• *** Guest, YF World Cup prediction league launched, Click here *****
  • Further New Features Are Available - Click To Update

National Politics 🔴 The Labour Party

Basham Wonderland said:
I suppose it's one thing taking a guess at when we were last self sufficient (because you could make a case that the second we started to import sugar and spices we were no longer "self sufficient"), but the more important and interesting thing is to work out when we last had the capacity for self sufficiency - i.e. the ability to provide enough bread, protein and vegetables to support life on the island.
Click to expand...
True. When was that?
 
chuckbert said:
True. When was that?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I have no idea, but it would be important and interesting to work that out in the context of the point HY was making.

I did see there's some information on Statista about that very point, but I'm not able to draw a conclusion from the data (mostly because I don't have time to read it), so won't link it here.
 
Basham Wonderland said:
Unfortunately I have no idea, but it would be important and interesting to work that out in the context of the point HY was making.

I did see there's some information on Statista about that very point, but I'm not able to draw a conclusion from the data (mostly because I don't have time to read it), so won't link it here.
Click to expand...
lol. Is this “enshitification of discourse” debating strategy?
 
Basham Wonderland said:
I'm amazed that you could read my reply and think I'm point-scoring - I was actually just trying to have a pretty amicable chat. I suppose the heat is taking its toll, have a good weekend!
Click to expand...
Not really. Because the date the UK was last self-sufficient is an irrelevance in the debate we should be having, but you jumped on it because you thought my apparent lack of diligence in picking a source was some sort of "gotcha", when in fact I didn't look very hard because the exact answer isn't important. All that matters is the observation that self-sufficiency in food hasn't been considered an issue for decades if not centuries - which I think we've established without too much doubt.

Similarly, the existence and size of individual solar farms is irrelevant - just single data points - but both you and Essex quote them as if they're killer arguments.

The question at issue is not "do solar farms occupy land that could otherwise be used for agriculture?" - to which the answer is obviously "yes". That's a first-order question and easy to answer.

The second-order question is "do solar farms have a significant effect on UK food security?" To which I would answer "probably not", since the land area occupied is way less than 1%.

The third-order question is "is food security a bigger or smaller concern to the UK than climate change?".

You could go on a tangent here and observe that "well if it is, there are plenty of other ways that we could boost agricultural production" or "in the long-term, climate change will have a bigger impact on food production than the loss to solar anyway".

But none of the objectors to solar power ever work through their argument like this. They just nitpick about details or cite case-by-case examples that are easy to grasp but only address the first-order question. This is typical of the unscientific approach taken by climate sceptics and renewables obstructors. The utility and social cost of solar power in the UK is a complicated equation, with lots of terms (only one of which is the proportion of land used). Pointing to one particular solar farm and saying "look, it's [subjectively] enormous" is focusing in on one data point that doesn't even supply one of the terms of the equation.

[I will say, this debate has been useful in refining my own thinking about the way this debate is typically addressed versus what we really should be debating. So thanks for that at least.]
 
Last edited:
  • React
Reactions: QR
HayfieldYellow said:
Not really. Because the date the UK was last self-sufficient is an irrelevance in the debate we should be having, but you jumped on it because you thought my apparent lack of diligence in picking a source was some sort of "gotcha", when in fact I didn't look very hard because the exact answer isn't important. All that matters is the observation that self-sufficiency in food hasn't been considered an issue for decades if not centuries - which is not at issue, I hope you agree.

Similarly, the existence and size of individual solar farms is irrelevant - just single data points - but both you and Essex quote them as if they're killer arguments.

The question at issue is not "do solar farms occupy land that could otherwise be used for agriculture?" - to which the answer is obviously "yes". That's a first-order question and easy to answer.

The second-order question is "do solar famrs have a significant effect on UK food production?" To which I would answer "probably not", since the lamd area occupied is way less than 1%.

The third-order question is "is the loss of (less than) 1% of food capacity a bigger or smaller concern to the UK than climate change?".

You could go on a tangent here and observe that "well if it is, there are more important factors that could boost agricultural production" or "in the long-term, climate change will have a bigger impact on food production than the loss to solar anyway".

But none of the objectors to solar power ever work through their argument lik this. You just cite case-by-case examples that are easy to grasp but only address the first-order question. This is typical of the unscientific approach taken by climate sceptics and renewables obstructors. The validity of solar power in the UK is a complicated equation, with lots of terms (one of which is the proportion of land used). Pointing to one particular solar farm and saying "look, it's [subjectively] enormous" is focusing in on one data point that doesn't even supply one of the terms of the equation.
Click to expand...
You made a very interesting claim that we were last self sufficient in the late 1700s. That's interesting! I clicked the link because I wanted to know more, unfortunately the source wasn't great so I wanted to know if you had any additional knowledge to back it up. It wasn't a "gotcha".

