The Furrowed Brow
For serious talk on serious things. Seriously.
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
The PM Privacy Commission
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
- Full Audio and Transcripts
- Hugh Tomlinson QC
- Zac Goldsmith MP
- Max Mosley
- Stephen Abell
- Hugh Grant
- Sir Charles Gray
- Alan Rusbridger
- Helen Wood
- Max Clifford
- Marcus Partington
- John Kampfner
- Christopher Graham
- Louise Mensch
- Andy Trotter
- John Mullin
- Avril Sanders Royle
- Jimmy Wales
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
I would suggest pm to discuss the appalling decision of the high court which makes the
government a hypocrite.
The decision of treating overseas graduates who have gone more than halfway in their training (means NHS has spent taxpayers money to train them for last so many years) and have a Highly skilled migrant program visa (where in the person makes an affidavit that one makes UK their permanent home) are discriminatory because they do not have enough time period covering for their training period ! When in first place they are here to stay !
By this at least 15,000 doctors would be affected.
In general with the HSMP verdict, 50,000 people who are law abiding, economically active with a annual income of at least more than 拢30,000 (hsmp regulates at least income of 拢30,000 in UK for applying /extending) and paying taxes will be affected.
This is pure discrimination, maybe i dare say a form of racism.
One can distinctly remember the days of adverts not long ago in overseas national newspapers advertising doctors to come to UK (2002 and around) and the role of overseas doctors supporting NHS all these years, yet such a shabby treatment to professionals.
And why no press coverage inspite of such a huge numbers affected ??
I pray your team to investigate and present facts to the world.
Hmmm. Where should we go this week? Taking a look at what's making news today we could choose between;
Should unemployed persons of foreign origin have their benefit cut/withdrawn for failing to learn English?
Road charging?
Should England bid for the football world cup in 2018?
Iran/Iraq?
BA's latest industrial problems?
What do you fancy today? Discuss.
Si.
Eddie (if you permit me to address you so informally, as we have never been introduced)
When you become Chairman will you issue
"The Little Red Book of the Thoughts of Chairman Mair"?
Or will the blog take its place?
For 大象传媒 PM: If Great Britain hosts the World Cup in 2018, I would like to go with my wife and daughter.
The news media cover a story about the online petition (https://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/) to attempt to persuade the Government not to implement vehicle spying (oops, sorry, tracking) for road pricing.
And suddenly it's impossible to sign the petition. The site claims, "Sorry, but we weren't able to add your signature to the petition, because our site is extremely busy at the moment. "
Strangely, for an extremely busy site, the number of signatures on the petition doesn't seem to be increasing all that quickly; certainly not at the rate you'd expect from a site so solidly jammed with people lining up to sign.
How politically expedient.
I do wonder, if the site was managed independently, outwith the auspices of Number Ten, whether it would suddenly have encountered problems when democracy became inconvenient.
Jon (5) we're doing the story in the programme tonight.
Simon:
Is it only those of foreign origin who face having their benefits cut for not learning English?
Wouldn't it do wonders for the economy if there were some incentive for native English speakers to learn to speak and write it properly?
World Cup 2018:
I wonder where the World Cup would be held if England got it? Liverpool? Newcastle? Plymouth?
Or would it be London got the goodies *again*?
Stainless Steel Cat (7)
If England were picked to host the World Cup, it would be held in...England, of course.
The World Cup requires a number of large stadia, and these are spread throughout the country, not just in London. In fact, the biggest ones are outside London (Anfield, Old Traffod etc). No doubt a fair few games would be held at Wembley, yes, but think back to Euro 96...wasn't that London-centric now, was it?
The 大象传媒 news site says that the Duchess of Cornwall is to have a hysterectomy.
Why on earth do we need to know this? I'm no republican, but I can hardly believe that this constitutes a public interest news story.
I'm sure that Camilla would rather keep her bits out of the public public domain; I really can't understand why Clarence House even felt it was worth informing the press of this.
Would it help if the UK education system implemented a model whereby students of any age have to get up to a minimum standard in order to leave school (say, grade Cs in the basics), rather than every 16 year old having the freedom to leave education even if they fail all their GCSEs just because they have reached a certain age? It would mean that you would have students being 'held-back' year after year, but wouldn't it also provide an incentive for them to actually work during their school years if they knew that they couldn't leave if they failed?
I know that some students have to repeat years occasionally but that is only in extreme circumstances at the moment, rather than a standardised policy across the nation.
Caught some of Douglas Alexander's blitherings on Today this morning. Classic example of the fallacy of the excluded middle (the 'politician's fallacy') -
Major Premise - We must do something
Minor Premise - This is something
Conclusion - We must do this.
