Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Unions are like cops....Everyone hates them until they need one..

Will Corbyn walk after the lib dems beat them into second place by a large margin in David Cameron's old constituency.

Can't imagine he would.

Besides the lib dems really tried for this one, Labour had written it off.

He and a majority of the party members would have to care about gaining power before he would do that.

Unimaginable idiots.

GSC wrote:Can't imagine he would.

Besides the lib dems really tried for this one, Labour had written it off.

If the pro Europe vote goes to the lib dems labour could cease to exist as a major party.

The lib dems will probably be the main beneficiaries of votes Corbyn could lose. I'd guess most would probably flock back post Corbyn though.

Just over a quarter of people think Labour is fit to run the country, new poll reveals - Evening Standard
https://apple.news/A2WswEtHjTb-1tVPdC37OLA

Post corbyn the party could have very few seats and no real scope for winning back Scotland.

Took the conservatives 19 years to get a majority again after their hammering. I would be surprised to see Labour in power again in my lifetime.

Some sort of merger party with the Lib Dems could make sense for some Labour MPs

Lib Dems will never join a coalition again!

That's all the Lib Dems are though - an ingredient real parties use now and again to create a coalition

SecretFly wrote:That's all the Lib Dems are though - an ingredient real parties use now and again to create a coalition

You mean like onion? You can have a cheese and onion pie or a beef and onion pie but you'd never have an onion pie on it's own, would you?

ShahenshahG wrote:Lib Dems will never join a coalition again!

More fool them then. What they should do is maybe stick to their principles when asked to join one and if the other party don't agree, let them have a minority Government and see how they get on.

navyblueshorts wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Lib Dems will never join a coalition again!

More fool them then. What they should do is maybe stick to their principles when asked to join one and if the other party don't agree, let them have a minority Government and see how they get on.

I would argue that they did a good job actually - next time they'd just have to make sure they get seen doing a good job and arent sitting beside the pm (who can't be seen on the box because he is behind the chancellor of the exchequer) while the cuts are being announced in parliament. Also, never give in on your star promise no matter how prudent it would be.

ShahenshahG wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Lib Dems will never join a coalition again!

More fool them then. What they should do is maybe stick to their principles when asked to join one and if the other party don't agree, let them have a minority Government and see how they get on.

I would argue that they did a good job actually - next time they'd just have to make sure they get seen doing a good job and arent sitting beside the pm (who can't be seen on the box because he is behind the chancellor of the exchequer) while the cuts are being announced in parliament. Also, never give in on your star promise no matter how prudent it would be.

Tend to agree with all of that.

ShahenshahG wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Lib Dems will never join a coalition again!

More fool them then. What they should do is maybe stick to their principles when asked to join one and if the other party don't agree, let them have a minority Government and see how they get on.

I would argue that they did a good job actually- next time they'd just have to make sure they get seen doing a good job and arent sitting beside the pm (who can't be seen on the box because he is behind the chancellor of the exchequer) while the cuts are being announced in parliament. Also, never give in on your star promise no matter how prudent it would be.

Bit in bold: I don't want to question your political judgement but the job they did led the party from 57 seats in the House of Commons to 8 seats. Are you claiming the British electorate were wrong in some way?

Aye, you can always bank on the foolproof opinion of the British electorate.

Christ almighty!

Look at the tories now and then compare that with what they managed with a majority. Lib Dems put a leash on the tories. As for the british electorate, they can suck my balls - except for the ones who are related to me or male, or hideously beyond the pale ugly. I would still teabag a comely racist woman. All jokes aside - the lib dems took it up the a*se because of their reneging on the student deal thing and them turning down the option of a coalition with Labour. They did all the good they did quietly - which was the right thing to do to run a harmonious government but the wrong thing to do from a party perspective. They should have dragged out each issue kicking and screaming so every time the government yielded on something, they made sure that they got the credit for it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/02/high-court-rules-uk-government-plans-to-tackle-air-pollution-are-illegal

So air pollution causes 50,000 deaths per year, but the government is deliberately blocking moves to reduce it in major cities because it might upset the motorists? Nice...

