| General Election Thread 17:46 - May 22 with 93675 views | loftboy |
This will be the first election that I have no idea who to vote for, will never vote Tory again after the lies during covid where my dad lost his life, don’t trust starmer, would never vote for a bunch of racists like reform , anyone give me a clue?
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| General Election Thread on 12:43 - Jun 15 with 1082 views | Northernr |
| General Election Thread on 12:35 - Jun 15 by FDC |
Sometimes I wonder how the country got into such a mess. Then i see people are describing a piddling increase in taxation in order to fix public services as Marxism. |
As I said higher up I think watching them all pretend they're going to improve crumbling public services while also reducing taxes is just economics for a fcking bottom set year 7 maths class. It's not a serious debate. |  | | |
| General Election Thread on 12:43 - Jun 15 with 1075 views | Paddyhoops |
| General Election Thread on 07:42 - Jun 15 by StreathamRanger |
My mum's care home in Wimbledon is staffed almost entirely by immigrants. It treats it's staff well and pays above market rate but still mainly staffed by young men and women from Indian subcontinent. They are hard working, kind and patient and work with some very challenging behaviour from the residents with dementia (including my mum). I'm very grateful that they decided to come and work in the UK despite the frosty reception they receive from many people. If we only allowed skilled labour in then the care system would be totally screwed. No way the 'native' British could or would even want to fill all the vacancies in care homes. |
Very similar situation in my case with my mother in law who herself came here in the 50s. She was
A lovely German lady with a wicked sense of humour.
She was looked after in various care homes by people who had come from abroad.
In most cases brilliantly.
Great post by the way. |  | | |
| General Election Thread on 12:52 - Jun 15 with 1030 views | hubble |
| General Election Thread on 11:39 - Jun 15 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Assuming all this is true (it isn't) can you blame people for turning to radical causes? [Post edited 15 Jun 11:41]
|
What do you mean "Assuming all this is true (it isn't)..."
It is!
I've already linked to what happened when the Green party ejected women who they deem "Gender critical" and to be honest, that's the tip of the iceberg in regard to that issue within the Green party as well as much of the Labour party. Although I am not surprised to find that so many men are oblivious to this. Women's rights are so under threat that women have even formed their own political party to defend their rights.
As for the Green muslim councillor who along with his comrades chanted Allahu Akbar" upon his recent election, that is also a fact. I have tried to find a video source that you will find acceptable, but (perhaps unsurprisingly) the favoured BBC/Guardian channels don't seem to carry it, so here it is from the much-despised Daily Mail. Nevertheless, it happened:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-3182303/Video-Green-Party-councillo [Post edited 15 Jun 13:27]
|  |
| |
| General Election Thread on 12:55 - Jun 15 with 1032 views | dmm |
| General Election Thread on 12:10 - Jun 15 by essextaxiboy |
Under PR UKIP would have got around 60 seats in 2015 . Their vote share was bigger than the SNP and Lib Dems combined who ended up with 64 combined seats .
Its not only smaller left wing parties that would benefit from a change . I dont want Farage anywhere near Parliament. [Post edited 15 Jun 12:11]
|
I understand your point and, as you'd expect, I wouldn't want Farage or his ilk anywhere near Parliament either.
But, the possibility of having someone like Farage in Parliament is the trade off when having a proper democratic representation under PR. The challenge would be to win the argument against people like him whether that be inside or outside the HoC. I would be prepared to accept this and polls show today the majority of the public wants PR too. |  | | |
| General Election Thread on 12:59 - Jun 15 with 1022 views | dmm |
| General Election Thread on 12:16 - Jun 15 by essextaxiboy |
I may have mis heard but I thought he said the maximum levy would apply over 10 flight per year .
I am not wealthy but I have a son living and working in Zurich who still holds his ST and flies back for a few games a year and we go out for the Christmas markets . I have a seriously ill relative in Madrid who we visit every 2 or 3 months .One sunshine holiday in September .
That s few quid for just an ordinary family |
I have a son and his family in Graz, Austria and a son and his family in New Jersey, US. So I know the personal problems. But, as said, is the choice between flying whenever you want and having a liveable planet such a difficult one to make? | | | |
| General Election Thread on 13:07 - Jun 15 with 992 views | dmm |
| General Election Thread on 12:35 - Jun 15 by Northernr |
Me too. I think it's ridiculous the amount of flights there are between destinations in a small country like ours. It's scandalous that Premier league football clubs fly everywhere - Leicester fly for Norwich away for goodness sake.
But this comes back to something I said earlier. Things are complicated and nuanced, but people want to pretend there are easy answers. We don't want Johnny Foreigner - fine. But we also can't answer how we'd staff care homes, hospitals, hospitality, farms etc.
It's easy to say we'd ban domestic flights, heavily levy frequent flyers etc. But what does the alternative look like? The trains from London to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen etc are slow, over crowded, unaffordable and unreliable. The planes are frequent, cheap, quick, and have capacity. If it's £30 on EasyJet or £130 on LNER, what you gonna do?
In France you can turn around and say we're banning domestic flights quite easily because they've invested and built a viable, affordable, fast alternative. Their rail system is absolutely unbelievable, and you can just glide around the whole country at super high speed, luxurious comfort, in a train with a fcking panoramic bar carriage in it. Frequent, cheap, fast, smooth. A beautiful experience. Here you cram yourself into an overcrowded, 30 year old, diesel Avanti Voyager service running under electric cables - when it runs at all - and it costs you £200+ to get to Preston.
You build the alternative infrastructure, then you hammer people who choose not to use it. As I understand it the Greens also oppose HS2.
So no internal flights, fine I'm with you, you've got my vote. But also we don't want HS2? That's not a serious policy from serious people.