Faced with what it sees as the problem of congestion, the government proposes an eye-in-the-sky great big IT system to track your every movement. We all know how well big government IT projects work, especially ones with such ill-defined requirements.
However, we already have a way of taxing people according to how much driving they do. It's called Fuel Duty. I say abolish the road fund licence and replace it by a cheap token to show that the car is MoT'ed and insured. Raise the fuel duty to compensate. If CO2 is what the gov is worried about - make Fuel Duty a proper carbon tax.
Congestion itself is a function of things like inflexible working times and the school run - ever notice how clear the roads are during the school holidays? The gov wants us to work more flexibly, and at the same time is all in favour of free choice of schools for parents which is all but guaranteed to create extra journeys. Kids no longer walk to school but have to be ferried by car. Not only that, but these journeys are not flexible and will inevitably be the ones hit by the highest tolls.
(An economist will probably tell you that congestion is its own tax - because time is money.)
Meanwhile high house prices force people in cities to move ever further away and commute further - while the trains are packed like sardines and season tickets keep rising by more than inflation.
I'm not saying I have the answers - just that we should not accept yet another privacy invading authoritarian measure from the government.
PS - I was amused to note that Rod Eddington, author of the report that proposed the road pricing scheme, now lives in Australia.
Fifi
Would now be a good time to suggest a pole on the pmblog site?
H.
Humph (12)
For dancing around?
@ humph (12)
Would this be for the size zero models to dance around?
RJ (8):
think back to Euro 96...wasn't that London-centric now, was it?
I haven't a clue! I have as much interest in football as a tadpole has in quantum physics.
Eddie: (On air)
Splorf!* You big fibber!
*Sound of tea drenching keyboard.
Do people really expect the government to listen to 1,000,000 people signing an online petition when they ignored 1,000,000 people who travelled across the country to campaign against an illegal law?!
Mark, just make sure you're dancing round the pole and not a model!
Dunno about a pole....Eddie Mair needs a big stick applied to him in a manner which would discourage him from riling the Froggers in public again!
Vijay (1) Tried to post this earlier, but it seems to have got lost.
There has been some coverage of this issue in the media, certainly on radio (where I heard about it) though I'm not sure about the press in general.
I was not aware of a recent High Court ruling though - has something been challenged and rejected?
I agree that it is both crazy and unjust on the one hand to invite people to come here to train and work because we are short of skilled staff ourselves, and then to turn round and say 'Sorry folks, we got the numbers wrong, you can go now'.
Vijay (1) Tried to post this earlier, but it seems to have got lost. Trying for the third time....
There has been some coverage of this issue in the media, certainly on radio (where I heard about it) though I'm not sure about the press in general.
I was not aware of a recent High Court ruling though - has something been challenged and rejected?
I agree that it is both crazy and unjust on the one hand to invite people to come here to train and work because we are short of skilled staff ourselves, and then to turn round and say 'Sorry folks, we got the numbers wrong, you can go now'.
Somebody called Vijay making the first post is clearly very upset about something, but I think he needs those English lessons before we can understand what it is.
So this Labour Govement proposes to bring in road pricing.
Does this mean that for every journey a company car driver makes his boss will receive a bill itomising.
start time, finish time (stop for coffe time) on which road & when details?
Have they realy thought about this Maggie would be proud of them
Belinda (10)
With no effective punishment for bad behavour, how will teachers control a class containing 30 students, each 20+ years old who were not interested in learning?
Don't give me the crap about making the lesson more interesting/relevent. It will not work.
Humph 12
Tony 13
Behave yourselves! This is the sensible place.....
Mollyxx
School buses. Why don't we have proper school buses? I'm with the poster who remarks that during the school breaks (this week for example) there is no traffic on the roads. Let's cut out the school runs.
Flexible work and working from home is clearly the way ahead for many people. Companies who employ people to work at desks on computers from 9-5 should be asked to justify why they require people to come to work. Why not save themselves some high rental costs by enabling their workers to stay at home, coming in to the office once or twice a week in the middle of the day for meetings and supervision.
Call centres? Do they need to be in offices?
Then there are the strange roadworks which are uncoordinated, holding up traffic for months on end with strangely little or not improvement.
Oh and then there's me getting pulled by police who saw me adjusting my driving mistake whilst I took in the very new road signs and realised I was somewhere I shouldn't be. What did they do? They pulled me out of my proper lane and told me off for realising I had made a mistake! What was that all about, except to cause a nuisance to me and others around me?
Mary
Jake (6), An illegal law? That appears to be an oxymoron to me -- explain?
Appy (26);
Second-guessing here; It's almost certainly the 'Hunting with Dogs' thing which Jake refers to. But you'd guessed that already, I'm sure.