How many deaths does over-drinking cause?  I know, it's the usual retort - 'this kills so many people!' ; 'yeah, but so does this?' That can be irritating, I know. But the truth requires an appreciation that we can't and shouldn't keep isolating pollution issues and demanding distinct 'solutions' to each pollution issue in isolation.

Cars - and buses and trains and planes - pollute the air, yes.  But so does the food we eat (mass produced shyte most of it), the beverages we like to drink, the recreational drugs even 'respectable' people like to take to 'unwind' from all the stresses of life, the additives we put in water and onto food (to protect us from their more natural states!), the plastics that mimic oestrogen and muck up hormonal balance.
My point is - life itself has become a highly polluted state of being.  If the chemicals that enter a body from car exhaust emissions, and do damage, cannot be challenged by a person's own chemistry of resistance (hormones, enzymes, kidney and liver filters, immune system) then where should the priorities be?
Control 'pollution' of course - but admit to all sources of pollution.  It's not just car exhausts or industrial chimney stacks - it comes from what we choose to eat, drink, enrich our crops with and 'sterilise' our water with.

A fair point. For instance possibly the biggest threat to the environment comes from intensive farming of (mostly) cattle. But the reasons the government does little about one are pretty much the same it does little about the other: pressure from the powerful lobbies, and fear of the political backlash. The frustrating thing is it needn't be something particularly onerous: look at the effect the 5p plastic bag charge has had for instance, small measures really can make a difference. In this case, you create a habit, which is to take your own bags with you when you go shopping. If public transport were cheaper and more convenient than driving, or rather if driving were more expensive and less convenient than public transport, then more people would use the latter. See also, aborted sugar tax.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/02/high-court-rules-uk-government-plans-to-tackle-air-pollution-are-illegal

So air pollution causes 50,000 deaths per year, but the government is deliberately blocking moves to reduce it in major cities because it might upset the motorists? Nice...

Do you know how these things are calculated and do you know whether or not that figure can be actually tested by saying yes this person died of air pollution?  

There is something called death's brought forward - so if there is a calculation that estimates a 78 year old with emphysema will die one week earlier than predicted due to exposure to air pollution - then that is added to the tally.  

If one did the same calculation with deaths per year due to use of gas cookers in kitchens then that figure will be greater than 50,000 deaths per year (which is only that due to exposure to outside air pollution). That is just due to the exposure to air pollutants in the indoor air caused by gas cookers and frying foods. That does not include contaminants in the food itself.

Ultimately this numbers are used as political tools to maintain the funding of those in air pollution research. The actual air pollution from cars has come down enormously since the 1980s early 1990s when there wasn't three way catalysts, wasn't lead free petrol, wasn't low sulphur fuels.

Not sure i entirely agree, the German motor industry lobby'd the EU to back diesel engines when the rest of the world i moving away from them.

The EU agreed and the UK introduced tax concessions for Deiesl cars.

Diesel cars produce gasses with lower GWP and ODP but they are massive polluters. They exhale huge amounts of nitrous oxide, and this is a VERY toxic pollutant.

The EU agreed to poison us, but save our great-grand children from the effects of global warming (assuming we haven't been poisoned, thus live long enough to have them)

3fingers wrote:

The EU agreed to poison us, but save our great-grand children from the effects of global warming (assuming we haven't been poisoned, thus live long enough to have them)

So, any comments on the High Court decision this morning, ruling that the government couldn't invoke Article 50 on their own, and that Parliament should rule on the issue?

First off, I'm happy with the ruling. It re-states Parliament's sovereignty, which is the cornerstone of our democracy after all. The idea that a few people who absolutely no one voted for should be able to make such decisions without oversight is not a good one: that's how dictatorships work.

Having said that, I don't believe this will stop the UK leaving the EU, nor should it. You can dally about words about the Referendum being only "advisory", but even so, the UK people were asked to advise on whether they should Remain in the EU or Leave. They advised that we should leave. The question it seems is "who did they advise?" or in other words "who has the power to make a decision to Leave the EU?". The only sensible answer is Parliament, hence this decision.