I actually don't think I've heard anybody mention trains once in this election campaign really. And it's such an easy fcking win because they're so extortionate and so crap atm that you can't help but improve them whatever you do, apart from doing nothing of course.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
You are right, of course, Clive. These issues are complex and debating them on social media is almost pointless. But the climate crisis is such an important issue I will always give it a go.
Trains are the way to go but you're right about the shocking state of the train network in the UK. You'll know first hand with all the travel you do. That said, this past week I traveled to and from Glasgow by train and it was fine.
The answer clearly is to start building a new nationalised train network tomorrow. It would take many years but, as I keep saying, is the choice of flying whenever you want and having a liveable planet a difficult one to take? | | | |
| General Election Thread on 13:17 - Jun 15 with 966 views | FDC |
Regarding the Green Party and HS2:
I spent a brieft period as a member in 2008 or so, and there is a wide spectrum of members, from ecosocilaists to NIMBY-preservationist types. The Green Party has a uniquely decentralised model, which is admirable in manner ways, but does mean messaging can be muddled. As I understand it the opposition to HS2 is specific to a short section that passes through some particularly ancient forest or something, and is a concession to that fragment of the party. Under a different Party structure I suspect the support for HS2 would be less ambiguous, as it is clearly a net benefit and exactly the kind of infrastructure project a progressive country that takes climate change seriously should be doing. |  | | |
| General Election Thread on 13:18 - Jun 15 with 960 views | hubble |
| General Election Thread on 11:45 - Jun 15 by dmm |
What would the Greens force you to do?
I know little of the Green councillor you mention. Is he a 'radical'? I don't know, but doubt it. However, I do know the term "Alluhah Akbar" is one that is used by most Muslims in all sorts of ways such as the birth of a child, completing a fast, or getting a wage rise. There's actually no reason at all to feel chilled by it.
The Greens believe in the right of self-identification for trans and non-binary people. They also believe in standing up against misogyny and violence against women and girls. Like many others, you have a different view to them but as a relatively new issue, the trans debate has yet to be bottomed out and needs a lot more research and discussion.
And Climate Change... Wouldn't it be common sense to listen to and follow the actual science? When 99% of scientists in all climate related fields tell us we're in an existential crisis, wouldn't taking immediate and effective action to prevent a global catastrophe be the only thing to do? Those who are anti-science or believe in Climate pseudo-science or have some kind of conspiratorial theory about this issue are the ones tending toward cultism. |
The fact you "know little of the Green councillor" is very telling. The middle class Greens seem to have their head in the sand around all sorts of elements of what the modern Green party stands for. I have posted a link to the video above. Do you think he's geniunely standing for Green issues? Try to remove your blinkers and have a think about what is going on here.
Regarding the "right of self-identification for trans and non-binary people" - you equally seem oblivious that this is actually threatening the very thing you say the Greens stand for in your very next sentence: "They also believe in standing up against misogyny and violence against women and girls."
The fact that you are apparently unable to see, or are unaware, of how so much of the trans movement is actually misogynistic (it's being driven by men, regardless of how they 'identify') and comes freighted with a huge amount of violence towards women. If you actually followed this, or even talked to women who feel threatened on so many levels by the trans movement, I doubt you'd be so blase about it. But since I assume you do care about women's rights, I suggest you look into this - again - if possible - without prejudice.
There is a very wide demographic of women (from hard-left lesbians to middle-class Daily Mail mums) who are all in agreement about the threat to women's rights, the encroachment of men (self-identifying men) into women and girls spaces, and far worse, including violence, threats and rape. With respect, I suggest you wise up on this issue.
Regarding climate change, I am not surprised you have rolled out the old 99% of scientists agree cliche and your reaction to anything that might divert from what I consider your blinkered cultism to be 'conspiratorial' as opposed to what it actually is, which is sceptical. But here's the interesting thing: I am absolutely for cleaning up the environment, for removing plastics at every level, for the end of toxic waste, for better farming practices and for so many other things you also believe in. But what I am not for is a completely pie in the sky idea that you can do anything significant by reducing the amount of CO2 that we produce. There NO proof this will do anything, because it is not provable. Our planet is not some kind of mechanical thing that you can fix by tweaking the carburettor, it is far, far more complex than that and all that the Net Zero policy really promises to do is to threaten our energy security (more on that below) and cost ordinary people a hell of a lot.
And then there's the issue that, again, you seem oblivious to how this has been entirely co-opted by the 'powers that would be' (who still love to travel to Davos in their private jets where they entertain Greta and the rest), because, well as I said... it's just another means to tax, control us, limit our freedom of movement.... and more... but as I say, you appear to oblivious to this. Because, well... 99% (it's nowhere near that consensus in reality, btw). And also just to add, climate change is entirely natural (there is no 'right or wrong climate, it just changes over time and has done forever, and there have been far more extreme changes, even in the recent past - look at what happened in the recent ice ages) and then it seems that you (and the whole CO2 lobby) are discounting the fact that the planet exists in its own homeostasis. It is supreme human arrogance to assume we can tweak it with net zero.
I would just like to go on to say how potentially dangerous I think the Green and Labour party energy policies are in terms of energy security, by looking at what's happened in New Zealand, where I shall quote from a recent article:
"Sir Keir Starmer is standing by a pledge to ban new drilling in the North Sea, despite New Zealand abandoning a similar policy amid blackout fears.
Labour’s manifesto, due out on Thursday, will feature a pledge to block all new licensing for oil and gas as one of its key energy policies.
The party “will not be issuing licences to explore new [oil and gas] fields as we accelerate to clean power”, a Labour spokesman confirmed on Tuesday.
It follows last weekend’s announcement that New Zealand’s government was lifting a ban on new oil and gas exploration.