I will state upfront that I have a lot of sympathy with the hunting communities. I lived in a town in Cornwall for a few years which had an active hunt. One or two of the members were personal friends. I never hunted or had any association with a hunt, but I would have voted against the ban.
It seemed to me that the massively disproportionate amount of Parliamentary time given to this law was foolish in the extreme. Especially when you compare it to the amount of time given over to, say, tuition fees, the Iraq War or the education policies.
There is no doubt that the time could have been more profitably used on a dozen other debates. It seemed therefore to be persecutory towards the people involved, which is why it raised such passion in the countryside. After all horses die every week in racing, people are injured or maimed indulging their other sporting interests. Gambling, smoking and drinking cause untold human illness, misery and death. None of these are banned.
It seemed to be a sop towards old class prejudices within the Labour Party itself. After all why single out hunting? Why not shooting or fishing?
Nonetheless, the fact is that the law was duly passed by a vote of a majority of MP's in an entirely proper way. It is not an illegal law. As such, it should be obeyed until such time as another vote may overturn it, if that ever happens.
And the Government will do whatever it pleases with regards to road pricing. If it finds the online petition inconvenient then it will simply ignore it.
Si.
Hello PM,
Over the past five years many large organisations have moved their call centres abroad; apparently this can bring savings of up to 50% in operating costs. Some, discovering that their customers don鈥檛 much like finding that they are speaking to someone in another country, are closing their Indian call centres (Powergen is one).
Whether this will help them is doubtful, for their customers鈥 dissatisfaction with the quality of the service might still apply: companies running poorly performing call centres abroad will run the same in the UK, and vice versa.
From time to time I raise a telephone query with a financial services organisation and it is answered efficiently from the other side of the world by a lovely voice with perfect diction; yesterday it was Ruchita who spoke to me, and if ever there were an excuse for using the word dulcet, her tone provides it. I cannot be the only caller who finds it soothing at any time of the day (or night) to listen to her or someone like her gliding gently through a prescribed script before getting down to the more intimate personal matters regarding my account.
So I would not be at all pleased if this company brought its call centre operation back to England or, worse, transferred it to some other distant country where the natives' way with our common language is less pleasing. My only sadness is that although Ruchita and her colleagues all sound as if they are beautiful, which some of them probably are, and as if they have first class honours degrees, which some of them probably do, they are likely to be earning a鈥攂y our standards鈥攄erisory wage.
Katherine Hepburn to Humphrey Bogart: 鈥淗uman nature is what we are put on this earth to rise above, Mr Allnutt鈥 (The African Queen)
Humph (et al) : Sorry, I haven't been ignoring you. Just avoiding the banging-the-head-off-the-brick-wall sensation of trying to post anything on the frog lately!
Er.... I presume your idea for a poll was about the Pay As You Go road charging scheme? I can certainly email Jonnie with the suggestion, since he seems to be (like me) hiding at the moment.
But don't forget, anyone can email him via the PM Extra website. Mine is not the only hotline!
I'll just send it now...
Fifi
Okay Humph and other mumphers, Jonnie has agreed to run a poll, I've pinched wording from the e-petition, and it should be available soon.
Don't forget to sign the e-petition!
It's at
Fifi
Ed's results are in:
Is renewing Trident a useful or necessary idea ?
鈥淢ust Have鈥
6 of 83 total votes (7.2%)
"We could do with a smaller deterrent but we still need Nukes "
17 of 83 total votes (20.5%)
"Totally inappropriate in today's world"
32 of 83 total votes (38.6%)
"We need an open debate before deciding"
13 of 83 total votes (15.7%)
"A binding Referendum"
0 of 83 total votes (0%)
"Absolutely preposterous idea"
15 of 83 total votes (18.1%)
Please see today's new thread for details (if they appear) of Humph's new pole!
Fifi ;o)
Okay, I know I may be flamed for this, but I believe there may be a case for road pricing. There's already 33 million cars on the road (around a 25% increase in ten years), causing the worst congestion anywhere in Europe. It's also about a fifth of the CO2 emmisions that we as a country put out. If the scheme were set up so that the money from it went directly into public/alternative transport, then it can't be described as a "stealth tax". You only have to look at the example of London. The Congestion charge money is directed straight into the LTA as I understand it, and it has improved buses and the underground quite extensively over the last few years. On the times I've had to go down to London over the last ten years, I've definitely seen the improvement.
Secondly I see from the petition that a lot of figures and costs are already being claimed, such that there will be a compulsory monthly fee, it will cost 拢200 to buy the equipment, etc. Do we know who has come up with these figures? What is the basis for this?
Thirdly, the Civil Liberties issue. Now, I'm usually one to err on the rights of the individual, as most of the regular froggers will aggree. Here, however, I'm not convinced that there is a clear cut case to say it is an infringement of personal liberty. I'm open to persuasion either way...