Also what's with all this "killer argument" stuff?? I was just highlighting anecdotal knowledge of the nearest solar farm to me, which is to be partly built on organic pasture. I wasn't saying "and that's why we need to stop solar farms!" If you read my post, you'll see I'm actually in support of solar farms if the necessary protections are in place.

As it happens, I agree with the suggestions in your second and third order questions.

I simply cannot respond to your final paragraph - as someone with a heat pump, which will hopefully soon be powered by solar and backed up with a battery (when I can save up some pennies), I am not an objector to solar power.

The point which I again make is that solar farm land should be protected against any future building, and should not be allowed to have its land use changed by virtue of there being solar panels on it. It would be good to see measures in place to prevent sneaky housebuilers growing on valuable farming land in future, when the solar farms are rendered obsolete.
 
Basham Wonderland said:
The point which I again make is that solar farm land should be protected against any future building, and should not be allowed to have its land use changed by virtue of there being solar panels on it. It would be good to see measures in place to prevent sneaky housebuilers growing on valuable farming land in future, when the solar farms are rendered obsolete.
Click to expand...
Some fair points - and on this last one I totally agree with you. It's easy to get a bit indignant and high-horsey about stuff like this, and I probably did - apologies. I'll blame the heat.
 
HayfieldYellow said:
Some fair points - and on this last one I totally agree with you. It's easy to get a bit indignant and high-horsey about stuff like this, and I probably did - apologies. I'll blame the heat.
Click to expand...
That said, I don't think there's much if any evidence for the "slippery slope" argument that once land has solar panels on it it's easier to get planning permission for development in future. If that's the case, I'll join you on the barricades.
 
QR said:
An aside some might find mildly interesting.... I've always had a fascination with maps and love trawling through the web site below trying to pin point the various photos to Google maps. (I know, I know. Have pity not disdain).

Anyway I was amazed by the number of allotments in aerial shots from the 1940s and 1950s clearly driven by necessity and rationing. For example, and one for the Oxford School alumni, the top and middle plateau are covered with them. Unless it's something else that looks like allotments!

And apologies in advance if I send any of you down this particular rabbit hole!


Click to expand...

I can remember the allotments at the back of Headington Hill that ran down to the old government buildings. A lot of ex-WW2 Polish airmen had plots down there as did my dad.
 
  • React
Reactions: QR
I think Labour are being very hypocritical with their policy of immigration being put in former military camps considering their attitude over the migrants being held at RAF Manston during the Tory government?
 
bazzer9461 said:
I think Labour are being very hypocritical with their policy of immigration being put in former military camps considering their attitude over the migrants being held at RAF Manston during the Tory government?
Click to expand...
Labour being hypocritical is hardly a new thing, especially since Tony Blair ripped up Clause 4
 
Well, Andeh (TM) has set out his vision. Unfortunately, the vision at this stage is for greater devolution of power to regional mayors 😴

No comment yet on an economic vision, dealing with migration, climate change, living costs, energy strategy, defence or foreign policy.

Also getting an odd feeling that devolution in this context is just a way to remove central government from accountability when things go wrong. It's giving 'police crime commissioner'.
 
Basham Wonderland said:
Well, Andeh (TM) has set out his vision. Unfortunately, the vision at this stage is for greater devolution of power to regional mayors 😴

Also getting an odd feeling that devolution in this context is just a way to remove central government from accountability when things go wrong. It's giving 'police crime commissioner'.
Click to expand...

Except, he has immediate experience of what can be done with regional devolution.
 
Basham Wonderland said:
That's great, but it's not really what the country needs right now. Hopefully his team is busy drafting up some policies for the things people really care about, like for example how we can reduce or even stabilise the cost of living.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is what the country needs.

Central Govt hasn't exactly been doing an outstanding job for a while now, so more regionalised decision making may actually boost the economy and make local areas better places to live. Also, the regional policies may reduce cost of living (such as transport costs).

You know people don't care about this or do you mean you don't care (just for clarity, fair enough).

And it really isn't an either/or situation anyway.
 
Basham Wonderland said:
Well, Andeh (TM) has set out his vision. Unfortunately, the vision at this stage is for greater devolution of power to regional mayors 😴

No comment yet on an economic vision, dealing with migration, climate change, living costs, energy strategy, defence or foreign policy.

