Politics Thread 5

[KK]

Just announced tonight:

Gove calls for 30 per cent of world’s oceans to be protected by 2030

UK government makes ambitious call to treble internationally-agreed targets for ocean protection.

- UK calls for third of world’s oceans to be safeguarded by 2030
- Current global targets for protected areas to treble under ambitious plans
- Marine protection top of agenda at UN General Assembly in New York
- Environment Secretary Michael Gove has today called for a third of the world’s oceans to be protected by 2030.

Globally, less than 10 per cent of the world’s seas are currently designated as Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) – one of the most important ways to protect precious sea life and habitats from damaging activity.

Now, the UK is backing ambitious calls to treble internationally-agreed targets for protected areas, meaning 30 per cent of the world’s seas would be safeguarded as MPAs by 2030.

This will build on the UK’s global leadership in protecting the marine environment – with over 200,000 square miles of Britain’s coastline already protected and recent proposals for 41 new Marine Conservation Zones marking the most significant expansion of the ‘Blue Belt’ to date.

Environment Secretary Michael Gove said:

Protection of our oceans is a global challenge which requires global action. The UK has already safeguarded vast swathes of precious marine habitats, but we must go further.

Only by working together can we protect our shared home and ensure our marine life continues to be a source of awe and wonder for future generations.

The UK’s ambitious calls also coincide with the United Nations General Assembly, where countries have gathered in New York to discuss protection for our oceans.

While there, Environment Minister Thérèse Coffey will call on other nations to push for the global target of 30 per cent of oceans designated as MPAs by 2030.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/gove ... ed-by-2030

Sky News is campaigning for an independent commission to organise the running of televised debates between the UK's main party leaders at future general elections.

The Leaders' Debate Commission would set the criteria for party participation, the objectivity of the audience, the debate formats and dates, plus the rules and the moderators.

Currently at 4,000: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/228572. Needs 10,000 signatures for the government to respond. 100,000 for it to be debated in parliament.

[BID0]

10%- of shares owned by employees giving them a sense of ownership and increased moral and productivity

90%+ of shares owned by shareholders

Productivity up = a chance of increased company profits and a national consumer base with more disposable income

Who wins?

[Errkal]

10%- of shares owned by employees giving them a sense of ownership and increased moral and productivity

90%+ of shares owned by shareholders

Productivity up = a chance of increased company profits and a national consumer base with more disposable income

Who wins?

But poor people are lazy and should work harder, handing them shares just shows that being lazy and not trying pays!

They shouldn't be allowed in some towns or to vote etc as it will incentives them to work harder!

[Hypes]

Why would nationalised water and power systems not work?

*approaches podium*

*takes sip of water*

*adjusts tie*

*clears throat*

"I believe the words 'piss-up' and 'brewery' come to mind."

*gestures knowingly at the abstract concept of the state seated on the other side of the stage*

*winks at now braying audience*

*leaves stage to the sound of rapturous applause*

*immediately made a peer*

[Garth]

twitter.com/YouGov/status/1043396525274157056

[Rex Kramer]

Why would more people think the Royal Mail should be public owned over the energy companies or water? Is it just the fact it's called Royal?

[Cuttooth]

Why would more people think the Royal Mail should be public owned over the energy companies or water? Is it just the fact it's called Royal?

Most recently publicly owned?

[Lex-Man]

I don't know why this has to be a one or other option. Couldn't we just open a publicly owned water company and just have it compete with the private companies.

[KK]

In terms of Royal Mail, I’m also going with nostalgia. People have fond memories of their local Post Offices, the postman delivering letters twice a day (and at breakfast!), cheaper prices...

...instead of, oh I dunno, Amazon Logistics.

[Lagamorph]

I don't know why this has to be a one or other option. Couldn't we just open a publicly owned water company and just have it compete with the private companies.

Gas and Electric they possibly could, but the government one probably wouldn't be any cheaper than the others and possibly wouldn't be worth the cost of setting up. If it got subsidised to be cheaper then every other provider would cry foul and probably sue the government.

With water there generally is no competition. You're stuck with whoever happens to provide your area.

[Preezy]

Regarding nationalisation, I wouldn't trust a British government to organise a piss up in a brewery, let alone be responsible for my water and electric. We need to reduce government, not further bloat the corpse.

Why's that then?

Generally speaking, governments cost countries money. The bigger the government, the more money it costs and the less efficient it becomes.

Nationalising services reduces competition. Reduced competition results in a lower quality product.

My favourite example - think how gooseberry fool a government-issued smartphone would be, compared to an iPhone or Samsung Galaxy.

[OrangeRKN]

Competition doesn't really exist in the same way for the industries most often suggested for nationalisation. If I want to get a train, I don't have a choice of provider - I have to go with whatever train line is running that service. The providers compete for contracts but that isn't the same as the market deciding what is best. All the providers share the same critical infrastructure and that needs maintenance and improvement, and there is no possibility of competition there either.

I know there is a push to offer competition and consumer choice for water, like we already have with gas and electric, but it's still somewhat dodgy as it's all coming through the same national infrastructure.

With the postal system it is very advantageous to have a monopolistic service. It resists the usual competition argument in the same way that social networks do.

Theoretically a single nationalised service should be more efficient than a private company. The problem is that in practice they are often badly run.