So, I hope this opens the debate out a little. I think we need to have this debate, otherwise we'll be living in a country that is just a gridlock of cars not moving anywhere in a few years time.
Fifi/Johnnie,
Will your poll offer the opportunity to respond either way?
FFred (33) I absolutely agree both about the need to increase the cost of travel to reduce congestion and CO2, and that people need to see any extra taxes raised as going towards mitigating both.
Where I disagree is over the method proposed, and like you I don't know where the supposed costs and mechanism come from. But assuming that the mechanism is to be via a device fitted to every car, tracked by sophisticated IT systems, then I think it is bound to fail.
Huge IT projects are difficult at the best of times. Governments have an abysmal record in implementing them.
The civil liberties implications of a total surveillance system on all vehicles are horrendous. Apart from what it would feel like to know that someone was able to track your every move, imagine what it would be like to be accused of some crime or misdemeanour and being told you could not argue with 'the computer' which 'proved' you were there.
The most effective way of getting people out of their cars would be to provide cheap, efficient, well-integrated and widely available public transport (including school buses). This would have to be linked to a change in public policy on planning new housing development which only permitted it where good transport links already existed. In other words make the housing follow the infrastructure not the other way round.
If we use public policy to make it easier for people to live nearer their places of work we might even find it no longer necessary to close numerous schools when it snows.
FFred;
Simple, and unpalatable.
Drop Road Tax.
Apply the cost of using the highways via taxation on road fuel alone. Those who use the most fuel pay the most in taxation. And foreigners, whether tourists or hauliers, driving on our roads pay their fair share of the costs through their fuel purchases.
Encourages less use of vehicles AND development of economical engine technology.
Now who will vote for that as a manifesto pledge? Come on, I'd like to see at least one hand raised. Thought not.
And, incidentally, no medium or heavy goods vehicles to be on the roads from 07:00 until 19:00 every single day. All these vehicles to be forced to use the roads away from the working day.
And no Chelsea Tractors on the roads during school run hours, normal cars only. Driving 400 yards to drop the nippers off at school, then 400 yards home again to be banned. (And yes, I've seen it happen).
But none of this to happen until public transport is up to the task of moving far more of us around in comfort, convenience and at low cost.
Si.
Fifi
I meant a poll (sorry for earlier mis-spelling) about the name for this forum!
H.
Aperitif (26)- i meant war- sorry for any confusion!
Thanks to Fifi for alerting people to the poll, however the link she posted on the previous thread didn't work. I think it's cause it had one of these at the end (.) This link hopefully will:-
At this stage a staggering 8 people have voted and all are against the Road pricing proposal.
Anne P voted earlier - but left this comment on the extra site
"Have just voted in Humph's poll. However, I'd like to point out that my main objection is not to reducing traffic by increasing the cost of motoring. My objection is to the apparently proposed method and the ever-increasing surveillance. I think if that ever comes in I'd really be tempted to give up the car altogether. I am reassured though by the total inability of government IT projects ever to do more than spend huge amounts of our money before a new government steps in cancelling the project altogether"
Simon, and others who have suggested banning heavy goods vehicles delivering during the day, have you considered what it would be like for those living next to main roads who would suffer all night traffic. And if you live next to a supermarket or above a row of shops, when would you get to sleep? Not to mention that the people who work in the shops would have to work nights to receive the deliveries.
I know they did it in ancient Rome, but banning daytime deliveries would only bring other problems.
Aha Jake -- I should've realised.
Simon (36)
Why unpalatable?
I've worked fairly hard to reduce my car miles - including business. I've cut 15% or so in the last two or three years, but since I do need to use the car for business, it's getting harder to reduce further.
Unlike FFred, I strongly oppose these boxes that allow satellite tracking of everyone. Although (and I will write on my blog about it), I find the attitudes of people in their 20s different, they seem not to mind to have others intrude upon/monitor them. I don't mind paying for a toll road - I have a choice to use others. I do mind having my precise route, my speed etc monitored, especially by a gov. IT department (and we all know how successful they are).
I should also add that while I'm not mad keen on it, the congestion charge is OK by me, in that all it registers is that I drove into the centre of London during the operating hours.
However, the rural lobby would moan that they have oh so many more miles to get to anywhere. Well the second homers and those who commute a long way to towns can be ignored on that arguement, so we only have the core rural people to resolve - and, well, a subsidy for anyone who lives and works in a rural area (or works in a rural area with a rural job, to cover those who have to live in towns due to lack of local accommodation) to cover their needed trips to town would not be out of the question in my opinion.