The ban was announced by former prime minister Jacinda Ardern in 2018. “The world has moved on from fossil fuels,” Ardern proclaimed at the time.
New Zealand’s trailblazing policy, which was the first of its kind, became a key inspiration for the Labour Party’s own plan.
However, some in the party are now questioning the commitment after New Zealand resources minister Shane Jones last weekend denounced its own ban as a disaster – and revoked it.
It followed three years of rising energy prices that have left 110,000 households unable to warm their homes, 19pc of households struggling with bills and 40,000 of them having their power cut off due to unpaid bills, according to Consumer NZ.
Since April the situation has further deteriorated: Transpower, the equivalent of our National Grid, warned that the nation was at high risk of blackouts.
New Zealand’s shift to renewables meant it no longer had the generating power to keep the lights on during the cold spells that mark the Antipodean winter, said Transpower, as it begged consumers to cut their electricity consumption."
Full article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/12/jacinda-ardern-new-zealand-black [Post edited 15 Jun 13:24]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| General Election Thread on 13:22 - Jun 15 with 962 views | Wilkinswatercarrier |
Careful what you wish for regarding PR. The small parties are usually extreme/hard left or right and getting only a few seats can give them a disproportionate amount of power when it comes to supporting larger parties forming a government.
Across Europe we have countries that now have extremist parties in or close to power. Will France be next? 16% of 16 to 24 year old in Germany voted AdF.
However, in the UK we have a system that ensures stability and we should be thankful we have that despite all its faults.
Oh, and the Europeans have historically always loved a man in a silly military uniform with loads of medals. | | | |
| General Election Thread on 13:29 - Jun 15 with 941 views | FDC |
| General Election Thread on 12:43 - Jun 15 by Northernr |
As I said higher up I think watching them all pretend they're going to improve crumbling public services while also reducing taxes is just economics for a fcking bottom set year 7 maths class. It's not a serious debate. |
Starmer has made it very clear that he will simply grow the economy. | | | |
| General Election Thread on 13:30 - Jun 15 with 927 views | hubble |
Missed out this from above quoted article:
" The threat to New Zealand’s energy security comes despite the fact that geologists have discovered billions of cubic metres of natural gas in the seabeds around the country.
Sean Rush, a leading New Zealand barrister specialising in petroleum licensing law and climate litigation, called the oil and gas ban “economic vandalism at its worst in exchange for virtue signalling at its finest”.
Rush warned Labour off a copycat policy, saying: “There will be no benefits to UK energy security by banning new exploration drilling. You will simply disown an industry in which the UK has been world-leading.”
Jones said last week: “Natural gas is critical to keeping our lights on and our economy running, especially during peak electricity demand and when generation dips because of more intermittent sources like wind, solar and hydro.”
Such warnings are echoed by energy experts in the UK, where over 75pc of total energy consumed still comes from oil and gas.
Half comes from UK waters – but it too will drop off a cliff if Labour implements a ban on new drilling, warns the industry.
Offshore Energies UK (OEUK), a trade body, says there are about 280 active oil and gas fields in UK waters – of which 180 are due to shut down by 2030.
Without new ones to replace them, UK gas production is predicted to more than halve by the end of the decade.
Jenny Stanning, director of external affairs at OEUK, says exploration is essential to simply slowing the decline in output.
“The New Zealand experience shows how important it is for countries to carefully manage energy transition and energy security. We will need oil and gas for decades to come so it makes sense to back our own industry rather than ramping up imports from abroad.” | |
| |
| General Election Thread on 13:45 - Jun 15 with 898 views | stinkydad |
| General Election Thread on 12:35 - Jun 15 by FDC |
Sometimes I wonder how the country got into such a mess. Then i see people are describing a piddling increase in taxation in order to fix public services as Marxism. |
Personally, I'd happily pay more tax if it meant real improvements to health & social services, public transport etc.. I just don't trust anyone to be able to deliver those things. |  | | |
| General Election Thread on 14:01 - Jun 15 with 882 views | Northernr |
| General Election Thread on 13:29 - Jun 15 by FDC |
Starmer has made it very clear that he will simply grow the economy. |
Fck me why didn’t we think of that before? | | | |
| General Election Thread on 14:03 - Jun 15 with 881 views | Lblock |
| General Election Thread on 13:18 - Jun 15 by hubble |
The fact you "know little of the Green councillor" is very telling. The middle class Greens seem to have their head in the sand around all sorts of elements of what the modern Green party stands for. I have posted a link to the video above. Do you think he's geniunely standing for Green issues? Try to remove your blinkers and have a think about what is going on here.
Regarding the "right of self-identification for trans and non-binary people" - you equally seem oblivious that this is actually threatening the very thing you say the Greens stand for in your very next sentence: "They also believe in standing up against misogyny and violence against women and girls."
The fact that you are apparently unable to see, or are unaware, of how so much of the trans movement is actually misogynistic (it's being driven by men, regardless of how they 'identify') and comes freighted with a huge amount of violence towards women. If you actually followed this, or even talked to women who feel threatened on so many levels by the trans movement, I doubt you'd be so blase about it. But since I assume you do care about women's rights, I suggest you look into this - again - if possible - without prejudice.
There is a very wide demographic of women (from hard-left lesbians to middle-class Daily Mail mums) who are all in agreement about the threat to women's rights, the encroachment of men (self-identifying men) into women and girls spaces, and far worse, including violence, threats and rape. With respect, I suggest you wise up on this issue.
