Ogmore

[greenchristian]

Apr 20, 2016 11:07:49 GMT @szczecinianin said:

And Labour attitudes, for example a quasi-religious belief in man-made global warming, are those of the so-called 'educated', learned at university rather than through real-life experience.

What makes you think that the belief that the people whose job is to study the climate know what they are talking about is "quasi-religious"?

[Deleted]

Apr 20, 2016 16:03:35 GMT greenchristian said:

Apr 20, 2016 11:07:49 GMT @szczecinianin said:

And Labour attitudes, for example a quasi-religious belief in man-made global warming, are those of the so-called 'educated', learned at university rather than through real-life experience.

What makes you think that the belief that the people whose job is to study the climate know what they are talking about is "quasi-religious"?

Actual climate scientists, with genuine scientific knowledge, do know what they are talking about. At least, they know more than the population as a whole.

However, most of those who believe in climate change haven't gone into the science. They simply believe as a matter of faith.

Climate change is taught in geography. It is taken as a given (most scientists believe). Students believe this on the basis that they've been told it's true. They haven't deeply researched the actual science involved for themselves.

[greenchristian]

Apr 20, 2016 16:11:47 GMT @szczecinianin said:

Apr 20, 2016 16:03:35 GMT greenchristian said:

What makes you think that the belief that the people whose job is to study the climate know what they are talking about is "quasi-religious"?

Actual climate scientists, with genuine scientific knowledge, do know what they are talking about. At least, they know more than the population as a whole.

However, most of those who believe in climate change haven't gone into the science. They simply believe as a matter of faith.

Climate change is taught in geography. It is taken as a given (most scientists believe). Students believe this on the basis that they've been told it's true. They haven't deeply researched the actual science involved for themselves.

By that logic at least 99% of the beliefs of at least 99% of the population count as "quazi-religious". Why single out this one belief or the Labour party in particular?

[Deleted]

Apr 20, 2016 16:45:37 GMT greenchristian said:

By that logic at least 99% of the beliefs of at least 99% of the population count as "quazi-religious". Why single out this one belief or the Labour party in particular?

Because 'global warming' is a controversial belief that may influence a person's political opinions.

By contrast, believing a theory that: 'dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteorite' , is not something controversial nor likely to influence anyone's world view.

[greenchristian]

Apr 20, 2016 16:53:54 GMT @szczecinianin said:

Apr 20, 2016 16:45:37 GMT greenchristian said:

By that logic at least 99% of the beliefs of at least 99% of the population count as "quazi-religious". Why single out this one belief or the Labour party in particular?

Because 'global warming' is a controversial belief that may influence a person's political opinions.

By contrast, believing a theory that: 'dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteorite' , is not something controversial nor likely to influence anyone's world view.

So why not single out controversial beliefs like "Britain is full" or "belonging to the EU is bad for the UK", none of which have anything approaching the overwhelming evidence that anthropogenic global warming has? Is it because your party preaches the first two, but is uncomfortable about acknowledging the evidence for the latter?

[Deleted]

Apr 20, 2016 17:09:30 GMT greenchristian said:

So why not single out controversial beliefs like "Britain is full" or "belonging to the EU is bad for the UK", none of which have anything approaching the overwhelming evidence that anthropogenic global warming has? Is it because your party preaches the first two, but is uncomfortable about acknowledging the evidence for the latter?

Weak.

'Britain is full' is simply an opinion. It's hardly quantifiable, therefore evidence doesn't really come into it. Whether it's 'full' or not simply depends on how you would define 'full'.

However, if you wanted to look at facts, England is the most densely populated country in Europe bar the small island state of Malta. That's pretty 'full' by contemporary standards.

About thirty years ago the Greens thought the optimum population of Britain should be twenty million. What has happened since then?

Again, the advisibility of 'Brexit' is more a matter of opinion than of hard fact, and is not really quantifiable either. It just depends on the kind of country you wish to live in, I suppose.

Out of curiosity, do you understand the actual science behind global warming theory, or do you just believe this because of what 'experts' tell us?

I can easily look up population densities on wikipedia to decide the extent of Britain's 'fullness', but I believe a full grasp of climate change theory requires scientific knowledge well beyond that of the average citizen.

