BBC Blog Network

User Profile

TandF1

Listed below are comments made by TandF1 between Tuesday, 12th May 2009 and Thursday, 12th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Minor problems on a major proposal 08:42am on 12 Nov 2009 Why not have government spokespeople in the Lords rather than ministers? They would only have to answer questions and put forward the government line and they could be paid less than a minister.

P.S. why isn't your blog linked to from the list of blogs on the right of the screen?
An obsession with wealth 2:04pm on 16 Sep 2009 The problem is you can measure GDP but happiness is subjective and measuring it is open to political manipulation. Would any of us believe poiliticians who waved about statisitcs that "proved" we were getting happier? In this country we probably don't need any more wealth but do we need more happiness? What about when happiness confilicts with other needs? Driving fast cars makes many people happy but damages the environment. Making loadsa money makes some happy but leads to inequality that makes others unhappy. Casual sex is what happiness means to some folk but unwanted pregnancies and STD's cause lots of unhappiness. The truth is increasing wealth or happiness is the way politicians justify themselves to us. Why can't they just manage the country like we wnat them to. Defence, law and order, health & education are what we want them to look after but that's not enough for the self-agrandising muppets who put themselves up for election.
Can climate spending save money? 08:38am on 11 Sep 2009 Yet again you report on the nutters from the "Optimum Population Trust". Overpopulation is not the problem. China does not have enough young people to look after its old people and is facing a "demographic timebomb" as the media like to say. The notion that we have to save the planet for our children by not having any is ludicrous. In anycase the population bomb has already gone off due to better crop yields, better sanitation and improved healthcare since the 2nd world war. But now birthrates are declining in almost every country in the world. We're headed for 9.5 bilion people whatever happens and we have to deal with that.
Can Japan change the climate? 2:36pm on 04 Sep 2009 #3 - I was fully aware of the contradictatory nature of my statement. My point was that democracy between states has an inherrent contractiction between the notion of 1 person 1 vote and the notion of the equality of states. It all depends on what you mean by democracy. The US & the EU have tried different ways of resolving this issue but both have there faults although the US model is certainly the easiest to understand and therefore probably the fairest. But I agree that a global government is unlikely and I certainly wouldn't hope one would be utilitarian.
Can Japan change the climate? 1:47pm on 04 Sep 2009 Without undermining democracy the only way is to have a democratic global government. Of course if it was truly democratic (i.e. 1 person 1 vote) it would mean the Chinese and Indians could between them pretty much dictate to the rest of the world which wouldn't be much of a democracy
The reason the enviroment is peripheral to politicians is because it's peripheral to most voters. You may think it's the most important issue but most people don't agree. I'm worried about the future but I'm more worried about the present. Which is the big problem with environmentalists. They always talk about the long-term and our grandchildren but completely forget that without the short-term there is no long-term.
G8 climate pact lights up divisions 08:15am on 10 Jul 2009 Birth rates in almost every country in the world are declining (often to unsustainably low levels). Population growth=birth rate-death rate. The problem is not so much poor people having too many children but rich people (us) living too long. That is a problem which cannot be solved. Even if tomorrow the average global birth rate dropped to 2.1 children per women (the natural replenishment level) the global population would continue to grow. Look at China: 1 child policy, unsustainbly low birth rate, net emigration - yet the population continues to grow becasue people are getting richer and thus living longer. The fact is 1 old westerner contibutes more to global warming than 10 poor Africans. As I've said before the problem is not 3rd world copulation but 1st world consumption. Focusing on birth rate which is decling anyway is just an excuse to let ourselves of the hook.
Britain's Got Diversity 1:25pm on 01 Jun 2009 We have Justin from "The Darkness" to thank for this. When he lost out as the public's choice for Britian's entry for the Eurovision song contest he claimed the British public were racist (he dueted with a black woman who's name escapes me). And the following two years saw us pick a black man and a mixed race woman. So obviously we took his criticism on board and embarked on a sponataneous bit of collective positive discrimination.

Either that or his song lost beacuse it was even worse than "Scooch" and he discgracfuly played the race card to hide his embarrasment and there never really was a problem in the first place.

One of the two. I don't know which.
A walk on the Wilders side 1:08pm on 01 Jun 2009 "Imagine American citizens being TOLD that their laws would all originate from an un-elected "commission "of 17 people,..."

Or a cabinet of 23 people of which only two are elected (on a joint ticket)..... The American public didn't vote for Hillary Clinton or Timothy Geithner....
Big city blues 2:28pm on 20 May 2009 As an Englishman I don't feel like I'm in a different country when I go to Cardiff or Edinburgh. But London feels like a different country despite it being my capital city. It's a very weird place. Quite unlike anywhere else in the UK. Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Newcastle... they all feel like British cities and I don't feel out of place. But London is just strange. The way whole streets and even neighbourhoods are given over to one type of business: Soho, Theatreland, Tottenham Court Road. And there's no centre. It just goes on forever. Of course the truth is London isn't really a city but a concrete county. And the problem is despite it being completely unrepresentative of the rest of the UK it has practically total dominance over our lives. And it's a dump. It's like a one giant permanent building site. Although the stereotype of Londoners being unfriendly is untrue (but perhaps that's because almost everyone you meet isn't from London).
Losing sustainability in the urban canyons 10:25am on 12 May 2009 This is something that has long bothered me about buying local food. It might be fine if you live in Norwich surrounded by the sparsely populated and highly fertile Norfolk soil. But I've never been able to work out how it could apply to London or Birmingham or Manchester. Sure you read articles or see TV programmes about how a family in a big city have managed it. But what about 3 million families with barely a green space in sight. I wonder how many other sustainble ideas are really sustainable on a grand scale. I watch "Grand Designs" on channel 4 and Kevin McCloud tells us its sustainable to use straw to insulate our houses as it has little "embedded energy". But the government tells us we need to build 3 million homes over the next 20 years. Is this really suatainable on such a huge scale? I'm not convinced there is a sustainable way for 6.5 billion (or 9.5 billion) people to live on this planet, at least not in what we would call prosperity. But organisations like the "Optimum Population Trust" send shudders down my spine (even if they are supported by the avuncular David Attenborough)

«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

TandF1