Regarding climate change, I am not surprised you have rolled out the old 99% of scientists agree cliche and your reaction to anything that might divert from what I consider your blinkered cultism to be 'conspiratorial' as opposed to what it actually is, which is sceptical. But here's the interesting thing: I am absolutely for cleaning up the environment, for removing plastics at every level, for the end of toxic waste, for better farming practices and for so many other things you also believe in. But what I am not for is a completely pie in the sky idea that you can do anything significant by reducing the amount of CO2 that we produce. There NO proof this will do anything, because it is not provable. Our planet is not some kind of mechanical thing that you can fix by tweaking the carburettor, it is far, far more complex than that and all that the Net Zero policy really promises to do is to threaten our energy security (more on that below) and cost ordinary people a hell of a lot.
And then there's the issue that, again, you seem oblivious to how this has been entirely co-opted by the 'powers that would be' (who still love to travel to Davos in their private jets where they entertain Greta and the rest), because, well as I said... it's just another means to tax, control us, limit our freedom of movement.... and more... but as I say, you appear to oblivious to this. Because, well... 99% (it's nowhere near that consensus in reality, btw). And also just to add, climate change is entirely natural (there is no 'right or wrong climate, it just changes over time and has done forever, and there have been far more extreme changes, even in the recent past - look at what happened in the recent ice ages) and then it seems that you (and the whole CO2 lobby) are discounting the fact that the planet exists in its own homeostasis. It is supreme human arrogance to assume we can tweak it with net zero.
I would just like to go on to say how potentially dangerous I think the Green and Labour party energy policies are in terms of energy security, by looking at what's happened in New Zealand, where I shall quote from a recent article:
"Sir Keir Starmer is standing by a pledge to ban new drilling in the North Sea, despite New Zealand abandoning a similar policy amid blackout fears.
Labour’s manifesto, due out on Thursday, will feature a pledge to block all new licensing for oil and gas as one of its key energy policies.
The party “will not be issuing licences to explore new [oil and gas] fields as we accelerate to clean power”, a Labour spokesman confirmed on Tuesday.
It follows last weekend’s announcement that New Zealand’s government was lifting a ban on new oil and gas exploration.
The ban was announced by former prime minister Jacinda Ardern in 2018. “The world has moved on from fossil fuels,” Ardern proclaimed at the time.
New Zealand’s trailblazing policy, which was the first of its kind, became a key inspiration for the Labour Party’s own plan.
However, some in the party are now questioning the commitment after New Zealand resources minister Shane Jones last weekend denounced its own ban as a disaster – and revoked it.
It followed three years of rising energy prices that have left 110,000 households unable to warm their homes, 19pc of households struggling with bills and 40,000 of them having their power cut off due to unpaid bills, according to Consumer NZ.
Since April the situation has further deteriorated: Transpower, the equivalent of our National Grid, warned that the nation was at high risk of blackouts.
New Zealand’s shift to renewables meant it no longer had the generating power to keep the lights on during the cold spells that mark the Antipodean winter, said Transpower, as it begged consumers to cut their electricity consumption."
Full article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/12/jacinda-ardern-new-zealand-black [Post edited 15 Jun 13:24]
|
More eloquently put than I ever could.
Always amazes me how many people have bought into the Great Environmental Lie hook, line and sinker.
Is the world climate changing?
Most certainly - it always has and always will. To think that we as the human race can actually control this is the stuff of madness and modern day Emperors new clothes. From this a self fulfilling movement and economic stitch up has spawned and now seems unstoppable.
I totally agree that we should be focusing on pollution with the absolute priority being stopping the disgraceful way our oceans and waterways are treated. That is achieved by reduction in single use plastics but also educating people in some pretty backwards laces about what they are doing as well as hitting big industry with a stick.
Use of the earths energy resources is now done in a more responsible way than it ever was and these JSO tw@ts are completely clueless if they think turning off the black tap will cure all ills.... far from it.
Thanks for your post(s) on this Hubble - brilliantly put and top reading. |  |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| General Election Thread on 14:51 - Jun 15 with 813 views | FDC |
| General Election Thread on 14:03 - Jun 15 by Lblock |
More eloquently put than I ever could.
Always amazes me how many people have bought into the Great Environmental Lie hook, line and sinker.
Is the world climate changing?
Most certainly - it always has and always will. To think that we as the human race can actually control this is the stuff of madness and modern day Emperors new clothes. From this a self fulfilling movement and economic stitch up has spawned and now seems unstoppable.
I totally agree that we should be focusing on pollution with the absolute priority being stopping the disgraceful way our oceans and waterways are treated. That is achieved by reduction in single use plastics but also educating people in some pretty backwards laces about what they are doing as well as hitting big industry with a stick.
Use of the earths energy resources is now done in a more responsible way than it ever was and these JSO tw@ts are completely clueless if they think turning off the black tap will cure all ills.... far from it.
Thanks for your post(s) on this Hubble - brilliantly put and top reading. |
See for me, I haven't found the time to become a climate scientist, so I defer to the judgement of people who have on this one. | | | |
| General Election Thread on 15:02 - Jun 15 with 796 views | dmm |
| General Election Thread on 13:18 - Jun 15 by hubble |
The fact you "know little of the Green councillor" is very telling. The middle class Greens seem to have their head in the sand around all sorts of elements of what the modern Green party stands for. I have posted a link to the video above. Do you think he's geniunely standing for Green issues? Try to remove your blinkers and have a think about what is going on here.
Regarding the "right of self-identification for trans and non-binary people" - you equally seem oblivious that this is actually threatening the very thing you say the Greens stand for in your very next sentence: "They also believe in standing up against misogyny and violence against women and girls."
The fact that you are apparently unable to see, or are unaware, of how so much of the trans movement is actually misogynistic (it's being driven by men, regardless of how they 'identify') and comes freighted with a huge amount of violence towards women. If you actually followed this, or even talked to women who feel threatened on so many levels by the trans movement, I doubt you'd be so blase about it. But since I assume you do care about women's rights, I suggest you look into this - again - if possible - without prejudice.