[greenchristian]

Apr 20, 2016 17:37:26 GMT @szczecinianin said:

Apr 20, 2016 17:09:30 GMT greenchristian said:

So why not single out controversial beliefs like "Britain is full" or "belonging to the EU is bad for the UK", none of which have anything approaching the overwhelming evidence that anthropogenic global warming has? Is it because your party preaches the first two, but is uncomfortable about acknowledging the evidence for the latter?

Weak.

'Britain is full' is simply an opinion. It's hardly quantifiable, therefore evidence doesn't really come into it. Whether it's 'full' or not simply depends on how you would define 'full'.

However, if you wanted to look at facts, England is the most densely populated country in Europe bar the small island state of Malta. That's pretty 'full' by contemporary standards.

There are, in fact, a wide range of factors that can be used to work out whether Britain is "full" or not. You could do dozens of statistical analyses on different measurements to determine how viable the concept is. Using population density is, of course, a massive oversimplification - it's hardly fair to consider that the parts of Norway inside the Arctic Circle are equivalent in terms of whatever measure of capacity you're using to an equivalent land area in, say, South West England. The vast majority of people who use the "Britain is Full" argument have not looked at any of this at all.

Again, the advisibility of 'Brexit' is more a matter of opinion than of hard fact, and is not really quantifiable either. It just depends on the kind of country you wish to live in, I suppose.

So to be a "quasi-religious" belief, something has to be either hard fact or quantifiable?

Out of curiosity, do you understand the actual science behind global warming theory, or do you just believe this because of what 'experts' tell us?

I can easily look up population densities on wikipedia to decide the extent of Britain's 'fullness', but I believe a full grasp of climate change theory requires scientific knowledge well beyond that of the average citizen.

The basic science of global warming theory consists of the following:
1) carbon dioxide and a number of other notable gases are greenhouse gases - they retain heat from sunlight. This is something that can be proven by a very simple experiment.
2) the average global temperature is rising. The statistics on this are all available to the public, and require no real grasp of advanced science to understand.
3) burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, and the carbon dioxide that is created will increase the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The first is fairly basic chemistry. The measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are, again, fairly easy to find, and it hardly takes much to work out that human activity is the reason. There are similar arguments for human activity increasing other greenhouse gases, which do require a bit more scientific knowledge, but since carbon dioxide is considered the most important greenhouse gas, understanding that it is happening doesn't require such knowledge.
4) the average global temperature rises correlate very closely with the increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases. They do not correlate very well, or at all, with any of the other possible causes that have been suggested. Again, this data is easily accessible, and understanding it requires - at most - a very basic understanding of statistics and the scientific method.

I admit that I don't understand more than a handful of the details of the models of what the precise effects of climate change will be. But understanding that it is happening and that we are causing it does not require me to understand anything about those models. It only requires me to understand a handful of relatively simple bits of science, and to look at data that is available to anybody who wants to search it out.

And, back to my original point, I don't see how any of what I've just explained makes my (or anybody's) belief that it is happening, and that climate scientists do know what they're talking about, in any way "quasi-religious".

[Deleted]

Apr 20, 2016 19:03:41 GMT greenchristian said:

There are, in fact, a wide range of factors that can be used to work out whether Britain is "full" or not. You could do dozens of statistical analyses on different measurements to determine how viable the concept is. Using population density is, of course, a massive oversimplification - it's hardly fair to consider that the parts of Norway inside the Arctic Circle are equivalent in terms of whatever measure of capacity you're using to an equivalent land area in, say, South West England. The vast majority of people who use the "Britain is Full" argument have not looked at any of this at all.

The Netherlands is all pretty flat. If England has a higher density of population density than they do, then I'd say we've got a problem.

And why has the Green Party retreated from its previous position that 'Britain is full'?

If this was true thirty years ago, it must be even more true today.