[Lex-Man]

Regarding nationalisation, I wouldn't trust a British government to organise a piss up in a brewery, let alone be responsible for my water and electric. We need to reduce government, not further bloat the corpse.

Why's that then?

Generally speaking, governments cost countries money. The bigger the government, the more money it costs and the less efficient it becomes.

Nationalising services reduces competition. Reduced competition results in a lower quality product.

My favourite example - think how gooseberry fool a government-issued smartphone would be, compared to an iPhone or Samsung Galaxy.

You don't have to think about it, just buy a Huawei P20 Pro or any one plus phone.

[Drumstick]

Isn't one of the major pushes for nationalisation of various industries so that instead of profits going to shareholders or shell companies based in tax havens, the money can be used to improve the econony and stuff?

I don't know why this has to be a one or other option. Couldn't we just open a publicly owned water company and just have it compete with the private companies.

Gas and Electric they possibly could, but the government one probably wouldn't be any cheaper than the others and possibly wouldn't be worth the cost of setting up. If it got subsidised to be cheaper then every other provider would cry foul and probably sue the government.

With water there generally is no competition. You're stuck with whoever happens to provide your area.

Not for much longer.

[Garth]

Life expectancy progress in UK 'stops for first time'

Life expectancy in the UK has stopped improving for the first time since 1982, when figures began.

Women's life expectancy from birth remains 82.9 years and for men it is 79.2, the figures from the Office for National Statistics, for 2015-17, show.

In some parts of the UK, life expectancy has even decreased.

For men and women in Scotland and Wales, it declined by more than a month. Men in Northern Ireland have seen a similar fall.

For women in Northern Ireland, and for men and women in England, life expectancy at birth is unchanged.

The ONS said the stalling of life expectancy was linked to a particularly high number of deaths from 2015 to 2017, which coincided with a bad flu season and excess winter deaths.

It said there was "much ongoing debate" about the reasons behind this and what direction the trend may take in the future.

What's happening

It is not clear what is driving the trend, but some academics have argued that government austerity policies, such as cuts to social care budgets in England, must have played a part.

Ministers have said that no such causation can be proved, although Public Health England has been asked to carry out a review of life expectancy trends.

Dr Kingsley Purdam, senior lecturer in social research methods and statistics at the University of Manchester, said the figures were "shocking".

"Poverty, austerity and cuts to public services are impacting on how long people are living in the UK," he said.

"We all need to look after our health but many of us, including the most vulnerable populations, need help at a time when evidence suggests that services are being cut.

"The lost years of life have an impact not just on the individual but on those people who are ultimately left behind including partners, children and grandchildren."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45638646

Millennials poorer than the previous generation, life expectancy stalled/dropping, Brexit still to come - this is fine!

[Hypes]

Life under a Conservative government

[Jenuall]

Life under a Conservative government

"I can't imagine these working class people will have much to live for by the time they're 80 anyway. They're no good in the work house by that age so we're doing them a favour by killing them all off early. Wot wot."

[KK]

Three quarters of Brits pay little to no attention to the goings on at party conference

It’s the autumn, and much of Britain’s political class will move en masse to Manchester, Birmingham or one of a number of other locations playing host to one of this year’s political party conferences.

Party conferences allow a chance for the party to set out its ideas and policies for the coming year, and for the membership to engage with the party’s MP and staff (and in the case of some parties have a vote on deciding policy too).

The conferences are always covered heavily by Britain’s political journalists, but does anyone actually care about what’s going on at the party conferences?

Now new YouGov research shows that almost three quarters of Brits (72%) are barely paying attention to what is going on at the political events of the season. This includes 30% who say they pay “no attention at all”.

By contrast, only 3% say they are paying a lot of attention, and a further 19% pay a fair amount of attention. The remaining 6% answered “don’t know”.

The voting public are scarcely more interested. Around two thirds of people who voted Labour (68%) and Lib Dem (66%) in 2017 said they paid not much/no attention to the goings on, rising to 76% of Conservative voters.

[Moggy]

Regarding nationalisation, I wouldn't trust a British government to organise a piss up in a brewery, let alone be responsible for my water and electric. We need to reduce government, not further bloat the corpse.

Why's that then?

Generally speaking, governments cost countries money. The bigger the government, the more money it costs and the less efficient it becomes.

Nationalising services reduces competition. Reduced competition results in a lower quality product.

My favourite example - think how gooseberry fool a government-issued smartphone would be, compared to an iPhone or Samsung Galaxy.

For some different examples, think how gooseberry fool a McDonald's owned NHS would be, how bad a Tesco owned prison service would be, how terrible a Virgin owned train service would be or how expensive an Apple owned passport service would be. And that's before we even think about how Microsoft would run the water companies.

The government should stay out of the smartphone market, I think we all agree there. But that doesn't mean it isn't best placed to provide the absolute essentials in life. People need energy, people need water, people need trains/buses. And since privatisation they have not improved but have become massively more expensive.

I am not convinced that renationalisation of all of them in one go is the best thing to do, the cost will be enormous and we can't afford it if Brexit goes ahead, but they should never have been privatised in the first place.

[Drumstick]

but they should never have been privatised in the first place.

Agreed.

WB.