By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
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
favourite cheese mature Cheddar. FFS there is no such thing as the EPL
How people still be dismissing climate change as man made, despite all the evidence to the contrary, is mind boggling. No one denies that the climate has changed previously, the issue now is how quickly these changes are happening. Average global temperatures have risen over the past 100 years, that is a fact, but the rate of climb has accelerated over the last 20 (this is mainly due to the industrialisation of developing countries). Those on the hard right that deny climate change would, I think, want to slow that change as it will increase migration. So to reduce migration you'll need reduce carbon emissions to slow global warming.
So what's it to be? More oil equals more global warming and results in increased climate immigration or accept that climate change is real, switch to renewable, and help reduce climate immigration?
Are you asking why people who don't believe in man made climate change don't want to do anything about it?
What baffles me is that people who do believe in it also seem to like the idea of a load of immigration from low carbon countries in the third world to the West to prevent population decline.
Surely they'd be welcoming a lower population here as it would naturally reduce carbon emissions, but nope they want the complete opposite for some reason.
2
General Election Thread on 09:43 - Jun 16 with 1880 views
Finding this election incredibly depressing as a younger voter.
There has been little to no discussion of the nuanced complex truths around immigration, environment, economic growth that directly affect my ability to live a life as my parents did in the 80s.
I can’t afford to get on the property ladder, can’t get married or have kids yet as I have no capital despite working a good job, can’t go to Europe freely whether to work or for leisure, spend 40% of my income on rent and the best I’m getting is “economic growth”? Bar the greens whose manifesto is pathetically wishful, every other party doesn’t care about u30s so Labour it is and purely hoping we get lucky. But the way our politics treats young voters is a joke.
And then who crops up to tell all in his great wisdom? The privately educated, commodities trading, millionaire people’s hero. Nigel Fing Farage is stood there telling me it’s because of people risking their lives in the channel? Or coming here with all their dependents (while they’re running the god damn NHS)?
Get in the bin and stay there.
One of the many many many cancers Brexit has imposed on this country is his/Johnson’s politics of sound bites and slogans, over serious policy discussions. Go back and watch YouTube clips of Major vs Blair, or Thatcher vs Callaghan, and look at difference in detail. I don’t agree with a lot of those people but you can see their policy offer. If I was 26 in Thatcher’s Britain I’d get what her offer to me was. This lot aren’t even talking to us.
Yes social media plays a part, as does the lessening quality of politicians and smart people choosing private anonymous jobs over Parliament. But the way political parties view us is absolutely in the bin after what those liars were able to do in 2016.
“Reform” “Change” “Green New Deal” are easy to repeat and don’t require any intellect to say. We need to take some of the blame and start asking our politicians to talk to us like adults not children, if we want to be given real choices at elections.
I don’t think they’ll speak to my generation until we hit that magic mark of middle age, but for those of you they do actually care about - do better, for your younger relatives at least.
Farage is clearly correct that net annual migration of 750,000 is going to diminish your chances of getting your own home, etc. That might be unpalatable to you but it's patently true.
0
General Election Thread on 10:16 - Jun 16 with 1834 views
General Election Thread on 09:43 - Jun 16 by hoopdog
Then vote reform to break the mould
I doubt Reform are going to do much about the mould in my spare room.
They’ll inevitably win a handful of seats (bookies suggest single digits is pretty much a cert still and about 15% of the vote), make a load of noise for a few weeks then achieve absolutely nothing on the opposition benches on the rare occasions they bother to turn up.
[Post edited 16 Jun 10:18]
2
General Election Thread on 10:18 - Jun 16 with 1827 views
General Election Thread on 16:39 - Jun 15 by hubble
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.
I’m going to focus on the Climate Change issue as I can’t keep this going on multiple issues.
You mention the younger dryas period, the milankovitch cycles, gleissberg cycles, solar radiation and earth’s magnetic field, as factors that may have affected the climate in the past and maybe doing so today. Climate science does not conclude any of these have a bearing on the rapid changes in the climate today.
The overwhelming scientific consensus for the cause of present day global warming is CO2 produced since the industrial revolution. The discovery that CO2 had a greenhouse effect was made in the mid 19th century. In the mid 20th century scientists began to wake up to the influence humans were having on the climate. Human activity has increased CO2 by nearly 50% since 1750. This rise is greater than at any point since the end of the last ice age 20,000 years ago. Man made CO2 is causing today’s climate change.