There is a very wide demographic of women (from hard-left lesbians to middle-class Daily Mail mums) who are all in agreement about the threat to women's rights, the encroachment of men (self-identifying men) into women and girls spaces, and far worse, including violence, threats and rape. With respect, I suggest you wise up on this issue.
Regarding climate change, I am not surprised you have rolled out the old 99% of scientists agree cliche and your reaction to anything that might divert from what I consider your blinkered cultism to be 'conspiratorial' as opposed to what it actually is, which is sceptical. But here's the interesting thing: I am absolutely for cleaning up the environment, for removing plastics at every level, for the end of toxic waste, for better farming practices and for so many other things you also believe in. But what I am not for is a completely pie in the sky idea that you can do anything significant by reducing the amount of CO2 that we produce. There NO proof this will do anything, because it is not provable. Our planet is not some kind of mechanical thing that you can fix by tweaking the carburettor, it is far, far more complex than that and all that the Net Zero policy really promises to do is to threaten our energy security (more on that below) and cost ordinary people a hell of a lot.
And then there's the issue that, again, you seem oblivious to how this has been entirely co-opted by the 'powers that would be' (who still love to travel to Davos in their private jets where they entertain Greta and the rest), because, well as I said... it's just another means to tax, control us, limit our freedom of movement.... and more... but as I say, you appear to oblivious to this. Because, well... 99% (it's nowhere near that consensus in reality, btw). And also just to add, climate change is entirely natural (there is no 'right or wrong climate, it just changes over time and has done forever, and there have been far more extreme changes, even in the recent past - look at what happened in the recent ice ages) and then it seems that you (and the whole CO2 lobby) are discounting the fact that the planet exists in its own homeostasis. It is supreme human arrogance to assume we can tweak it with net zero.
I would just like to go on to say how potentially dangerous I think the Green and Labour party energy policies are in terms of energy security, by looking at what's happened in New Zealand, where I shall quote from a recent article:
"Sir Keir Starmer is standing by a pledge to ban new drilling in the North Sea, despite New Zealand abandoning a similar policy amid blackout fears.
Labour’s manifesto, due out on Thursday, will feature a pledge to block all new licensing for oil and gas as one of its key energy policies.
The party “will not be issuing licences to explore new [oil and gas] fields as we accelerate to clean power”, a Labour spokesman confirmed on Tuesday.
It follows last weekend’s announcement that New Zealand’s government was lifting a ban on new oil and gas exploration.
The ban was announced by former prime minister Jacinda Ardern in 2018. “The world has moved on from fossil fuels,” Ardern proclaimed at the time.
New Zealand’s trailblazing policy, which was the first of its kind, became a key inspiration for the Labour Party’s own plan.
However, some in the party are now questioning the commitment after New Zealand resources minister Shane Jones last weekend denounced its own ban as a disaster – and revoked it.
It followed three years of rising energy prices that have left 110,000 households unable to warm their homes, 19pc of households struggling with bills and 40,000 of them having their power cut off due to unpaid bills, according to Consumer NZ.
Since April the situation has further deteriorated: Transpower, the equivalent of our National Grid, warned that the nation was at high risk of blackouts.
New Zealand’s shift to renewables meant it no longer had the generating power to keep the lights on during the cold spells that mark the Antipodean winter, said Transpower, as it begged consumers to cut their electricity consumption."
Full article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/12/jacinda-ardern-new-zealand-black [Post edited 15 Jun 13:24]
|
You repeatedly say I am oblivious to things, blinkered, need to wise up, etc. You must be so wise and omniscient to have such knowledge about me that it seems impertinent to carry this on but I will, and without resulting to scorn.
Do you know anything about, say, Tory Cllr Anthony Stevens - and that's without googling it?
Have you never heard of the many women working in transgender support services? Or come across the research showing over 80% say they are “not prejudiced at all” towards transgender people?
Can you tell me on what scientific research you base your assertions about climate change? I would be happy to provide the same for my assertions. And, can you provide the facts that support your statement that "it's just another means to tax, control us, limit our freedom of movement"?
It would appear New Zealand have messed up their attempts at energy transition. That doesn't mean you can't transition to renewable energy properly. PS I couldn't read your link as I don't have and wouldn't want a Telegraph account. | | | |
| General Election Thread on 15:30 - Jun 15 with 765 views | colinallcars |
Just saw Nigel Farage on the tellybox - he says if elected he will ban the synthesizer. Sorry Mr Starmer, that's my vote sorted. |  | | |
| General Election Thread on 16:12 - Jun 15 with 680 views | kensalriser |
| General Election Thread on 13:18 - Jun 15 by hubble |
The fact you "know little of the Green councillor" is very telling. The middle class Greens seem to have their head in the sand around all sorts of elements of what the modern Green party stands for. I have posted a link to the video above. Do you think he's geniunely standing for Green issues? Try to remove your blinkers and have a think about what is going on here.
Regarding the "right of self-identification for trans and non-binary people" - you equally seem oblivious that this is actually threatening the very thing you say the Greens stand for in your very next sentence: "They also believe in standing up against misogyny and violence against women and girls."
The fact that you are apparently unable to see, or are unaware, of how so much of the trans movement is actually misogynistic (it's being driven by men, regardless of how they 'identify') and comes freighted with a huge amount of violence towards women. If you actually followed this, or even talked to women who feel threatened on so many levels by the trans movement, I doubt you'd be so blase about it. But since I assume you do care about women's rights, I suggest you look into this - again - if possible - without prejudice.
There is a very wide demographic of women (from hard-left lesbians to middle-class Daily Mail mums) who are all in agreement about the threat to women's rights, the encroachment of men (self-identifying men) into women and girls spaces, and far worse, including violence, threats and rape. With respect, I suggest you wise up on this issue.