PM Poll:
Proposition:-
The governments proposal to introduce road pricing will mean you having to purchase a tracking device for your car and paying a Monthly bill to use it. The tracking device will cost around 拢200 and in a recent study by the 大象传媒, the lowest monthly bill was 拢28 for a rural florist and 拢194 for a delivery driver. A non working mother who used the car to take the kids to school paid 拢86 in one month. On top of this increase in tax you will be tracked. Somebody will know where you are at all times. They will also know how fast you have been going, so even if you accidentally creep over the speed limit and then slow down again, you can probably expect a Notice of Intended Prosecution with your monthly bill. Would you vote for this ?
Jonnie, can you point me to where the facts that there will be a monthly fee and that the box will cost 拢200 have come from? I can't find them in any of the reports I've come across....
Ta!
FFred
I think Eddie Stobart set a good example when he decided to transport some of his goods by rail. I hope it turns out to be profitable for him and that others will follow his lead.
Fearless : you'd need to go to the government e-petition that kicked all this off, and track down the man wot dunnit.
I'm just the messenger and Jonnie's the tech op in this instance.
;o)
Fifi
DeepJohn (42);
"Why unpalatable"?
Because we already have the highest motor fuel prices in the world. We saw blockades in 2000 at the price level of petrol. Anything Government move that bumps the price up further will have a likelihood of causing further unrest. It would be electoral suicide.
The Government lost a big slice of its majority in 2005, constituency boundary changes are set to erode the existing majority still more. This lot will not act to aggravate the motoring population further at the outset of a Brown premiership. He doesn't want to go down in history as one of a handful of Prime Ministers never to achieve electoral legitimacy. He wants us to love him and vote him back in. So they will do nothing.
They also derive the bulk of their support from the urban centres, not the rural vote. That's why they trampled over the Countryside Alliance during 'Hunting with Dogs'. Don't expect any favours for country dwellers from this lot, there's no votes in it for them.
Political expediency.
Public transport isn't the answer. Never will be. We're all too wedded to the absolute 'Martini' solution our cars provide for us (anytime, anyplace, anywhere). Very few will give up that kind of flexibility for the bus or the train.
Heard on 'Today' this morning about MP's expenses. Chris Huhne (ironically the LibDem environment bloke) can either commute from Hampshire by car @ 拢30 per day, or by train @拢42 per day. Would you vote for him to spend more of your tax money and take the train? Or spend less and increase congestion & pollution? And bear in mind in the car he can carry a substantial quantity of baggage and official papers, not so on public transport.
Si.
Hi Fifi (46) I did look at the petition, but there's no mention of figures there that I can see (unless I'm going blind...)
I also totally disagree with the proposed method of tracking motorists. I really don't mind the idea of ID cards - having lived in Belgium where you are legally obliged to carry your id card at all times I am used to that system and as a (i think anyway) decent law abiding citzen with nothing to hide, then - that point exactly - I have nothing to hide! However tracking where i drive and when, and at what speed to me is just a step too far. There is, as has already been pointed out, the cost of developing and deploying such a system. Government IT projects are notoriously bad at developing anything that is a) on time or b) on budget. I absolutely agree with the end objective - i.e. cut car use - and wish that there was a decent alternative in place to make this feasable. I would much rather this end goal be financed by a road toll system - surely that way the more you use your cars the more you pay which is what they are trying to achieve anyway. It works extremely well in France (in so much as the roads are clear, well maintained and they have a decent public transport infrastucture in place) I don't know but I assume that this is funded through the road tolls?
Heavy goods vehicles are also banned from roads on Sundays there which helps and I dont think disrupts deliveries too much.
Introduce more school buses to cut down on the school run traffic. Sadly we live in a society today where walking to school is not something a lot of parents comfortably embrace - but having one school bus doing the rounds surely makes more sense than a hundred cars all heading off for the same place at the same time every morning? That reminds me - many years ago when I first left school I worked for a big oil company in Aberdeen. They used to run an employee bus - picking people up on a set route and taking them to and from work every day. It worked a treat for me - and in the company I am working at the moment I cant see why something similar cant be introduced. There must be 300/400 cars in the car park every day and most people live locally. OK it makes working flexi hours a bit tricky and if you want to do overtime you may miss the bus - but with the concept of working from home being much easier and achievable these days all it takes is a bit of forward planning - get the bus home at 5 ready for a conference call with the US at 6 for example.
^^ Simon (47) - the town planning (or lack of it) in the past couple of decades has ensured that the privately owned Infernal Combustion Engine is an essential part of most households. Often more than one.
Work places are miles away, schools likewise and the shops are out-of-town too. Unless you are lucky enough not to have to go to work so you can catch the one-an-hour or so bus to the local shopping centre during the main part of the day, you are really stuck.
Cheap reliable public transport to where people actually need to get to is desperately wanted in the countryside.