[Deleted]

Apr 20, 2016 19:03:41 GMT greenchristian said:

So to be a "quasi-religious" belief, something has to be either hard fact or quantifiable. The basic science of global warming theory consists of the following:
1) carbon dioxide and a number of other notable gases are greenhouse gases - they retain heat from sunlight. This is something that can be proven by a very simple experiment.
2) the average global temperature is rising. The statistics on this are all available to the public, and require no real grasp of advanced science to understand.
3) burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, and the carbon dioxide that is created will increase the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The first is fairly basic chemistry. The measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are, again, fairly easy to find, and it hardly takes much to work out that human activity is the reason. There are similar arguments for human activity increasing other greenhouse gases, which do require a bit more scientific knowledge, but since carbon dioxide is considered the most important greenhouse gas, understanding that it is happening doesn't require such knowledge.
4) the average global temperature rises correlate very closely with the increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases. They do not correlate very well, or at all, with any of the other possible causes that have been suggested. Again, this data is easily accessible, and understanding it requires - at most - a very basic understanding of statistics and the scientific method.

I admit that I don't understand more than a handful of the details of the models of what the precise effects of climate change will be. But understanding that it is happening and that we are causing it does not require me to understand anything about those models. It only requires me to understand a handful of relatively simple bits of science, and to look at data that is available to anybody who wants to search it out.

And, back to my original point, I don't see how any of what I've just explained makes my (or anybody's) belief that it is happening, and that climate scientists do know what they're talking about, in any way "quasi-religious".

I understand as much (or more) about climate change as you. As a matter of fact, I'm studying it atm.

Regarding one of your points: the earth has warmed and cooled throughout its history. Presumably those changes that occurred millions of years ago were not man made. The climate may be warming, but we cannot prove this has been caused by man.

Piers Corbyn (who is a climate scientist) claims such changes are a result of the activity of the sun. Do you have sufficient knowledge to disprove him?

The reason that I say the belief is 'quasi-religious' is that I believe people such as yourself take the word of the experts on trust. Presumably you have not made all the necessary calculations yourself.

I'm not claiming that climate scientists don't know what they are talking about. Clearly, they know more than I do. However, there are some highly qualified people who do not concur.

I'd say that at the time of writing man made climate change is still more theory than fact.

[Sibboleth]

Quite what climate change crankery has to do with Maesteg I'm not sure...

[Sibboleth]

Apr 19, 2016 1:12:55 GMT @szczecinianin said:

Safe seats are by nature 'undemocratic' and rapidly turn into 'rotten boroughs'.

This (and other posts) is a classic example of a crank defining democracy as 'political/electoral outcomes that please me personally'. A safe seat is only a safe seat so long as the collective opinion of the people who live in it wish for it to be a safe seat. If the Labour vote in Ogmore consistently dwarfs that of other parties then this can only mean that the collective opinion of the people who live in the constituency consistently wishes to be represented by a member of the Labour Party. This is in no sense undemocratic.

UKIP are extremely unlikely to win, but the demographics are near perfect for them.

May I make a suggestion? If reality refuses to fit with a theory then there is a roughly 100% certainty that it is the theory that is wrong rather than reality.

[Deleted]

Apr 21, 2016 15:14:17 GMT Sibboleth said:

This (and other posts) is a classic example of a crank defining democracy as 'political/electoral outcomes that please me personally'. A safe seat is only a safe seat so long as the collective opinion of the people who live in it wish for it to be a safe seat. If the Labour vote in Ogmore consistently dwarfs that of other parties then this can only mean that the collective opinion of the people who live in the constituency consistently wishes to be represented by a member of the Labour Party. This is in no sense undemocratic.

How does referring to me as a 'crank' aid discusssion?

A lot of people (including Labour) favour PR. Is Alan Johnson a 'crank'?

Furthermore, you could also be accused of 'defining democracy as political/electoral outcomes that please me personally', as FPTP favours Labour.

FPTP creates a binary political choice, and a cartel which largely excludes third and new parties. Only two parties are seen as having a realistic chance of winning; therefore the vast majority of people opt for one or other of these two parties.

Generally, support for either Labour or Tory has been based on class and income, with rich areas voting Tory, and poorer ones Labour. Whether your MP is Labour or Tory often merely reflects the prosperity of the area you happen to live in. This isn't really much of a choice.

The vast majority of seats have been either red or blue for donkey's years. Ogmore is one such seat. It doesn't really matter who the candidate is, what he or she says or does, Labour will win the seat. We need a better form of democracy than this.