Regarding climate change, I am not surprised you have rolled out the old 99% of scientists agree cliche and your reaction to anything that might divert from what I consider your blinkered cultism to be 'conspiratorial' as opposed to what it actually is, which is sceptical. But here's the interesting thing: I am absolutely for cleaning up the environment, for removing plastics at every level, for the end of toxic waste, for better farming practices and for so many other things you also believe in. But what I am not for is a completely pie in the sky idea that you can do anything significant by reducing the amount of CO2 that we produce. There NO proof this will do anything, because it is not provable. Our planet is not some kind of mechanical thing that you can fix by tweaking the carburettor, it is far, far more complex than that and all that the Net Zero policy really promises to do is to threaten our energy security (more on that below) and cost ordinary people a hell of a lot.
And then there's the issue that, again, you seem oblivious to how this has been entirely co-opted by the 'powers that would be' (who still love to travel to Davos in their private jets where they entertain Greta and the rest), because, well as I said... it's just another means to tax, control us, limit our freedom of movement.... and more... but as I say, you appear to oblivious to this. Because, well... 99% (it's nowhere near that consensus in reality, btw). And also just to add, climate change is entirely natural (there is no 'right or wrong climate, it just changes over time and has done forever, and there have been far more extreme changes, even in the recent past - look at what happened in the recent ice ages) and then it seems that you (and the whole CO2 lobby) are discounting the fact that the planet exists in its own homeostasis. It is supreme human arrogance to assume we can tweak it with net zero.
I would just like to go on to say how potentially dangerous I think the Green and Labour party energy policies are in terms of energy security, by looking at what's happened in New Zealand, where I shall quote from a recent article:
"Sir Keir Starmer is standing by a pledge to ban new drilling in the North Sea, despite New Zealand abandoning a similar policy amid blackout fears.
Labour’s manifesto, due out on Thursday, will feature a pledge to block all new licensing for oil and gas as one of its key energy policies.
The party “will not be issuing licences to explore new [oil and gas] fields as we accelerate to clean power”, a Labour spokesman confirmed on Tuesday.
It follows last weekend’s announcement that New Zealand’s government was lifting a ban on new oil and gas exploration.
The ban was announced by former prime minister Jacinda Ardern in 2018. “The world has moved on from fossil fuels,” Ardern proclaimed at the time.
New Zealand’s trailblazing policy, which was the first of its kind, became a key inspiration for the Labour Party’s own plan.
However, some in the party are now questioning the commitment after New Zealand resources minister Shane Jones last weekend denounced its own ban as a disaster – and revoked it.
It followed three years of rising energy prices that have left 110,000 households unable to warm their homes, 19pc of households struggling with bills and 40,000 of them having their power cut off due to unpaid bills, according to Consumer NZ.
Since April the situation has further deteriorated: Transpower, the equivalent of our National Grid, warned that the nation was at high risk of blackouts.
New Zealand’s shift to renewables meant it no longer had the generating power to keep the lights on during the cold spells that mark the Antipodean winter, said Transpower, as it begged consumers to cut their electricity consumption."
Full article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/12/jacinda-ardern-new-zealand-black [Post edited 15 Jun 13:24]
|
Man, you really have gone down some crazy conspiracy rabbit holes and ended up a transphobe and climate change denier. I'm actually quite distressed by it, because the old Hubs was a really sound, intelligent bloke. |  |
| |
| General Election Thread on 16:18 - Jun 15 with 659 views | Esox_Lucius |
| General Election Thread on 10:07 - Jun 15 by essextaxiboy |
I heard on the radio yesterday that the Greens would introduce a frequent flyer levy allowing you one levy free flight a year . The next one would would carry a levy of 25 quid and go up from there up to a maximum of a £585 levy on each flight . |
What a good idea. |  |
| The grass is always greener. |
| |
| General Election Thread on 16:28 - Jun 15 with 628 views | derbyhoop |
| General Election Thread on 12:35 - Jun 15 by Northernr |
Me too. I think it's ridiculous the amount of flights there are between destinations in a small country like ours. It's scandalous that Premier league football clubs fly everywhere - Leicester fly for Norwich away for goodness sake.
But this comes back to something I said earlier. Things are complicated and nuanced, but people want to pretend there are easy answers. We don't want Johnny Foreigner - fine. But we also can't answer how we'd staff care homes, hospitals, hospitality, farms etc.
It's easy to say we'd ban domestic flights, heavily levy frequent flyers etc. But what does the alternative look like? The trains from London to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen etc are slow, over crowded, unaffordable and unreliable. The planes are frequent, cheap, quick, and have capacity. If it's £30 on EasyJet or £130 on LNER, what you gonna do?
In France you can turn around and say we're banning domestic flights quite easily because they've invested and built a viable, affordable, fast alternative. Their rail system is absolutely unbelievable, and you can just glide around the whole country at super high speed, luxurious comfort, in a train with a fcking panoramic bar carriage in it. Frequent, cheap, fast, smooth. A beautiful experience. Here you cram yourself into an overcrowded, 30 year old, diesel Avanti Voyager service running under electric cables - when it runs at all - and it costs you £200+ to get to Preston.
You build the alternative infrastructure, then you hammer people who choose not to use it. As I understand it the Greens also oppose HS2.
So no internal flights, fine I'm with you, you've got my vote. But also we don't want HS2? That's not a serious policy from serious people.
I actually don't think I've heard anybody mention trains once in this election campaign really. And it's such an easy fcking win because they're so extortionate and so crap atm that you can't help but improve them whatever you do, apart from doing nothing of course.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Flights from Limoges, our local airport, to Paris have stopped. Because the train will get you between those 2 cities in 90 minutes.