I'm still trying to work out why someone who lives in central London (Chelsea, Highgate etc etc) with all those night buses and tube trains and overhead trains should need a car?
I'm not sure Fearless -- I'll get Fifi back on the case --
MEANWHILE :- The 大象传媒 has spent another 拢700,000 of licence payers' money replacing its on-screen links between programmes, it announced today.
Perhaps a few new servers for the blog would be handy if all this money is around ?
Jonnie at 43, your statement inviting people to join in your poll is clearly biased and therefore it isn't scientific. You need to state the facts on BOTH sides of the argument if you are going to state any facts at all.
For a petition to NOT renew Trident.
I posted this earlier together with thanks to Jonnie for the results of our in-house trident poll, but it's gone into the twilight zone. (probably will appear now)
xx
ed
Fusspot (52) Facts seem to be what we are rather short of in this debate - see Fearless' question about where the 拢200 figure came from. Jonnie was just the mouthpiece in this case rather than putting a personal view I think.
Does anyone know of an actual detailed proposal on road pricing? Or was the petition on the PM's (as opposed to PM) website just put together by someone making an educated guess as to what such a scheme might be like?
Here's how the poll came about, for those wondering about the lack of facts/figs/background/evidence. Or indeed a two-sided argument.
Humph asked me (why me???) if I'd ask Jonnie to start a poll about the subject on the other website. Jonnie naturally bounced the job of wording it back to me.
I don't have Humph's email address so I was stuck with it. Being busy (or maybe lazy) I adapted the wording from the much-quoted million-signature petition on the Number 10 website. There's provision for only 1000 characters so it has to be short.
All I can suggest, for those wanting evidence that the guy who started the petition isn't just scaremongering, is that you check his name (which I've forgotten) and use giggle to try to track him down.
Me, I have a ready-made opinion for once, because I'm a fully paid up conspiracy theorist! (With good reason, as I found out recently. Not very nice...)
May I just add, from a personal standpoint, that having nothing to hide doesn't give anyone the right to spy on you.
Fifi :o)
Re traffic congestion - why not have increased car parking charges at peak times? This would include introducing charges where at present parking is free, such as street parking. At the same time, reduce public transport fares at peak times and provide more of it. Surely that would have some impact.
The thing is, Fifi, I can't see any of the numbers quoted in the #10 e-petition. Did you get it after giggling the man? (btw, I love that as a term, giggling someone!)
Removing half the lightbulbs to save money in a hospital.
That makes as much sense as my former employers, a leading UK media company, paying millions over the odds for an American magazine publishing group, and then banning office managers from buying highlighter pens to save money. We had to work with refills instead.
THAT was really going to plug the huge deficit wasn't it?
I'd like someone to calculate how many lightbulbs it takes to pay for an operation.
Fifi
Oh fantastic, did you hear the story on the news about the police dog blood donors? I wonder what they get for their pint of dog blood - I got a little badge for my person blood. And a glass of orange.
What is all this about having a Pole on the PM blog?
It will become the same as the plumbing trade. Allow in one Pole and hundreds will follow!
Fifi (55) Did you notice my post (37)? It was extremely late in appearing on the blog and a number of other post-posts had appeared before it turned up. The poll I was trying to suggest was a vote for a change of name for the Furrowed Brow, after comments from Mrs. T a few weeks ago. The reason that I was suggesting that you should post it was that I believed you had collected details of earlier votes, when the voting was only being done on the blog, and that you could use these to select which options should be used in the final vote. I am terribly sorry for the confusion, and subsequent problems for you, that this has caused.
H.
Fifi (58),
I worked for the civil service some years back. Our department overspent by a couple of million due to excessive use of helicopters by the investigations division. I was instructed to make savings in my office. I asked how. I was advised to:
a) switch off all but one of the building's photocopiers (no mention of preventing anyone from using the one that was still switched on though);
b) stop buying paper (a tad diffult when we all ran out); and
c) make the post van driver do one of his deliveries on foot (he had to drive past that office on the way to the next delivery anyway).
I resigned not long afterwards. One can only work for idiots for so long without becoming demoralised by their ways.
Oops, Humph (61) : I'll set down this stick and pick it up by the correct end, shall I?
This is a frogger's frock-up* worthy of Eddie's first thread of the day!
Yes you're quite right, I did collect some suggestions of alternative names, and am sure to have filed them safely somewhere.
However, Eddie seems to have adopted his own suggestion quite firmly. What do others think?
Mrs Trellis isn't frequenting the frog much these days but not I think particularly because of the FB being called the FB.
If a froggers' quorum agrees with Humph that it's time to re-name this thread, then I'll track down the suggestions and start negotiations...
;o) Fifi
* Fifi Rhyming Slang
Aperitif (62) : that tale has the depressing ring of truth about it!