This scientific fact is very, very well established by thousands of scientists around the world and tens of thousands of scientific reports produced over many decades. Yet you dismiss all this with "…it's just another means to tax, control us, limit our freedom of movement…". Frankly Hud, it’s no wonder kensalriser wrote what he did.
2
General Election Thread on 10:31 - Jun 16 with 1805 views
I’m going to focus on the Climate Change issue as I can’t keep this going on multiple issues.
You mention the younger dryas period, the milankovitch cycles, gleissberg cycles, solar radiation and earth’s magnetic field, as factors that may have affected the climate in the past and maybe doing so today. Climate science does not conclude any of these have a bearing on the rapid changes in the climate today.
The overwhelming scientific consensus for the cause of present day global warming is CO2 produced since the industrial revolution. The discovery that CO2 had a greenhouse effect was made in the mid 19th century. In the mid 20th century scientists began to wake up to the influence humans were having on the climate. Human activity has increased CO2 by nearly 50% since 1750. This rise is greater than at any point since the end of the last ice age 20,000 years ago. Man made CO2 is causing today’s climate change.
This scientific fact is very, very well established by thousands of scientists around the world and tens of thousands of scientific reports produced over many decades. Yet you dismiss all this with "…it's just another means to tax, control us, limit our freedom of movement…". Frankly Hud, it’s no wonder kensalriser wrote what he did.
Amazing really isn’t it?
I mean, fund a climate scientist to investigate climate change and they report that; yes there is climate change and it’s all being caused by us via x, y and z….. keep us funded and we’ll show you more.
It’s not self fulfilling one bit.
Then you can dismiss the other scientists who show that for instance the continent of the USA was actually far hotter in the 1920’s and 30’s that it is now.
And round we go.
I’ll remain focused and key issues for the next 10 to 40 years being energy security, over population, military security (keeping lunatics away from the nuclear button) and the price of alcohol
Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal
2
General Election Thread on 10:40 - Jun 16 with 1787 views
General Election Thread on 09:43 - Jun 16 by hoopdog
Then vote reform to break the mould
If you think immigration is the only important issue in this GE, then you should vote Reform. Anybody else should have a peek at their other policies and will, almost certainly, conclude they are batshit crazy and/or unaffordable and/or unrealistic. Who wants to see NHS replaced by US style insurance? Or economic policies that make Truss look like a paragon of common sense.
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
4
General Election Thread on 10:44 - Jun 16 with 1782 views
General Election Thread on 10:31 - Jun 16 by Lblock
Amazing really isn’t it?
I mean, fund a climate scientist to investigate climate change and they report that; yes there is climate change and it’s all being caused by us via x, y and z….. keep us funded and we’ll show you more.
It’s not self fulfilling one bit.
Then you can dismiss the other scientists who show that for instance the continent of the USA was actually far hotter in the 1920’s and 30’s that it is now.
And round we go.
I’ll remain focused and key issues for the next 10 to 40 years being energy security, over population, military security (keeping lunatics away from the nuclear button) and the price of alcohol
Who's funding these other scientists then?
There's certainly many established multi billion dollar companies that have a vested interest in continuing as we are.
I’m going to focus on the Climate Change issue as I can’t keep this going on multiple issues.
You mention the younger dryas period, the milankovitch cycles, gleissberg cycles, solar radiation and earth’s magnetic field, as factors that may have affected the climate in the past and maybe doing so today. Climate science does not conclude any of these have a bearing on the rapid changes in the climate today.
The overwhelming scientific consensus for the cause of present day global warming is CO2 produced since the industrial revolution. The discovery that CO2 had a greenhouse effect was made in the mid 19th century. In the mid 20th century scientists began to wake up to the influence humans were having on the climate. Human activity has increased CO2 by nearly 50% since 1750. This rise is greater than at any point since the end of the last ice age 20,000 years ago. Man made CO2 is causing today’s climate change.
This scientific fact is very, very well established by thousands of scientists around the world and tens of thousands of scientific reports produced over many decades. Yet you dismiss all this with "…it's just another means to tax, control us, limit our freedom of movement…". Frankly Hud, it’s no wonder kensalriser wrote what he did.
Yes David, I have to concede that I have not presented my case sufficiently well, or with enough detail, to give you even the slightest cause to reconsider what is - apparently and to all intents and purposes - a very clear-cut case for the main factor in climate change being the rise in CO2 emissions.