I still though believe Parliament must vote to invoke Article 50, and not to do so would be wrong, and set a dangerous precedent. What I hope is that this forces the government to actually come up with some plan beyond "Brexit means Brexit" for what leaving the EU actually means, and that that plan can then be debated, amended etc. by Parliament, as is proper.

Obviously this is all subject to the appeal failing to overturn the decision.

Also, Suzanne Evans's tweets shows she has no actual idea about, well, anything, while IDS seems to be suggesting that the government should be above the law, which seems a little... odd.

Don't really see what it changes.

For MPs to block Brexit would be a suicidal move for many

Spot on, they will vote as per the people they represent, no MP with anything but a huge majority would dream of doing otherwise.

For parliament to discuss the plan for negotiating Brexit is somewhat a double edged sword though. Anything they discuss in public before negotiations likely becomes impossible to meet.

GSC wrote:For parliament to discuss the plan for negotiating Brexit is somewhat a double edged sword though. Anything they discuss in public before negotiations likely becomes impossible to meet.

You mean to inform politicians that they should be careful what they wish for?

Precisely. It's great to be a politician in opposition to a Government policy and throw stones from the sidelines. But opposition in a little less straightforward when you're invited in to help construct the policy.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:So, any comments on the High Court decision this morning, ruling that the government couldn't invoke Article 50 on their own, and that Parliament should rule on the issue?

First off, I'm happy with the ruling. It re-states Parliament's sovereignty, which is the cornerstone of our democracy after all. [1] The idea that a few people who absolutely no one voted for should be able to make such decisions without oversight is not a good one: that's how dictatorships work.

Having said that, I don't believe this will stop the UK leaving the EU, nor should it. You can dally about words about the Referendum being only "advisory", but even so, the UK people were asked to advise on whether they should Remain in the EU or Leave. They advised that we should leave. The question it seems is "who did they advise?" or in other words "who has the power to make a decision to Leave the EU?". [2] 4The only sensible answer is Parliament, hence this decision.

I still though believe Parliament must vote to invoke Article 50, and not to do so would be wrong, and set a dangerous precedent. What I hope is that this forces the government to actually come up with some plan beyond "Brexit means Brexit" for what leaving the EU actually means, and that that plan can then be debated, amended etc. by Parliament, as is proper.

Obviously this is all subject to the appeal failing to overturn the decision.

Also, Suzanne Evans's tweets shows she has no actual idea about, well, anything, while IDS seems to be suggesting that the government should be above the law, which seems a little... odd.

[1] Doesn't matter whether we voted them into power or not, on this occasion. They are simply carrying out the people's wish. We voted "Leave" and that is what they are trying to bring about.

[2] Wrong. We "advised" the government. It was Cameron's government that decided to hold the referendum and that is who the electorate advised. Just because they had a change of personnel, they still have the mandate to carry out our wishes.


I think this nonsense about Parliament having to invoke Article 50 is just filibustering by the Remainers, in a last desperate attempt to delay or even halt Brexit. If they were okay with it, why would they even want to take it out of the government's hands?

SecretFly wrote:

GSC wrote:For parliament to discuss the plan for negotiating Brexit is somewhat a double edged sword though. Anything they discuss in public before negotiations likely becomes impossible to meet.

You mean to inform politicians that they should be careful what they wish for?

 Precisely.  It's great to be a politician in opposition to a Government policy and throw stones from the sidelines.  But opposition in a little less straightforward when you're invited in to help construct the policy.

To be honest I'm not entirely sure how much the opposition will engage. Corbyn will probably waft on about 50 different points without elaborating on any of them or pressuring Theresa to actually answer. A decent chunk of the internal SNP hierarchy probably still support Brexit in terms of leveraging it for independence. And nobody really cares about Farron or Lucas.

More in terms if I were sat on the other side of the negotiating table, anything the government committed to getting would go up in price.

The ruling is less to do with whether Britain actually leaves. That's beyond dispute now.

It's more to do with the conditions of the UK leaving. The government should not just be able to do as it pleases and, as has been said above, no right thinking politician would vote against leaving.