[Deleted]

Apr 21, 2016 15:14:17 GMT Sibboleth said:

'Demographics are perfect' does not mean UKIP will win the seat.

Suppose UKIP are on 13%,. Where demographics suits them they will get more than this, where demographics doesn't suit them, they will get less.

Demographically (according to Ford and Goodwin) this is one of their best seats. Therefore they should poll far higher than their national average.

[Sibboleth]

Apr 21, 2016 16:31:33 GMT @szczecinianin said:

How doe referring to me as a 'crank' aid discusssion?

It is occasionally necessary to breach the usual rules of polite behavior in order to establish the truth.

A lot of people (including Labour) favour PR. Is Alan Johnson a 'crank'?

I favour proportional representation myself and this is not the issue here.

FPTP creates a binary political choice, and a cartel which largely excludes third and new parties. Only two parties are seen as having a realistic chance of winning; therefore the vast majority of people opt for one or other of these two parties.

Yes, yes, yes, Duverger's so-called 'Law' and all that. It's actually nonsense. Look at India. Look at Canada.

Generally, support for either Labour or Tory has been based on class and income, with rich areas voting Tory, and poorer ones Labour. Whether your MP is Labour or Tory often merely reflects the prosperity of the area you happen to live in. This isn't really much of a choice.

Again, I'm not sure if you understand what the word 'democracy' means. If there is a strong relationship between class and the Labour and Conservative votes (and there is) this indicates that an electorally significant share of the population votes - and for a mixture of perceived self-interest (the only kind that matters) and personal identity - along class lines. This is not in any way undemocratic and it is not an example of a lack of choice: quite the opposite.

The vast majority of seats have been either red or blue for donkey's years. Ogmore is one such seat. It doesn't really matter who the candidate is, what he or she says or does, Labour will win the seat.

If this is the case then it is only so because that is what the people of Ogmore (taken collectively) want. You might not like it, but it is democracy. Marginal seats, frankly, are a much more problematic aspect of FPTP from a 'democratic' perspective.

We need a better form of democracy than this.

I.e. we need to dissolve the people and elect another.

[greenchristian]

Apr 20, 2016 20:20:29 GMT @szczecinianin said:

Apr 20, 2016 19:03:41 GMT greenchristian said:

There are, in fact, a wide range of factors that can be used to work out whether Britain is "full" or not. You could do dozens of statistical analyses on different measurements to determine how viable the concept is. Using population density is, of course, a massive oversimplification - it's hardly fair to consider that the parts of Norway inside the Arctic Circle are equivalent in terms of whatever measure of capacity you're using to an equivalent land area in, say, South West England. The vast majority of people who use the "Britain is Full" argument have not looked at any of this at all.

The Netherlands is all pretty flat. If England has a higher density of population density than they do, then I'd say we've got a problem.

And why has the Green Party retreated from its previous position that 'Britain is full'?

If this was true thirty years ago, it must be even more true today.

You're asking why the Green Party has changed its position from thirty years ago? I have no recollection of the Green Party ever stating an optimum population for the UK, and if it ever did, it was very a long time before I joined. Either way, it's irrelevant to my original point that you are being highly selective about which beliefs you term "quasi-religious".

Apr 20, 2016 20:38:02 GMT @szczecinianin said:

Apr 20, 2016 19:03:41 GMT greenchristian said:

So to be a "quasi-religious" belief, something has to be either hard fact or quantifiable. The basic science of global warming theory consists of the following:
1) carbon dioxide and a number of other notable gases are greenhouse gases - they retain heat from sunlight. This is something that can be proven by a very simple experiment.
2) the average global temperature is rising. The statistics on this are all available to the public, and require no real grasp of advanced science to understand.
3) burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, and the carbon dioxide that is created will increase the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The first is fairly basic chemistry. The measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are, again, fairly easy to find, and it hardly takes much to work out that human activity is the reason. There are similar arguments for human activity increasing other greenhouse gases, which do require a bit more scientific knowledge, but since carbon dioxide is considered the most important greenhouse gas, understanding that it is happening doesn't require such knowledge.
4) the average global temperature rises correlate very closely with the increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases. They do not correlate very well, or at all, with any of the other possible causes that have been suggested. Again, this data is easily accessible, and understanding it requires - at most - a very basic understanding of statistics and the scientific method.

