BBC Blog Network

User Profile

bringiton8989

Listed below are comments made by bringiton8989 between Monday, 13th July 2009 and Friday, 30th October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Magnetic attraction of climate 'scepticism' 6:48pm on 30 Oct 2009 @3. John_from_Hendon

The WWII cold snap gets a million explainations. I found a new one just rechecking for myself, but an often floated idea is that we simply blew that much up during WWII that we released a lot of particulates into the atmosphere, resulting in a global dimming trend. Now, global dimming by SO2 has some very sound science behind it (large volcanos have quite consistant effects on the world climate) - the picture with particulates may be slightly less clear cut, but there are people here who know better than me.

As a student engineer I wholeheartedly agree with 1. Gates 32.

Fossil fuels have LOADS of drawbacks that aren't related to climate change. Air pollution is one of the top 10 global killers (though mostly in the developping world due to bad cooking techniques). I read recently an estimate that a European's life expenctancy is reduced 7 months through poor air quality.

When are we going to grow up and just build some nice, cheap(ish), reliable Nuclear power plants instead of importing more than 50% of our energy in a politically unstable world?
First draft of UK economic history 10:36am on 23 Oct 2009 On this news, why is the stock market up 55 points so far this morning? It seems crazy. Is there any other explaination than "There's too much money around - hyperinflation on the way?"
Biases, U-turns, and the BBC's climate coverage 6:44pm on 14 Oct 2009 I think PWB's comment 11 raises an interesting question. i.e. How should the BBC approach issues which are still in contention?

I personally think that going along with expert opinion, weighing up sources etc. is a good way to go, and I trust the BBC as my main source of information on current affairs because, by and large, I think it does it extremely well.

Incidentally Richard has exposed what in my view is rather selective quoting in comments expressed here by BBC readers, purely because it supports the point of view of the persons making the comment. I realise that suggesting this endangers my post with reference to the house rules (hence my selective and slightly arcane language here), and I mean no offence in pointing it out; I mearly mean to ask those people if they do not find this "bias" somewhat self defeating in a conversation about bias?
Asset sale: Deja vu? 4:06pm on 12 Oct 2009 I'm confused. How can selling national assets at a depressed price, removing our income in future years make any kind of long term economic sense?

Oh, wait, it can't (unless, fair enough, the asset is not strategic and the returns are lower than the bond rate).

Dartford Crossing - already responsible for horrible queues. The choices being mulled over by were to either make it toll free (since it paid for itself in 2002 and we were promised that it would be free THEN), or to build a new crossing. Selling off this crossing will kill the chance of another one. Who'd buy it if it became worthless later?

Result: Environmental and economic misery.

Brown has killed off the long term chances of this country on a 10 year binge drinking session. Someone with an E at A level would be a better chancellor than he was, and now he's still running the treasury from No. 10.

Gah!
Addicted to methadone? 5:30pm on 09 Oct 2009 I know this sounds callous to suggest, but in a world where we're about to start cutting NHS frontline services (and I know, I'm committing blasphamy by suggesting that our politicians are lying to us, but stay with me), is attempting to get everyone to the "golden standard" of a drug-free life a high priority?

Obviously methadone has many social benefits over heroin - reduced crime blah, blah, blah - and at very little cost. The NHS decides how much a QOLY (quality of life year) is worth when it comes to life and death. Is the same calculation made with drug rehabilitation?

Obviously here I'm only considering the optimum allocation of Government resources. I think drugs are disgusting things that destroy lives and should be tackled as such.

Given the storys we're reading here, and the knowledge that the Government is incapible of treating people as human beings, I'd say:

@ 5 david... - I would love to see the government buy your charity a house to work in, rent free. The voluntary sector is almost by definition a preferable choice for providing drug treatment and there is no reason they shouldn't do it. The costs are minimal and the social returns are great.