What is does do is hold the government accountable to parliament regarding the conditions of leaving. Given how utterly incompetent May has been since taking office and given how much of a total moron Liam Fox is, I can only see this as a good thing for the British people.

People wanted parliamentary sovereignty. Now they have it.

Meanwhile the Daily Mail have decided to smear the three judges who came to the decision, including a quite frankly disgustingly homophobic attack on one of them as "openly gay". Lovely...

The Daily Mail are openly a bunch of fascist @rseholes. They can suck my balls!

Seems kinda tame for the daily mail.

Pr4wn wrote:The ruling is less to do with whether Britain actually leaves. That's beyond dispute now.

It's more to do with the conditions of the UK leaving. The government should not just be able to do as it pleases and, as has been said above, no right thinking politician would vote against leaving.

What is does do is hold the government accountable to parliament regarding the conditions of leaving. Given how utterly incompetent May has been since taking office and given how much of a total moron Liam Fox is, I can only see this as a good thing for the British people.

People wanted parliamentary sovereignty. Now they have it.

While thats a good idea in theory and certainly good democracy, I'm not sure how its going to pan out in practice.

Its the old story that the more people who have input into a decision, the longer it takes to reach consensus...or even a majority decision (too many cooks). Which would be bad enough without the chief opposition being in a complete mess right now.

We're talking over 600 MPs which probably translates to at least a couple of hundred different ideas on what should be included in the Brexit package. Its going to be impossible to get agreement on everything...and bloody difficult just to get a majority of people on board. This could end up dragging out the negotiations well beyond the projected 2 years.

I think this is one of those occasions where we should just hold our noses and trust the government to get on with it. Mainly because they all know their future careers depend on getting the best possible deal for us.

My main hope at this point is that they hold firm against the EU's insistence we retain freedom of movement, even if it means we have to accept new trade tariffs (provided they are not horrendous).

It's alright, you can bank on the 50+ SNP MP's having exactly the same opinion and expressing that opinion in exactly the same way.

One nation, one voice, one thought, one brain cell.

Overturning Brexit kills indyref2 mind.

There's no way Brexit gets overturned. Like I said, this is more to do with the terms of the split.

3fingers wrote:Not sure i entirely agree, the German motor industry lobby'd the EU to back diesel engines when the rest of the world i moving away from them.

The EU agreed and the UK introduced tax concessions for Deiesl cars.

Diesel cars produce gasses with lower GWP and ODP but they are massive polluters. They exhale huge amounts of nitrous oxide, and this is a VERY toxic pollutant.

The EU agreed to poison us, but save our great-grand children from the effects of global warming (assuming we haven't been poisoned, thus live long enough to have them)

BIB:  Nitrous oxide is chemically inert and non-toxic.
Furthermore:  Nitric oxide is beneficial to human health.  It is produced in the body and is used in medical therapy.
For Nitrogen dioxide at the levels found at street level in the UK and Europe - there is only marginal and contradictory evidence it can give rise to short term ill-health effects to susceptible members of the population, and even this is reversible, causing no long term effect.  One is exposed to greater levels of nitrogen dioxide in the home in front of a gas fire (or paraffin fire) or gas cooker.

As I mentioned look at death certificates and you will see none that say cause of death is due to air pollution. At best air pollution is one factor amongst many that may contribute to reduced life expectancy - but it is marginal. If the car was banned or restricted people would die for not being able to get to hospital in time in the event of emergencies.

Nore Staat wrote:

3fingers wrote:Not sure i entirely agree, the German motor industry lobby'd the EU to back diesel engines when the rest of the world i moving away from them.

The EU agreed and the UK introduced tax concessions for Deiesl cars.

Diesel cars produce gasses with lower GWP and ODP but they are massive polluters. They exhale huge amounts of nitrous oxide, and this is a VERY toxic pollutant.