Also getting an odd feeling that devolution in this context is just a way to remove central government from accountability when things go wrong. It's giving 'police crime commissioner'.
Click to expand...
Surprised this isn't viewed as a positive. More power in the hands of the people, more levels of accountability etc. it sounds like a positive for democracy which is more important than any individual issue in your list
 
Basham Wonderland said:
That's great, but it's not really what the country needs right now. Hopefully his team is busy drafting up some policies for the things people really care about, like for example how we can reduce or even stabilise the cost of living.
Click to expand...
Bet you'd support it if it were called 'levelling up' and was the brainCHILD of a blonde, out of touch, Tory, Old Etonian. 😉
 
Mojofilter said:
Surprised this isn't viewed as a positive. More power in the hands of the people, more levels of accountability etc. it sounds like a positive for democracy which is more important than any individual issue in your list
Click to expand...
Is it more power in the hands of the people though? Or is it a way to escape accountability? Devolution in its own right isn't automatically a positive concept.

And as for the YouGov findings, it would seem the general public simply don't consider devolution to be an important issue at this time. I think it's going to be hard to convince people that it is important.
 
Basham Wonderland said:
Is it more power in the hands of the people though? Or is it a way to escape accountability? Devolution in its own right isn't automatically a positive concept.

And as for the YouGov findings, it would seem the general public simply don't consider devolution to be an important issue at this time. I think it's going to be hard to convince people that it is important.
Click to expand...
In what way would increased devolved powers not mean they were more empowered overall?

Yes it may not be a priority, just as defending of freedoms tends not to be but they are far more important than anything else combined. It's a shame people don't value democracy enough, but I don't much care that it isn't a priority for the general public - it's still a good step.
 
Basham Wonderland said:
Is it more power in the hands of the people though? Or is it a way to escape accountability? Devolution in its own right isn't automatically a positive concept.

And as for the YouGov findings, it would seem the general public simply don't consider devolution to be an important issue at this time. I think it's going to be hard to convince people that it is important.
Click to expand...
I guess whether you think it's an abdication of responsibility would very much depend on who came up with the idea, as QR has alluded to. If the "spin" suits your worldview then you are more likely to see it favourably.

As for what the public think. Most of what they think are important is drawn from a list of choices given by the pollsters. As such I am not sure de-centralisation of power would actually register - why would it? I am not sure anyone would really stop and think about it in any great detail. More to the point, people tend to think important stuff is what they perceive as the issues that need adressing to make their lives better. I am not sure they are all that concerned about the mechanisms for delivering them . . .because that is quite literally the job of government.

The important question is whether it will work and make a difference. Given that you will automatically take against anything the King of the North ™️ does or says, I'm sure he'll put you down as sceptical.
 
Mojofilter said:
In what way would increased devolved powers not mean they were more empowered overall?

Yes it may not be a priority, just as defending of freedoms tends not to be but they are far more important than anything else combined. It's a shame people don't value democracy enough, but I don't much care that it isn't a priority for the general public - it's still a good step.
Click to expand...
In the same way that simply regionalising power doesn't guarantee an improved democracy or power in people's hands. Giving more powers to regional mayors, or tripling the number of MPs, or giving Holyrood £10bn (minus £400k for matey boy to buy his motorhome) doesn't mean the people in that region have any more power or representation. It just means the accountability for the funding sits with their regional leadership.

I'm surprised that if devolution is such a clear and obvious win for democracy and "people power", why has nobody mentioned it?
 
Sheik Djibouti said:
As for what the public think. Most of what they think are important is drawn from a list of choices given by the pollsters. As such I am not sure de-centralisation of power would actually register - why would it?
Click to expand...
They weren't drawn from a list of choices given by the pollsters - the link explains: "Respondents answered in their own words".
 
How will he devolve responsibility to councils that are currently being re-shaped/re-sized and barely know what will be happening in 18 months let alone put in long term economic growth strategies.......................... 🤷‍♂️
 
www.bbc.co.uk

New No 10 North plan will rebalance power in Britain, Burnham promises

The man most likely to be the next prime minister says his devolution plans would "drive good growth in every postcode".
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

A fair bit more than just devolution which has been the focus on here. Obviously only overarching plans with no detail but the Council House building plan and a greater focus on pushing technical education both look positive on the face of it.
 
To be fair.............

"It is time for Whitehall to accept that growth cannot be ordered from the top down - it can only be nurtured from the bottom up."

He did not spell out what would be given to different areas but suggested regions would see "greater public control of essential services" such as water, energy and transport and that London could have more say over education and housing.

IF it works it MIGHT be great............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Threads

Essexyellows
National Politics Your Party
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
Londox
Londox
Coffin Dodger
  • Sticky
National Politics 🟢 The Green Party
22 23 24
Replies
699
Views
40K
Boris
B
Marked Ox
  • Sticky
National Politics 🟡 The Scottish National Party (SNP) 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿
2
Replies
57
Views
7K
Orkney Islands Yellow
Orkney Islands Yellow
QR
  • Sticky
National Politics 🔵 The Conservative Party
151 152 153
Replies
5K
Views
419K
boogaloo
boogaloo
Back
Top Bottom