I went to Lille for the Rugby World Cup. 4 trains there and 4 back. 4 of the journies were First Class and total cost was €160. All were clean, comfortable and on time.
Shows what you can do when you invest in trains. How's HS2 progressing? |  |
| Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop |
| |
| General Election Thread on 16:30 - Jun 15 with 619 views | hubble |
| General Election Thread on 16:12 - Jun 15 by kensalriser |
Man, you really have gone down some crazy conspiracy rabbit holes and ended up a transphobe and climate change denier. I'm actually quite distressed by it, because the old Hubs was a really sound, intelligent bloke. |
Thanks for completely misunderstanding me, P. More than happy to meet up in person to explain my stance. I assure you, I still am the same sound, (relatively) intelligent bloke that you knew!
And do you really think that I would go down crazy conspiracy rabbit holes like some blind idiot? Do you really think I have no idea what I'm doing?
And it's telling you have also labelled me a transphobe, when what I am in fact doing is standing up for women's rights over a dangerous minority male-driven movement. I have nothing whatsoever against people who want to act or dress like a different gender. But I do take issue when they want access to women and girls spaces and sports. Does your stance make you misogynist? Maybe it does. | |
| |
| General Election Thread on 16:30 - Jun 15 with 620 views | 222gers |
| General Election Thread on 16:28 - Jun 15 by derbyhoop |
Flights from Limoges, our local airport, to Paris have stopped. Because the train will get you between those 2 cities in 90 minutes.
I went to Lille for the Rugby World Cup. 4 trains there and 4 back. 4 of the journies were First Class and total cost was €160. All were clean, comfortable and on time.
Shows what you can do when you invest in trains. How's HS2 progressing? |
I think I'll still fly down the pub most days |  | | |
| General Election Thread on 16:32 - Jun 15 with 618 views | loftboy |
| General Election Thread on 16:28 - Jun 15 by derbyhoop |
Flights from Limoges, our local airport, to Paris have stopped. Because the train will get you between those 2 cities in 90 minutes.
I went to Lille for the Rugby World Cup. 4 trains there and 4 back. 4 of the journies were First Class and total cost was €160. All were clean, comfortable and on time.
Shows what you can do when you invest in trains. How's HS2 progressing? |
I went from London to Cologne via Amsterdam last year, the ICE trains are fantastic as is the internal trains, unfortunately the trains in this country are probably decades away from European standards. | |
| |
| General Election Thread on 16:39 - Jun 15 with 599 views | hubble |
| General Election Thread on 15:02 - Jun 15 by dmm |
You repeatedly say I am oblivious to things, blinkered, need to wise up, etc. You must be so wise and omniscient to have such knowledge about me that it seems impertinent to carry this on but I will, and without resulting to scorn.
Do you know anything about, say, Tory Cllr Anthony Stevens - and that's without googling it?
Have you never heard of the many women working in transgender support services? Or come across the research showing over 80% say they are “not prejudiced at all” towards transgender people?
Can you tell me on what scientific research you base your assertions about climate change? I would be happy to provide the same for my assertions. And, can you provide the facts that support your statement that "it's just another means to tax, control us, limit our freedom of movement"?
It would appear New Zealand have messed up their attempts at energy transition. That doesn't mean you can't transition to renewable energy properly. PS I couldn't read your link as I don't have and wouldn't want a Telegraph account. |
Okay, let's start with your final statement:
"PS I couldn't read your link as I don't have and wouldn't want a Telegraph account"
I posted the whole article anyway. But personally speaking, I don't take that attitude towards information; as far as I'm concerned, information is information, and I'm confident that I am capable of discerning bias. I also wouldn't limit my reading to media that reflects my opinions: indeed, I follow as diverse a range of views as possible (you can check my twitter feed), regularly reading, sources you probably would approve of, such as The Canary, Occupy London, George Monbiot, Yanis Varoufakis and Ash Sarkar. As well as the Guardian and the BBC.
Okay next:
"You repeatedly say I am oblivious to things, blinkered, need to wise up, etc. You must be so wise and omniscient to have such knowledge about me that it seems impertinent to carry this on but I will, and without resulting to scorn."
Well frankly David, your responses have led me to that conclusion, including those in this post.
"Do you know anything about, say, Tory Cllr Anthony Stevens - and that's without googling it?"
You're talking about the Cllr who was arrested for a so-called 'hate crime' for sharing a video that was originally tweeted by Britain First. I'm guessing you think this represents some kind of equivalence for you not knowing anything about how the Green party has been infiltrated by Islamists? I'm not sure how it does.
The fact that the actual video showed a police officer snatching a bible from a preacher who was accused of being 'Islamophobic' (the preacher was awarded damages for wrongful arrest) is perhaps irrelevant to you? Because it seems, from this and your comment about the Telegraph above, that the medium is more important to you than the message.
"Have you never heard of the many women working in transgender support services?"
What has that got to do with anything I've said? Does that bland truism mean that the huge swathe of women from all walks of life who feel threatened by transgender activism are wrong?? As the father to a daughter, godfather to a young woman, and close friends to many women, I am both aware of how they feel about what's going on and their anger and disbelief as to how women's rights are being subjugated to these political cause célèbres. Try following JK Rowling on twitter - without prejudice - and just discover for yourself how threatened women feel by the trans-activist movement, and how vehement the trans-activists are.
"Or come across the research showing over 80% say they are “not prejudiced at all” towards transgender people?"
What research? Where's your source? Is that meant to represent an argument?
"Can you tell me on what scientific research you base your assertions about climate change?"