The EU agreed to poison us, but save our great-grand children from the effects of global warming (assuming we haven't been poisoned, thus live long enough to have them)

BIB:  Nitrous oxide is chemically inert and non-toxic.
Furthermore:  Nitric oxide is beneficial to human health.  It is produced in the body and is used in medical therapy.
For Nitrogen dioxide at the levels found at street level in the UK and Europe - there is only marginal and contradictory evidence it can give rise to short term ill-health effects to susceptible members of the population, and even this is reversible, causing no long term effect.  One is exposed to greater levels of nitrogen dioxide in the home in front of a gas fire (or paraffin fire) or gas cooker.

As I mentioned look at death certificates and you will see none that say cause of death is due to air pollution.  At best air pollution is one factor amongst many that may contribute to reduced life expectancy - but it is marginal.  If the car was banned or restricted people would die for not being able to get to hospital in time in the event of emergencies.

I think you need to do a bit more research.

Nitrous oxide is neither chemically inert, nor is it without dangerous effects to human health.

http://www.icopal-noxite.co.uk/nox-problem/nox-pollution.aspx

http://www.talktofrank.com/drug/nitrous-oxide


Also people are more at risk of carbon monoxide poisoning from gas fires and cookers, rather than N2O.

While Nox concentrations at street level are unlikely to ever approach levels where fatalities occur, its certainly feasible that their effects can contribute to ill health, exacerbated in cases where people have existing medical conditions (asthma, or other lung / bronchial conditions), resulting in reduced life expectancy.

If we did the sensible thing and started driving hydrogen powered cars, then we could solve this problem pretty quickly.

dyrewolfe wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

3fingers wrote:Not sure i entirely agree, the German motor industry lobby'd the EU to back diesel engines when the rest of the world i moving away from them.

The EU agreed and the UK introduced tax concessions for Deiesl cars.

Diesel cars produce gasses with lower GWP and ODP but they are massive polluters. They exhale huge amounts of nitrous oxide, and this is a VERY toxic pollutant.

The EU agreed to poison us, but save our great-grand children from the effects of global warming (assuming we haven't been poisoned, thus live long enough to have them)

BIB:  Nitrous oxide is chemically inert and non-toxic.
Furthermore:  Nitric oxide is beneficial to human health.  It is produced in the body and is used in medical therapy.
For Nitrogen dioxide at the levels found at street level in the UK and Europe - there is only marginal and contradictory evidence it can give rise to short term ill-health effects to susceptible members of the population, and even this is reversible, causing no long term effect.  One is exposed to greater levels of nitrogen dioxide in the home in front of a gas fire (or paraffin fire) or gas cooker.

As I mentioned look at death certificates and you will see none that say cause of death is due to air pollution.  At best air pollution is one factor amongst many that may contribute to reduced life expectancy - but it is marginal.  If the car was banned or restricted people would die for not being able to get to hospital in time in the event of emergencies.

I think you need to do a bit more research.

Nitrous oxide is neither chemically inert, nor is it without dangerous effects to human health.

http://www.icopal-noxite.co.uk/nox-problem/nox-pollution.aspx

http://www.talktofrank.com/drug/nitrous-oxide


Also people are more at risk of carbon monoxide poisoning from gas fires and cookers, rather than N2O.

While Nox concentrations at street level are unlikely to ever approach levels where fatalities occur, its certainly feasible that their effects can contribute to ill health, exacerbated in cases where people have existing medical conditions (asthma, or other lung / bronchial conditions), resulting in reduced life expectancy.

If we did the sensible thing and started driving hydrogen powered cars, then we could solve this problem pretty quickly.

Are you an armchair scholar or an actual scholar?  Everything I have said is correct.  Carbon monoxide is something else.  Three way catalysts have reduced CO levels to such low levels one can no longer kill oneself by attaching a hose to the tail pipe and piping it into the car - a past method of suicide.

Some information on inhaled nitric oxide therapy:
https://www.childrens.com/for-healthcare-professionals/departments-institutes-programs/critical-care-picu/nitric-oxide

Most things taken neat or in very high concentrations can be dangerous to health - even water (not just drowning).  
One can overhydrate oneself - here are the toxic effects of water:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

You have to have a grasp of "dose" and "exposure" as otherwise one can claim almost everything is toxic.
 