As well as making us endlessly refill the same highlighters, our Marketing budgets were slashed to the bone, our circulation targets trebled, and we were expected to offer free gifts that we'd blagged for free from suppliers who advertised in the magazines.
That was after they'd made the layer of staff below me redundant, robbing me of my assistant. And then gave me two portfolios of mags to look after, whereas everyone else had but one.
It's not just the Civil Service that breeds idiots!
Grrrr........
Fifi
We're well out of it, eh Fifi?
You never spoke a truer word, Appy. I wouldn't survive a day in the Rat Race now. Too used to sorting out my own problems and making my own decisions.
Also unable to get embroiled in office politics. Who could miss all that?
Fifi
Who is that bloke who just spoke so articulately on the gun crimes committed in Peckham recently, anyone know?
I believe that the climate is changing, but am really unsure about the cause, mainly because I think the sun is more powerful than any feeble attempts of humans to produce carbon what nots. I am also entirely suspicious of the current political response, whether it be nother opportunity to tax us, or a bid for votes. The evidence is not good enough for me, and finally (Ed.) Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged.
HelenSparkles (68) The arguments are complex it is true, but one of the continuing problems has been the way in which the media have tried to throw doubts on the science while the scientists have been increasingly all but unanimous about the impact of human activities since the industrial revolution.
If you want a good summary you could do worse than watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" which, although from a US perspective, summarises most of the arguments very well - including looking at the counter arguments. It's also available as a book. Incidentally Al Gore is no recent convert to the issue, having first become aware of it as a student.
One statistic he cites is that of 928 peer reviewed scientific articles on climate change appearing in the last 10 years (to 2006) not one doubts the cause of global warming is man made; while of 636 articles appearing in the popular press in the last 4 years 53% doubted the causes. I think this tells you a lot about the scientific education (or lack of it) of journalists, and the vested interests (which he also discusses) who have until now believed it was against their economic interests to do anything.
However, I would argue that whatever the causes, there is incontrovertable evidence for climate change, and if that is the case would you not rather be in a position of being able to do something about it?
Though I did not see Nigel Calder arguing his case on TV, my husband did, and I understand that the mechanism he suggests, while possible, has not been proved and is currently discounted as being a large contributor.
I guess it is difficult to make a connection between our switching on a light or driving a car to planet-wide effects. However, systems can become unstable and then it takes only a small further change to make a big difference. Think of a child on a see saw - you can push up to the point where you and your partner are balanced. It takes a lot of energy to get to the balance point but once there only a tiny amount to tip the see-saw one way or the other.
Looking at Hugh's pictures and hearing his reports from China, a lot of what is required to reduce climate change is in any case essential to make human life palatable - reducing pollution, toxic waste and destruction of habitats etc.
I think we have a short window of opportunity in which we can bring about a big change - anyone old enough to remember the Clean Air acts of the 1950's or more recently the banning of CFCs has seen that when we act together we can have really significant effects quite quickly.
Other arguments are available...
other planets are not.
HelenSparkles (68)
i read the link - i dont know. But i do remember words of wisdom from my grandfather who said to leave things as I find them:
and if we are to leave the climate see-saw balanced, then i for one will stop putting so many CO2 peebles on one end of it - an unbalanced see-saw is just not a fair gift to my grandchildren.
We're going to be taxed every which way.
I'm certainly not going to suggest that we should add to any damage we do, but this isn't the media dissing the science, it is a scientist and I happen to agree with him. Maybe it is because my dad is a scientist, and I have always known that whilst not entirely proven, the actions of the sun are being worked on because they are so much more powerful than anything we do. Research can take years, it won't be a soundbite, but I also think the media scare us about far too many things far too often.
HelenSparkles(71). Not sure if I entirely understand what you are saying.
Have I got this right? - You disagree with the IPCC report that human actions over the last 200 years have increased CO2 in the atmosphere and are in danger of increasing it to levels where catastrophic climate change takes place? This is something we could do something about.
Rather, you agree that climate change is taking place, but think it is caused by the action of the sun and therefore we can do nothing about it.
Is your doubt caused more by your understanding of the science or your cynicism about the motives of politicians who you suggest may just be interested in finding another reason to increase taxes?
I am very interested in why you think what you do, as I see letters in our local newspaper on a regular basis, both denying human effects on the planet and suspicious of politicians' motives.
Since I do believe we are responsible for what I see as very real, negative human effects on the planet, I need to understand what I have to do to persuade others that this is so.
Incidentally I think I am right in saying that Nigel Calder is a well-respected science writer not a research scientist. As such someone who is good at putting a theory across, but not someone submitting theories to scientific peer review.
