h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

'Ok chaps, I'm the new Green, caring face of Toryism. So I'm going to fly (you know the most polutting form of travel known to man), and use several cars and a helicopter simply to get a photo-op of me with some dogs.'

Does he think the population of this country are stupid? Or is just desperate now that UGOV polls show that the honeymoon is well and truly over and hisparty is already slipping away in the polls?

Bring back the baseball-capped Mekon. At least he knew he was ridiculous.

put lke that it does seem faintly ridiculous doesn't it? I think it's th curse of opposition really. What do you do to say to the public at large that this is what we think when you are not The Government? Ordinarily that would be to discuss policies and rebut the government proposals. However Cameron has denied himself that option by pushing back the policy formations with his consultations and reviews (on the won hand a sensible approach of putting out the message of reform and on the other it hobbles him for at least another year.)

Until the policy reviews come back with something concrete to be debated and disagreed about, the most an opposition politician can offer is varying forms of gesture. To that extent we've had the bike-riding and now glacier tourism and dogs even if the latest venture is hypocritical and flawwed I believe there'll be more of the same to come (though the PR gurus might pick less readily critisisable visits in future)

I think it's the curse of an opposition that has no credible policies except pointing at the PM and saying 'he's a bit rubbish' whilst all the time knowing that he is going to be replaced by before the next election, thus rendering their entire 'policy' redundant.

If David Cameron going to look at a Glacier is likly to raise awareness of the problem then even though it used a lot of fuel it would be in the long term worth it. I don't think this is likly to happen but the criticism of him seemed to be a bit too harsh.

hmmm. in many ways British politics is in an odd kind of hiatus until Blair leaves. His new passion to see through reforms of pensions and the Lords make that as distant and unclear as ever. Brown's agenda is similarly stalled and the opposition parties know the goalposts will be moved eventually when Brown (or indeed someone else)acedes to the throne but the timing seems to be causing diffculties all round.

The search for credible opposition policies continues for the Tories. I bet pound to a penny if they announed policies tomorrow they'd be torn to shreds and would never see the light of elected office. I'd Reserve judgement until they announce what their policies are following the heavily trailed reviews. If they are still rubbish well then let the (s)laughter begin.

So was it dogs or a glacier or both? Which glacier?

If the glacier...
It's an interesting conundrum. You'd support research teams being flown/helicoptered/etc. to the glacier Blues Shark? Then by extension, you might also support sigsfried's argument. If public awareness is raised, then it's easier to fund research related to it...

No it's not an interesting conumdrum. Research teams do something useful. They research.

DC is a politician (cf parasite). He does nothing.

Doesn't he affect allocation of resources to hire,pay,buy equipment for researchers?

Last timer I looked he could do that from his office in Westminster wiythout the need for photo-ops.

I'm to say that, from my point of view, there is no acceptable choice of who to vote for. I would never vote for the Tories: they seek to nurture the rich at the expense of the poor. Labour have moved so far right to get into power they look just like Tories, and Bliar took our soldiers into battle against Islam, putting us all in the wrong, and at serious risk. The Lib-Dems were just starting to look credible when they assassinated their own President (in waiting) Kennedy. And the rest are just a bunch of extremists unworthy of serious consideration.

So I end up with the conclusion that Cameron's green credentials are really no worse than anyone else's: p*ss poor.

I will start to listen to anyone whose 'green credentials' involve no longer pretending that ecologically sustainable policies can still involve GROWTH!!! Growth - uncontrolled exponential growth - is what's caused the problems we have. Our species constitutes a plague on the world, and needs to be culled, but there's no-one able to make this happen ... except us. If you want *my* vote, start being honest and stop pretending we can carry on with this madness.

End of rant.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

<> P-C

Totally agree, in the long run anyway. The long run, however, consists of lots of short runs. Who's going to vote for becoming poorer, job insecurity, worthless pensions and no more foreign holidays/visiting relatives and so on?

Politicians are a fickle bunch, by necessity. In the short run *nobody* will get elected with policies aiming to make everyone worse off. There are people with policies which are sustainable in the long run, and they are the extremists 'unworthy of serious consideration', if not by you then by an overwhelming majority of the population.

If it's any consolation, I'd imagine the days of constant growth are coming to an end, probably (guessing wildly, kinda) by the end of this century. Then the 'cull' will probably start, and it won't be pretty.

I don't know Blues. You think talk from behind a desk in the office raises public awareness the same way a photo-op at a glacier does? As muc has I *wish* it wasn't like that, I think its more realistic to expect that most people won't notice an announcement, whereas they a gimmick (e.g. a politico at a glacier) they will.

Hi Pedro!



Excellent!

<...they are the extremists 'unworthy of serious consideration', if not by you then by an overwhelming majority of the population.>

Er, you just lost me. Probaly just me being deliberately obtuse. So who are these people with "policies which are sustainable in the long run"?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Is it the 'Deep' Greens, or something? I don't exactly, cos they are so far from the mainstream you don't hear about them much. Most people would just think they're crazy weirdo hippies.

<>

And perhaps they are.

I think there is something of a disconnect between the challenges we face and the prescriptions of the "deep greens". And not just because not all challenges are environmental.

As for Cameron. Half Tory half tree-hugger:

http://davenicebutknave.blogspot.com/2006/04/half-tory-half-tree-hugger.html

It is a strange thing. Man's responsibility for accelerating global warming and the danger thereof seems to be pretty well founded on scientific evidence, so why is it that environmental activists so often come across as preachy and ignorant?

<>

P-C's point was that growth as a mainstay of economic and social policy *must* stop sometime. This is obvious when you think about it, but what isn't obvious is when this will have to happen. When it does, economic growth will stop, and our entire sociey will have to change because capitalism is built around economic growth.

Maybe the deep greens are just ahead of their time.

<>

But must it stop?

GDP is a crude aggregate - different effects can cause it to grow:

-making and buying more things
-making and buying better (more expensive) things
-providing more services
-providing better services
-accounting for previously unaccounted economic activity (in various ways)
-increases in the perceived value of goods and services that are no better
-etc

There are obvious natural limits to only some of these activities. Obviously there is limited land, limited fossil fuels. There is probably also limited demand for 'things', and we will be spending almost everything on services one day. But I can't see how we will ever stop learning to do things better.

I don't mean to sound like a contrarian. There are definite environmental problems to face up to. But I think it is a mistake to identify economic growth with environmental harm, because it is a big aggregate of lots of different things.

Rather than any hard limits on the economy, there is a range of subtle dependencies on various commodities and other things. We may indeed experience downturns in future due to a shortage of, say, oil, but I wouldn't like to bet either way.

There is a very good case for anticipating oil shortages, developing alternatives, conserving supplies, etc, to minimise the risk of a future shock. But radical cutbacks would just be making the shock happen now, not diminishing its effect but increasing it.

That is of course ignoring global warming. GW is another reason to pour money into developing renewables and maybe even nuclear. But the "deep green" argument - that we should be learning to do without much energy, risks consequences that might be as bad as global warming. It is not just pensioners homes in winter, there are 100s of ways energy has contributed to our high life expectancy; China and India are rapidly catching up because they see the benefits.

Of course Tony Blair's 'green' credentials are so good.

What is it they're calling the RAF nowadays ? - Blair Air I believe.

And what are Labour's policies ? Oh yes - give us a picture of David Cameron as a chameleon.

Sorry, who here has said that they were any good or that Blair was at all ecologically aware?