With regard "chemical reactivity" of nitrous oxide, read up on its atmospheric lifetime.

Nitric oxide and nitrous oxide are different things also.

Nore Staat wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

3fingers wrote:Not sure i entirely agree, the German motor industry lobby'd the EU to back diesel engines when the rest of the world i moving away from them.

The EU agreed and the UK introduced tax concessions for Deiesl cars.

Diesel cars produce gasses with lower GWP and ODP but they are massive polluters. They exhale huge amounts of nitrous oxide, and this is a VERY toxic pollutant.

The EU agreed to poison us, but save our great-grand children from the effects of global warming (assuming we haven't been poisoned, thus live long enough to have them)

BIB:  Nitrous oxide is chemically inert and non-toxic.
Furthermore:  Nitric oxide is beneficial to human health.  It is produced in the body and is used in medical therapy.
For Nitrogen dioxide at the levels found at street level in the UK and Europe - there is only marginal and contradictory evidence it can give rise to short term ill-health effects to susceptible members of the population, and even this is reversible, causing no long term effect.  One is exposed to greater levels of nitrogen dioxide in the home in front of a gas fire (or paraffin fire) or gas cooker.

As I mentioned look at death certificates and you will see none that say cause of death is due to air pollution.  At best air pollution is one factor amongst many that may contribute to reduced life expectancy - but it is marginal.  If the car was banned or restricted people would die for not being able to get to hospital in time in the event of emergencies.

I think you need to do a bit more research.

Nitrous oxide is neither chemically inert, nor is it without dangerous effects to human health.

http://www.icopal-noxite.co.uk/nox-problem/nox-pollution.aspx

http://www.talktofrank.com/drug/nitrous-oxide


Also people are more at risk of carbon monoxide poisoning from gas fires and cookers, rather than N2O.

While Nox concentrations at street level are unlikely to ever approach levels where fatalities occur, its certainly feasible that their effects can contribute to ill health, exacerbated in cases where people have existing medical conditions (asthma, or other lung / bronchial conditions), resulting in reduced life expectancy.

If we did the sensible thing and started driving hydrogen powered cars, then we could solve this problem pretty quickly.

Are you an armchair scholar or an actual scholar?  Everything I have said is correct.  Carbon monoxide is something else.  Three way catalysts have reduced CO levels to such low levels one can no longer kill oneself by attaching a hose to the tail pipe and piping it into the car - a past method of suicide.

Some information on inhaled nitric oxide therapy:
https://www.childrens.com/for-healthcare-professionals/departments-institutes-programs/critical-care-picu/nitric-oxide

Most things taken neat or in very high concentrations can be dangerous to health - even water (not just drowning).  
One can overhydrate oneself - here are the toxic effects of water:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

You have to have a grasp of "dose" and "exposure" as otherwise one can claim almost everything is toxic.
 
With regard "chemical reactivity" of nitrous oxide, read up on its atmospheric lifetime.

lol

Ent wrote:Nitric oxide and nitrous oxide are different things also.

Quite!

It's this kind of chat which will get more ladies to visit this site! Keep going lads!

We're well past that point, Super.

Nobody try that Nore Staat experiment with the hose pipe and the car, the exhaust and the running engine.

CO levels might not kill you but there are still emissions, amongst them Hydrogen Sulfide and Ammonia, and I'm sure a few other unmentionables. These too at the levels of emission might not kill you either but that's a pretty anti-health concoction.

Indeed.

And while some might enjoy nitpicking about different compounds of nitrogen and oxygen, they are all present in the exhaust gases produced by internal combustion engines and all have adverse effects on human health, whether they break down and form other harmful compounds, or are inhaled directly.

The 8 liberal democrat MPs have declared that they will vote against Brexit unless there is a 2nd referendum

Obviously it won't make much difference to the parliamentary vote etc but it may start to get them back in favour with the student vote.

I'd say it'd lose them votes from people who actually believe in Democracy, but they weren't exactly flush with those anyway.

Pure political grandstanding.