I have to admit that I simply can't recall right now (and I put this down to age!) one of the key planks of my argument in relation to the many cycles that our planet goes through, that relates to the earth's tilting over very long cycles (in relation to a human time scales), but has a profound effect on solar radiation; and combined with the other factors I've mentioned, along with sunspot activity, solar flares and solar cycles, shows that the earth has gone through multiple cooling and heating events, of which we know something, because we have evidence of this in the recent glacial and interglacial periods. And in many of these events, there have been more rapid changes in global temperature than we're seeing now.
You also have to factor in other massive influences on the climate such as volcanic activity, tectonic activity and what I call the planet's homeostatic reaction to this, all of which combine to create a far more complex picture in relation to climate change than the one that we are being presented with now, and which is of course the key factor you're talking about, CO2 emissions.
However, admittedly, this is difficult to grasp, certainly without more context than I can provide without a whole raft of further interlinking factors. And in terms of mainstream thinking I'm sure my case appears arcane. But.... is it?
We know that the climate is in a constant state of flux. The particular climate that we think of as 'ideal' for us is in fact something very, very temporary in terms of planetary timescales. And all of the climate science that I've seen seems to focus on a very short period of time and also seems to presuppose that the climate "should" be a certain way.
There is no doubt that human activity probably has some influence on current conditions. And that taken on its own, CO2 can act as a lever in a complex chain of inter-relating factors that could mean there is a possibly a heating factor.
So, to the main issue, which is why I think the concept of 'net zero' is frankly absurd, and unachievable, because of so many factors, for example:
A) One major volcanic eruption can increase CO2 many times more than the current levels. As can tectonic activity.
B) You would need an unbelievable global consensus to even start to lower emissions from countries like China and India, let alone the rest of the world, and there is absolutely no convincing argument for transitioning to non-CO2 emitting energy sources over the timescales being demanded without draconian curbs on energy use in the developed world that would plunge us into a new social and industrial dark age.
And then there's the fact that there's absolutely no guarantee that all of this would make the slightest difference.
I think that 'net zero' is both misguided (when there are far more important and meaningful things we should be doing to protect the environment), and at the same time, being used as an excuse for other agendas; and this is where you come in and think - oh, he's just a mad conspiracy theorist - there are no hidden agendas - everyone from the oligarch level down is purely altruistic and philanthropic when it comes to pushing net zero and all the curbs on social behaviour that come with it.
But let's leave that there, because I don't think I'm ever going to convince you, or anyone else who accepts the prevailing models as a done and dusted case.
In a way it's a shame (understatement?) that I even grasped this particular nettle, because I think the other points I was making in regard to what's happened to the Green party are extremely relevant and very concerning. And this is where I don't understand your position and why I think (perhaps unfairly and without much justification other than how I interpret your posts in this thread) you are blinkered. I am talking about, for example, what is happening in terms of actual reality being warped by the agendas of trans-activism to the point that you have the NHS now talking about 'people who menstruate' or 'chest feeding' because they don't want to upset an extremely vocal, and to my mind aggressive, minority who would have us believe that a man can breastfeed a child, or even more ludicrously, become pregnant. Or, apparently, that a woman can have a penis. And under the aegis of this madness, there is the very dangerous idea of 'self-identification' that gives anyone, no matter the legitimacy of their belief or level of their sanity, or sexual agenda or fetish, the ability to say they are now a different gender and should therefore have unlimited access to the previously sacrosanct spaces of women and girls (for example), or that they can legitimately compete fairly with women or girls.....
And this warping of, in my opinion, unarguable truth, has had an even more wide-reaching and pernicious effect, which is cancel culture and the frightening curb on the freedom to express yourself and to express legitimate concerns; one example of countless examples would be women being sacked (there are loads of cases) for saying they don't want to give men who identify as women access to their toilets or changing rooms... and so on and so on. I spoke to woman only last night who is an NHS manager who said she despaired at what is happening. Look at the case of Maya Forstater, which you're possibly aware of, and then extrapolate that through our culture... this is a battle for the ability to speak truth, versus an Orwellian form of social control. I think it's bloody scary and I think parties like the Green party, who have expelled women for stating biological truths or for expressing concerns about self-identification, are a big part of the problem. I think they have jumped on this cause because it's a political bandwagon that they think will increase their popularity. And honestly, that's the tip of the (melting or increasing? depends on which data you look at) iceberg.
