jumped up theory of global warming has become accepted as gospel truth and is leading people to do crazy things - eg. very seriously propose to seed the oceans with chemicals to produce algal blooms (v. dangerous thinking I reckon), or tax carbon (we need less not more taxes in life and this one will simply shift our jobs to other countries, not reduce CO2), or carbon offsetting (which is simply fraud perpetrated by clever and amoral business folk and doesn't actually reduce CO2 in most cases when investigated).

We also get folk promoting electric cars, when electricity production almost all generates CO2 and the environmental effects of battery related manufacture/disposal can be very nasty. Got to think of the whole cycle of a product not just the car when driven - how much CO2 emitted in producing an electric vs normal car?

In essence my problem is people are not thinking or analysing, just acting off the latest trend. Most/all public discussion of global warming theory has become emotion-based, not science-based and that is a problem.
The official turnout figure 01:20am on 06 Jun 2009 Wow wow wow GarzaofBelfast!

I am not a DUP voter nor a Sammy Wilson fan but you said:

"I mean Wilson's (my freakin MP), denial of climate change is in the same class as Moon Landing deniers."

That is not true. You are not a climate scientist and nor am I but we can both quickly find out the following:

(1) Most people promoting the theory of global warming are NOT climate scientists
(2) Among specialist climate scientists there is considerable debate as to whether global warming theory is correct
(3) Global temperatures have not in fact risen so far since 2000 - that is in spite of the pro-global warming computer models predicting they would.
(4) Global warming is a theory which arises out of computerised mathematical models of global climate - all of which produce very different outputs from very minor changes in inputs.
(5) Said models do not predict climate correctly if run backwards into the past and then compared with historical data

Less scientifically but still worth thinking about:
(6) Why do you believe in man-made global warming? Do you understand the origins of the theory? What evaluation of the evidence did you perform that persuaded you?
(5) You wouldn't trust a weather forecast for next month - why are you trusting one for 100 years time, seemingly without question?
(8) One of the leading proponents of global warming theory is the same man who promoted the idea of an immanent new ice-age in the 1970s (guy from NASA, name escapes me right now)

And finally:
(9) Even if, in spite of the considerable evidence to the contrary, we do warm a little why is that a problem and why can we not just adapt our society? - humans live in every climate zone on earth more or less and are eminently adaptable. This option is likely to cost less than the crazy CO2 mitigation plans and also avoids the unintended consequences of some of the crazy "solutions" to CO2 proposed, which range from reversing the industrial revolution to pouring megatons of chemicals into pristine ocean to trigger an algal bloom to eat up CO2 (and what other consequences me wonders).

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

stevemrsteve