Given what I'm learning about methadone reading here, it does sound preferable to prescribe heroin.
Another way to squeeze 5:54pm on 05 Oct 2009 #11:

"Real workers, like those that make Trident, or those that work for "evil" BAe pay the tax that pays for incapacity benefit, unemployment benefit, child support and civil servants. Real workers like that keep going practically until they drop."

Actually, since the workers who (re)build Trident are ultimately employed by the tax payer, they're just as much a burden on the public purse as those "fake" workers, such as Civil Servants, Doctors and Police Officers.
Gordon Brown's monuments 7:14pm on 24 Sep 2009 Just what we need, in the G20 - someone who's job it is to massage figures and mask the real economic problems because it's politically convenient. This fills me with confidence for our new era of financial stability.

Anyone care to hazard a guess at the real level of government debt in this country?
Should students pay our bills? 7:31pm on 21 Sep 2009 I'm a student. I study a real subject at a real university, just in case anyone is interested, he are my views:

Linking loan interest rates to government debt interest rates adds uncertainty which would scare off some students. Much better to account for the ongoing subsidy of interest by increasing the amount charged in the first place in the knowledge that the governement will see an expected loss on each loan. Maybe they could provide insentives for early pay-off that would be a win-win for some students (although, granted, not many, since it makes much more sense to have debt at RPI and put down a larger deposit on a house - for example).

We already charge students for the privilage of university, in the forms of a 40% and now a 50% tax band, for which I am far more likely to endure than students who finish education at 16.

If the Government does want to raise some revenue and increase our competitiveness and GDP, therefore reducing the relative debt, they can fine students who don't turn up to lectures and abuse the 10k plus subsidy we do still get for education. I'm 100% for that - although I might think differently 8am Monday morning.
The political detail 5:25pm on 15 Sep 2009 As someone who will be voting at a General Election for the first time next year (I'm 20), I have to echo romeplebian's points (post 2). The Chancellor will be more important than the Prime Minister for at least the next parliament and, while Osborne is an intelligent man, I believe that only Cable would be able to command the public support necessary when taking a meat cleaver to the public sector. (Plus, I think the irony would be great, given the Lib Dem's historical position.)

Having read through Cable's report (you can access it from Reform's page following the "Related Links" option from the article Stephanie linked to) I think that there's still course for concern, particularly when it comes to Asset Sales. Selling off parts of the Highways Agency to me implies tolls on Motorways, and the motorist being at the mercy of the private sector - "No thank you, I'll take income tax rises please!"

Also, Darling suggested selling off Dartford Crossing last week, along with British Waterways etc. I'd like to point out that we were promised the toll would go when the bill for the crossing was paid off (in 2002 according to New Civil Engineer magazine). Instead we have queues of 40 minutes while people search their wallets for 1 pound 50 in loose change (still), and there's talk of a second crossing being required. Here's a case where surely there is more to be earned by scrapping the charges (in terms of a better transport system) than keeping them or, Heaven forbid, a private sector monopoly on it forever - which would also no doubt remove chances of a new crossing alternative.

I am also worried about quango-culling. Their jobs surely still have to be done?

Politicians needs to approach this like a student approches an essay - go through the budget with a fine-toothed-comb, then go through it again, then again, then again, and again... and again as many times as necessary until we're back in the black.

This is a fantastic opportunity to create an extremely efficient public service, and I'm glad there are talks of cutting sooner rather than later because interest on debt is the biggest inefficiency of all.

All we have to do now is buy back all those PFIs and we're done!
Spending rows 10:27am on 13 Jul 2009 With the Prime Minister clearly wanting to inhabit both No. 10 and No. 11, it's no wonder that he's not coming out with anything which even translates as English to the rest of us poor mortals.

The PM's job is to come up with priorities; the Chancellor's - to come up with the numbers. The sooner Brown realises this... well, the sooner he gets slightly less of a kicking at the next general election and it all becomes hypothetical anyway.

«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

bringiton8989