You are absolutely right Ann that Nigel Calder is a writer not a research scientist, my error. He is writing about the science though, and not all valid research has yet been published, if you are concerned about peer review. It can take decades to prove a scientific theory, so I鈥檓 really not that worried about the gaps in the research which exist at the moment; I am though aware of current research.
I shall be absolutely clear (I hope) I think we should be careful about the way we treat the planet, but I do believe that climate change is a natural occurrence, and that the sun has more impact than CO2 ever can. You want to know why? It is simply that I believe one scientific argument and you believe another.
Everything I believe is based on science, even if there are gaps in the proof thus far, and this is what I believe. I don鈥檛 have time to give you all the references and I don鈥檛 suppose they would make you alter what you think any more than Ed.鈥檚 references/essays don鈥檛 change mine.
The political objections may have muddied the water, because they are simply additional points. I don鈥檛 think it is justifiable to dictate to the developing world how they develop, and I also don't suppose the government are going to give us our money back should they be proven wrong to tax us against the impact of CO2.
In terms of the media, my experience seems to be entirely opposite to yours, and the only bias I have seen is the bias towards the effects of C02 and I find the reporting reflects the power without responsibility that the media exercises when reporting anything from food scares to 鈥榮tranger danger鈥, both of which are commonly exaggerated.
It is the nature of this blog that good natured discussion takes place, and I don鈥檛 feel at all insulted, but I have noticed the onslaught every time I have raised this subject. I鈥檓 not intransigent, and I know I might find I am wrong, in which case you can be sure I shall come back to let you know. Until then I won鈥檛 raise my point of views on this subject here again, because this is what I think, but it doesn鈥檛 appear permissible.
Chrissie, I am totally baffled about driving in London, I didn't see the point of it and only learnt to drive when I loved somewhere I had to if I wanted to get anywhere. Conversely now though, I do find I drive to London, mainly due to the time I need to be somewhere & an inability to afford the train fare that would get me there for that time. I would much rather be reading a book on a train though.
I loathe the idea of charging by mile, because it wouldn't stop the weathier driver at all, but could prove really punative for the rural poor. Improve public transport and subsidise it to the hills, for which I would I would gladly pay more taxes, and I wouldn't then have the same objections.
In a city centre there is no reason to drive, here I drive 9 miles to reach any kind of shop. I am comfortably off, but others must struggle to own a car and maintain their basic needs, as well as getting to work, without the need of charging them more for the priviledge. It is called social justice, something I thought Labour were all about?
HelenSparkles
Please :-) dont stop posting, you're certainly not alone with your views- see jonnie for example on the other threads.
I mean, of course, its up to you, but i value your views, especially as they are eloquently put.
"Predictions are always hard to make, especially about the future" as i heard once on moneybox
and of course who can forget Frank Bruno's triumph over the english language with "i'm not going to make any predictions, Harry, but its going to end in a draw"
come on over to the beach and have a prawn cocktail surprise.
Sorry Helen tried to post this at lunchtime and got malicious posting warning, but didn't realise as I had to go out.....this is what I said...
HelenSparkles (73)- please don't go, or give up on the climate change debate.
I think it is really important that your point of view is heard and that we all try to understand what the issues are.
Fundamentally I don't think it is a question of 'belief' in one theory or another, but of testability. Can we demonstrate the truth of one theory or another.
We both want to treat the planet and our fellows with care, and in doing that and mitigating the effects of climate change (whatever its causes) I think we will all face radical changes in the way we live in the coming years.
But please don't ever feel it is not permissible to express a personal view on the blog, just because some of us may disagree. Isn't that why we are all here?
Thank you all, I wasn't about to stop posting altogether, us on climate change & in fairness Ann, it isn't you who has made me feel harangued in the past! You are right to point out that it isn't all about beliefs, so I suppose I am saying that I have read enough evidence to live with the gaps in a theory thus far, one whihc may not yet be testable.
HelenSparkles I have told you before that an ampersand does not mean the same thing as 'and'. Please stop confusing the two.
Fusspot (78) : Yes it does in MY book and I'm an editor! Enough, or we'll ask the committee to consider inaugurating a new corner in the FB called Trolls' Retreat!
HelenSparkles (77) : You keep right on dissenting & questioning & ampersanding. I tend not to engage with the science side of the debate (for similar reasons to yours, but from another point of view) but I'm finding the debate enormously educational.
The Furrowed Brow is exactly the place for this sort of conversation. I'm sure we can hack it without losing tempers.
Fi ;o)
Fifi, I understood you to be a musician? I too am an editor and I assure you that you are not correct, although no tempers were being lost. I do find that the incorrect use of this symbol (which should be used to imply a close and binding relationship between the two objects) grates as I read this lady's otherwise stimulating posts.