BBC Blog Network

User Profile

fr33cycler

Listed below are comments made by fr33cycler between Monday, 2nd June 2008 and Monday, 26th October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Monday 26 October 2009 5:57pm on 26 Oct 2009 The previous vicar at the church attached to my children's school took a pragmatic approach. As a fervent believer that local schools should be for local people, and not those pushy enough to turn up at church regularly, he ensured the rules required "regular" attendance but said he considered attendance on Christmas Eve every other leap year as being "regular".

Even this was a compromise, arrived at after failing to convince people the rules should give precedence to "sinners and the children of publicans."
Tuesday 29 September 2009 6:00pm on 29 Sep 2009 Just like one of his old budgets...much of it sounded good but he rushes through so fast you don;t get time to see the detail. When you do look afterwards, it all seems less shiny.

I particularly liked the idea of recall - floated all morning as a solution to stop the expenses scandal happening again. But when he spoke, Brown said

"where there is proven financial corruption by an MP and in cases where wrong-doing has been demonstrated but Parliament fails to act we will give constituents the right to recall their Member of Parliament."

But hold on - most MPs didn't break the rules during the expenses scandal, they just stretched them to a point which left their voters cold. And even when a couple of MPs really did break rules, Parliament "acted" - reclaiming money, or censuring them with suspensions.

So am I right in thinking this brave new policy would have resulted voters being able to vote to recall precisely zero of the MPs named and shamed in the scandal? What a huge step forward....
No longer a gas guzzler 02:13am on 13 May 2009 righteous edward

No idea what the 2 litre bmw is, but if it is the latest 318d - which is a 2 litre engine despite the confsuing name) then it could emit as little as 123 gCO2 / km - even better than the blue motion passat mentioned above. Even the 320d (also 2 litre, but a bit higher powered) would come in at 128 gCO2/km.

Might be a lesson not to let presumptions about brands and the kind of people who drive them (I know BMW drivers = bankers, or something similar in most peoples minds) get in the way of checking which cars are the most efficient...
The politics of tackling climate change 02:06am on 13 May 2009 To Big John Lish

You say "Now, it should be obvious to anybody that a cap & trade policy which has no cost to the consumer isn't going to be effective in achieving reductions in emissions."

I appreciate there may be an issue of precision of language here, but would you agree with me that it is at least theoretically possible that that a cap and trade policy could ensure consumers who switched to low or zero carbon products and energy sources would pay less, while those who continued to use high carbon products/energy sources would pay more. If, the balance of these two effects was designed right the total cost to consumers could be nil, and people would be encourgaed to move to the low carbon behaviours, meaning the policy could be effective. There would admittedly be a cost to some consumers (the high carbon ones) so if you mean a policy with no cost to any consumer you are far more likely to be right. I suggest that is a nonsense interpretation of what Nancy Pelosi was saying however - when politicans promise things, it tends to be for populations as a whole, not every single individual.

More broadly, you don't seem to disagree that climate change will cause costs to society - though you mention a broad spectrum of scientific opinion. The truth is that spectrum is heavily weighted, as most scientists believe major disruption is likely. As an increase in the price of fuel will lead to less use of it, it should therefore reduce costs from climate change. Given consumers of fuel will (whether through taxes, or food bills, or insurance premiums or whatever) almost certainly also be paying for climate change impacts, isn't it simplisic to say the extra fuel costs simply mean more costs for consumers, while ignoring any savings they may make from avoiding some element of climate change? Can we afford to reduce climate change emissions, or can we afford not to?

And finally, in what way is the UK climate change act simply meaningless gesture politics? The Act (it is a law now) sets out a process that politicians must work through, and I accept they could fail. But it requires them to justify the goals they set for climate change policy according to the science, and requires reporting and monitoring of their progress toward those goals. Such transparency is a powerful motivator - I'm sure now MPs know their expenses are to be made public we will see a lot less moat-cleaning at taxpayers expense. Given how much more important climate change is, lets hope public exposure of politicians success or failure in reducing carbon emissions will lead to similar improvements in behaviour.
Back to the future 6:06pm on 01 Oct 2008 So just like Brown, he had to have a lectern to make him look serious. Clearly the thing to invest in during a downturn is lectern manufacturers....
So who was right? 4:05pm on 11 Jul 2008 I'm glad you 'fessed up to underestimating the public welcome for this move - but in your defence you were not the only one.

Indeed, had Cameron's people not made the same mistake, they would have been a little more welcoming of the move, perhaps made it clear Davis's job was being held open for him (I suspect Dominic Grieve would have accepted the job on a temporary basis, because he seems equally committed to the issues), and would look les "bounced" by Davis.

The only people I know who think (a) it was a waste of money and (b) Labour really were not being cowardly in dodging the whole contest are signed up members of the most loyalist parts of the Labour Party.

There was one other big error of judgement which seems to have been forgotten - was that of the Sun and Kelvin MacKenzie. I actually regret the fact they didn't go through with their hairbrained idea to intervene directly in UK politics, rather than snipe from the edges. In a real contest, David Davis would have had a real chance to put the press in their place. But whoever made such an appalling error of judgement must be delighted it has disappeared from the memory as fast as it has.
Gordon, the Government and Everything 1:53pm on 02 Jun 2008 I am beginning to think there is a lot of hype and massaging of expectations building up here. If Brown thought he would lose the vote he would not lead this fight from the front as he is starting to. Lots of speculation over how tight it is now will mean he can claim his "leadership" has won the vote in a weeks time.

But aside, from that I certainly hope he loses the vote as I am completely unconvinced it has any merit other than as a suppose "trap" for the opposition and symbol that Brown is tough.

There are two issues that Cameron's conservatives have pursued that have convinced me they are changing. The environment is the one most often commented on, and I agree. But their consistent and prinipled stand against this sort of anti-freedom posturing - even when it was specifically designed to damage them - has been just as important for me.

«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

fr33cycler