There is so much more to say that concerns me, but I fear I am going on far, far too long and I apologise to you and everyone else for my proselytising.
General Election Thread on 10:31 - Jun 16 by Lblock
Amazing really isn’t it?
I mean, fund a climate scientist to investigate climate change and they report that; yes there is climate change and it’s all being caused by us via x, y and z….. keep us funded and we’ll show you more.
It’s not self fulfilling one bit.
Then you can dismiss the other scientists who show that for instance the continent of the USA was actually far hotter in the 1920’s and 30’s that it is now.
And round we go.
I’ll remain focused and key issues for the next 10 to 40 years being energy security, over population, military security (keeping lunatics away from the nuclear button) and the price of alcohol
Your accusation is an old and tired one that's been debunked time and again. As QPRJim points out, the opposite of what you say is true. It's the fossil fuel industry among others that pay big money to support their interests.
Finding this election incredibly depressing as a younger voter.
There has been little to no discussion of the nuanced complex truths around immigration, environment, economic growth that directly affect my ability to live a life as my parents did in the 80s.
I can’t afford to get on the property ladder, can’t get married or have kids yet as I have no capital despite working a good job, can’t go to Europe freely whether to work or for leisure, spend 40% of my income on rent and the best I’m getting is “economic growth”? Bar the greens whose manifesto is pathetically wishful, every other party doesn’t care about u30s so Labour it is and purely hoping we get lucky. But the way our politics treats young voters is a joke.
And then who crops up to tell all in his great wisdom? The privately educated, commodities trading, millionaire people’s hero. Nigel Fing Farage is stood there telling me it’s because of people risking their lives in the channel? Or coming here with all their dependents (while they’re running the god damn NHS)?
Get in the bin and stay there.
One of the many many many cancers Brexit has imposed on this country is his/Johnson’s politics of sound bites and slogans, over serious policy discussions. Go back and watch YouTube clips of Major vs Blair, or Thatcher vs Callaghan, and look at difference in detail. I don’t agree with a lot of those people but you can see their policy offer. If I was 26 in Thatcher’s Britain I’d get what her offer to me was. This lot aren’t even talking to us.
Yes social media plays a part, as does the lessening quality of politicians and smart people choosing private anonymous jobs over Parliament. But the way political parties view us is absolutely in the bin after what those liars were able to do in 2016.
“Reform” “Change” “Green New Deal” are easy to repeat and don’t require any intellect to say. We need to take some of the blame and start asking our politicians to talk to us like adults not children, if we want to be given real choices at elections.
I don’t think they’ll speak to my generation until we hit that magic mark of middle age, but for those of you they do actually care about - do better, for your younger relatives at least.
The youth consistently have the lowest turnout figures yet are the most vocal in complaining.
Here’s an idea, get off social media and get their arses down to the polling station. Then, and only then, can they have a right to complain. Or maybe they’d end up with nothing to complain about because the vote went their way because they actually voted in significant numbers to make a difference.
The first two graphs show exactly why Conservatives have won. The third graphs shows if the youth had voted in bigger numbers then maybe things would have been different, or at least a lot tighter with conservatives having a lesser majority hold of seats in parliament.
General Election Thread on 10:16 - Jun 16 by Watford_Ranger
I doubt Reform are going to do much about the mould in my spare room.
They’ll inevitably win a handful of seats (bookies suggest single digits is pretty much a cert still and about 15% of the vote), make a load of noise for a few weeks then achieve absolutely nothing on the opposition benches on the rare occasions they bother to turn up.
[Post edited 16 Jun 10:18]
LOL
That's true But all we've got at the moment is 2 cheeks of the same bum that doesnt listen the public just themselves
0
General Election Thread on 15:14 - Jun 16 with 1467 views
General Election Thread on 13:30 - Jun 15 by 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.”
Absolutely spot on.
And while we’ve been neutering ourselves pontificating over this subject we’ve got poorer whilst the countries that ignored the climate change agenda have become so wealthy that they have effectively gained almost total domination over us economically and militarily.
It’s complete madness.
2
General Election Thread on 15:28 - Jun 16 with 1443 views
Pro-Climate change is similar to Pro-Smokers in the 70's.
The actual scientists did way more research against the bad scientists (often funded by Big Tabacco) who only produced minimal amounts of pathetic research that was, over many years, finally and wholly debunked.