I admit that I don't understand more than a handful of the details of the models of what the precise effects of climate change will be. But understanding that it is happening and that we are causing it does not require me to understand anything about those models. It only requires me to understand a handful of relatively simple bits of science, and to look at data that is available to anybody who wants to search it out.

And, back to my original point, I don't see how any of what I've just explained makes my (or anybody's) belief that it is happening, and that climate scientists do know what they're talking about, in any way "quasi-religious".

I understand as much (or more) about climate change as you. As a matter of fact, I'm studying it atm.

Regarding one of your points: the earth has warmed and cooled throughout its history. Presumably those changes that occurred millions of years ago were not man made. The climate may be warming, but we cannot prove this has been caused by man.

Piers Corbyn (who is a climate scientist) claims such changes are a result of the activity of the sun. Do you have sufficient knowledge to disprove him?

Disproving this theory is pretty simple. Take the recorded levels of sunspot activity and compare them with the global temperature records. If you do this, whether by the simple method of plotting them on a graph, or by more sophisticated methods of statistical analysis, then you find that there isn't a statistically significant correlation. Do the same thing with levels of atmospheric CO2, there's a very large correlation.

The reason that I say the belief is 'quasi-religious' is that I believe people such as yourself take the word of the experts on trust. Presumably you have not made all the necessary calculations yourself.

I'm not claiming that climate scientists don't know what they are talking about. Clearly, they know more than I do. However, there are some highly qualified people who do not concur.

And yet beliefs which you say are not quasi-religious are largely held because people have taken them at face value from other people. "Britain is full" is a great example, because most people who repeat it will never even have looked at something like population density figures, let alone done any kind of analysis of what the UK's capacity (however you choose to measure it) might possibly be.

I'd say that at the time of writing man made climate change is still more theory than fact.

It's as much theory or fact as is quantum physics.

Apr 21, 2016 16:31:33 GMT @szczecinianin said:

Apr 21, 2016 15:14:17 GMT Sibboleth said:

This (and other posts) is a classic example of a crank defining democracy as 'political/electoral outcomes that please me personally'. A safe seat is only a safe seat so long as the collective opinion of the people who live in it wish for it to be a safe seat. If the Labour vote in Ogmore consistently dwarfs that of other parties then this can only mean that the collective opinion of the people who live in the constituency consistently wishes to be represented by a member of the Labour Party. This is in no sense undemocratic.

How doe referring to me as a 'crank' aid discusssion?

A lot of people (including Labour) favour PR. Is Alan Johnson a 'crank'?

Furthermore, you could also be accused of 'defining democracy as political/electoral outcomes that please me personally', as FPTP favours Labour.

FPTP creates a binary political choice, and a cartel which largely excludes third and new parties. Only two parties are seen as having a realistic chance of winning; therefore the vast majority of people opt for one or other of these two parties.

Generally, support for either Labour or Tory has been based on class and income, with rich areas voting Tory, and poorer ones Labour. Whether your MP is Labour or Tory often merely reflects the prosperity of the area you happen to live in. This isn't really much of a choice.

The vast majority of seats have been either red or blue for donkey's years. Ogmore is one such seat. It doesn't really matter who the candidate is, what he or she says or does, Labour will win the seat. We need a better form of democracy than this.

None of which justifies your contention that safe seats rapidly turn into rotten boroughs. Yes, PR would almost certainly be better than what we have now. No, that doesn't mean that the current system is undemocratic, Less democratic, yes. Undemocratic, no.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Apr 20, 2016 11:07:49 GMT @szczecinianin said:

Apr 20, 2016 9:41:45 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

I agree that the different components which make up 'the working class' are quite different socially and economically. That doesn't mean they're necessarily different politically. The difference does tend to exist in areas where Labour are weak (one of the reasons UKIP are often strong in coastal and market towns in the south is that the working class there was never that solidly Labour), but I don't think it does in an area like Ogmore. Economics is trumped by identity.