Yes, I am basing my knowledge of climate change in paricular on my wide reading on the glacial and interglacial periods, including the 'Younger Dryas' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas which shows far more rapid changes in climate than those that are happening today, and as yet, remain unexplained, even though sources such as NASA have attempted to, but strangely haven't satisfactorily linked to influences such as Milankovitch cycles https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cyc which nevertheless show that the factors inviolved in climate change are far more complex than just greenhouse gases... Gleissberg cycles, the still very arguable influence of solar radiation, the shift in the magnetic field, and much more that in my research has a far more profound effect than CO2 rises - and that also, if scientists cannot explain why the earth's climate heated and then cooled far faster 12,000 years ago than now, (when there was no human influence), why is there such certainty about today's beliefs? History has taught us that science has often been wrong, even when there are mass consensuses, and I remain sceptical. I don't care that people will have a scornful reaction to that. I think scepticism is a reasonable position.
At the same time whilst I fully accept that climate change is happening, I do not think 'Net Zero' is the answer, and furthermore, I think it has been co-opted to suit all sorts of agendas that have nothing to do with protecting our planet. If you find yourself in alliance with arch-globalists, does that lead you to question your beliefs as much as you question mine?
I could provide all sorts of links to the background of my long and wide research into this subject, but would you read them all? It would be far better for us to meet in person in one of your trips to my neck of the woods and I can explain myself better.
"I would be happy to provide the same for my assertions. And, can you provide the facts that support your statement that "it's just another means to tax, control us, limit our freedom of movement"?"
Yes, as above, I refer to the co-opting of the climate movement by global NGOs such as the WEF. If you want to know more, then read WEF chairman Klaus Schwab's 'Great Reset' and then think about the push towards 15-minute cities and the idea paraphrased as "you will own nothing and you will be happy". Google Noah Yuval Harari's involvement with the WEF and his speech about AI and how human lives are valueless.
There is a much bigger picture to all this, which, I would characterise as the rise of materialism that was spawned by the likes of such disparate bedfellows as Nietzsche and Marx, furthered by Marxist philosophy, the exponential levering of technology that gives humans unprecedented power and equivalent arrogance, and much more... that has led us to the current world situation which seems to me to be the most degraded and arrogant phase in human history, with little true knowledge or respect for the unfathomable mysteries of existence...
I repeat, I am fully onboard with common sense environmentalism - indeed, I would classify myself as an environmentalist, but I am not blindsided by political agendas that have subverted environmental causes for far more nefarious ends. IMO.
Interestingly, since I started posting my thoughts today, someone has desperately been trying to hack into my LFW account (18 times in fact). Clearly someone out there is so triggered by what I'm saying, they'd like to mess with my account. Perhaps it's the same person who consistently attacked me on RFI. | |
| |
| General Election Thread on 17:06 - Jun 15 with 540 views | stevec |
| General Election Thread on 12:35 - Jun 15 by Northernr |
Me too. I think it's ridiculous the amount of flights there are between destinations in a small country like ours. It's scandalous that Premier league football clubs fly everywhere - Leicester fly for Norwich away for goodness sake.
But this comes back to something I said earlier. Things are complicated and nuanced, but people want to pretend there are easy answers. We don't want Johnny Foreigner - fine. But we also can't answer how we'd staff care homes, hospitals, hospitality, farms etc.
It's easy to say we'd ban domestic flights, heavily levy frequent flyers etc. But what does the alternative look like? The trains from London to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen etc are slow, over crowded, unaffordable and unreliable. The planes are frequent, cheap, quick, and have capacity. If it's £30 on EasyJet or £130 on LNER, what you gonna do?
In France you can turn around and say we're banning domestic flights quite easily because they've invested and built a viable, affordable, fast alternative. Their rail system is absolutely unbelievable, and you can just glide around the whole country at super high speed, luxurious comfort, in a train with a fcking panoramic bar carriage in it. Frequent, cheap, fast, smooth. A beautiful experience. Here you cram yourself into an overcrowded, 30 year old, diesel Avanti Voyager service running under electric cables - when it runs at all - and it costs you £200+ to get to Preston.
You build the alternative infrastructure, then you hammer people who choose not to use it. As I understand it the Greens also oppose HS2.
So no internal flights, fine I'm with you, you've got my vote. But also we don't want HS2? That's not a serious policy from serious people.
I actually don't think I've heard anybody mention trains once in this election campaign really. And it's such an easy fcking win because they're so extortionate and so crap atm that you can't help but improve them whatever you do, apart from doing nothing of course.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
You’re totally right about the trains here, they are a disgrace.
Down to governments, the privatised rail companies, all manner of reasons.
However, despite their appalling record, it’s occasionally not all as it seems. During the second half of the last football season I was on the case of the outgoing MP for Epsom (better known as Chris Grayling, yes, I know) about the sub standard service they were providing, even for South West Trains. 4 train carriages on a weekend, packed to the rafters by my station and literal fights at following stations as they couldn’t get on the half hour service into London. It was a similar story on the way home after the game. Anyway, despite the to and fro, nothing much happened until an actual air conditioned 8 carriage turned up one saturday in April (we’d never seen an air conditioned train on this line, ever, so it was quite an exhilarating moment) so I thought the least I could do was text him, albeit in a sarcastic way, to thank him for his efforts. I did point out that the base of all the seats had a three inch deep layer of rust on all of them so clearly it’d been in the knackers yard for some time and asked where they’d got it from. Turned out it was a discard from a Bedfordshire line. Now admittedly, this is somewhat pathetic way to run a rail service so I bothered him a bit more. Apparently, there is actually a whole fleet of 10 carriage, brand new state of the art versions sitting in a sideline somewhere, and they have been for months, waiting to replace the decrepit fleet we have all been suffering but … they can’t get them on the track because the unions are refusing to sanction them, I know not why, but suspect it’s something to do with a guard and staffing.
Doesn’t make it any better but an insight into this fcked up country we live in. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