Social identity and patterns of tribal voting change very, very slowly. However, I believe the tectonic plates have been shifting for some time.

I'm old enough to remember when Labour representatives came from genuine Working Class backgrounds (by this I mean miners, railway workers and so on). Now, I believe that only around twenty Labour MPs do.

Many Working Class people still see Labour as representing 'people like them'. However, there is clearly a massive mismatch between 'them' and their elected representatives, in terms of class, attitudes, income, education and so on.

I could never understand how the likes of Mandelson and Blair could get to represent solidly Working Class constituencies. They would have practically nothing in common with those they purported to represent.

Think about Stephen Kinnock. His father was (originally) Eurosceptic, fiercely opposed to the House of Lords and private education. Neil went on to become a Euro Commissioner, a Lord and his grandchildren are expensively privately educated. His son speaks four languages, none of which is Welsh. I'm very much reminded of 'Animal Farm' where the pigs become men.

There is also a great deal of class snobbery from Labour. If you're UKIP, you are classed as being 'thick'. Today, Labour is for the university educated rather than the plebs. And Labour attitudes, for example a quasi-religious belief in man-made global warming, are those of the so-called 'educated', learned at university rather than through real-life experience.

It was interesting listening to Jane Collins UKIP MEP (daughter of a miner) on 'Any Questions'. She was laughted at and ridiculed by the panel and audience. Not only did she not have the 'correct' attitudes, she also didn't speak 'proper'. People such as her should not be allowed access to the mainstream media, was the impression I got.

Of course, thirty or more years ago, Jane would have been speaking for Labour, and her Working Class origins and accent would have been a badge of pride rather than of shame.

Labour, in Scotland, is now regarded as 'the Middle Class party', with all the plebs voting SNP. Don't be too surprised if the same happens in England and Wales, with UKIP speaking for 'the people' against a snobbish and out-of-touch elite.

Whilst it's true that the claims made herein about global warming are nonsense (there's not good evidence that belief in global warming is determined by social class; it's not a complaint you hear regularly on the doorstep (the only time I ever heard it was from an elderly professor who'd been voting Tory for decades); calling it quasi-religious is a gratuitous misrepresentation of the meaning of the word 'religious', and probably 'quasi' too; I could go on), there are other ideas in this post that haven't been mocked nearly enough.

Yes, there used to be a lot more miners representing Labour seats. There are some fairly basic reasons why that's not going to be common in future that have nothing to do with snobbery. But not every MP representing a mining seat was a miner. South Wales mining communities also elected such horny-handed sons of toil as Michael Foot and Leo Abse to be their representatives, without that seeming to concern their electorates. And if you can't understand how Mandelson and Blair got selected, that's because you don't know how the Durham NUM worked.

Apparently Stephen Kinnock doesn't count as working-class because he wasn't born down a colliery, but Jane Collins is because her father (who ended his career as a stable owner) was once a miner. Do I have to point out that there's no point having this conversation if you're going to move the goalposts just about every time you kick a ball? There are plenty of good reasons to object to Kinnock's selection, so congratualations for finding about the only complaint that isn't valid.

Meanwhile, there are a good number of Labour MPs who do have regional accents and are not mocked for it (at least not by us.) You have to accept that sometimes we mock people because we disagree with them, and the fact that the mocked individual has a regional accent doesn't make it snobbery.

[Sibboleth]

The first Labour MP for Seaham (the main predecessor to Easington) was Sidney Webb!

[Deleted]

You seem desperate to defeat me on some issue or other, Sibboleth.

You claim to support PR, yet slag me off for using all the usual arguments advocates of PR come out with.

Your tone is extremely condescending, and lacks basic respect. It won't go down well on the doorstep. Particularly, when the younger, 'educated' activist with the posh voice talks down to the older voter in Working Class constituencies.

[East Anglian Lefty]

You're not an ordinary voter. The fact that we don't respect you has no relevance to how we might canvass.

[Deleted]

Apr 21, 2016 21:16:29 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

You're not an ordinary voter. The fact that we don't respect you has no relevance to how we might canvass.

Who is 'we'? You are only speaking for yourself, I'd imagine. Disrespecting others is not a particularly intellligent position to take. Far better to listen, learn and take stock.