Even then, people would say it's all about nothing and smoking is fine; it has to do with something else. Also, these obscure scientists who have been rejected by the evidence and their peers were trotted out as an example of an alternative view. Yes, it was an alternative; it was wrong!
We had to spend decades educating (what some would call fear I call honesty), billions of monies and people's lives were lost, proving to these naysayers that, no, actually, smoking is horrible for you. For these pro-smokers to finally say, yeah, well, it is terrible, but it's my choice. And then we had to spend more decades, more billions and losing more lives proving passive smoking was bad, too. There were lots of rubbish scientists who were in the minority defending that one as well.
Then we had the afters of polluted air affecting asthmatics and even people with healthy lungs, but that was all apparently made up or wrong too.
Its always he same, the majority of the science industry gets it correct the majority of the time (not always), yet these naysayers just cannot fathom the change. It's everyone else being wrong somehow, yet they have no real evidence from no real credible sources (as they often get debunked). And yet more decades, billions and peoples lives will be lost.
Really, you have to question, are these people in the best interests of the majority? Can they not understand they are not the experts? That they have not done research properly? And it is up to them to prove it wrong not the other way around? Not just be a naysayer because, once again, they cannot accept that the science is against them?
zzzzzzzzzz
3
General Election Thread on 16:01 - Jun 16 with 1413 views
General Election Thread on 15:14 - Jun 16 by stevec
Absolutely spot on.
And while we’ve been neutering ourselves pontificating over this subject we’ve got poorer whilst the countries that ignored the climate change agenda have become so wealthy that they have effectively gained almost total domination over us economically and militarily.
It’s complete madness.
Now I'm really confused because earlier I thought it was suggested we were doing better than other countries because of Brexit, now we're worse off because of net zero targets. Can't be bothered and if we are worse off how much of that is due to net zero and how much is Brexit?
I think the biggest error we've made as a nation was in 2010 when the lib dems wanted to invest in green energy to make us a world leader. But that was the era of austerity being the solution and investment being a waste of money. I've recently looked into solar panels and batteries for our house and most of the PVs come from china, one company offered us Spanish PVs. The batteries were all Chinese and one of the companies only set up in 2019.
1
General Election Thread on 16:42 - Jun 16 with 1356 views
I find it hard that people can deny man-made climate change, in the face of so much scientific evidence. I don't think UK, alone, can make a huge difference. However, if you accept that climate change is real, then it makes sense to try and do something about it, however limited. UK has not really invested in renewables to the extent necessary. Maybe, transitioning from fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) is the correct approach. Can it bring sufficient jobs and make a tangible impact? I don't have the answers, but I'm sure therre are experts out there who can.
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
1
General Election Thread on 20:06 - Jun 16 with 1242 views
General Election Thread on 16:01 - Jun 16 by stevec
Where’s the Momentum boys and girls taken their politics now they’ve been largely kicked out of Labour, Baz?
Most will vote Labour (under protest), some will vote Green, a small minority will vote independents / TUSC / WPGB.
The overstatement of Momentum’s politics always makes me chuckle. I went to loads of events and it was as tame as a WI meeting, and probably the same age bracket.
A journalist infiltrated once, and didn’t even bother writing the article it was so non controversial.
0
General Election Thread on 22:54 - Jun 16 with 1084 views
General Election Thread on 16:42 - Jun 16 by derbyhoop
I find it hard that people can deny man-made climate change, in the face of so much scientific evidence. I don't think UK, alone, can make a huge difference. However, if you accept that climate change is real, then it makes sense to try and do something about it, however limited. UK has not really invested in renewables to the extent necessary. Maybe, transitioning from fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) is the correct approach. Can it bring sufficient jobs and make a tangible impact? I don't have the answers, but I'm sure therre are experts out there who can.
In all fairness why would you care about WTF the UK does?
Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal
-1
General Election Thread on 23:38 - Jun 16 with 1046 views
The Reform candidate for Essex North West has been forced to stand down as it has emerged he has previously urged people to vote BNP and suggested Tony Blair be extradited to a country that uses torture. Nice chap…..
2
General Election Thread on 23:49 - Jun 16 with 1014 views
General Election Thread on 23:38 - Jun 16 by 222gers
The Reform candidate for Essex North West has been forced to stand down as it has emerged he has previously urged people to vote BNP and suggested Tony Blair be extradited to a country that uses torture. Nice chap…..
On the bright side he stays on the ballot so can still nick a few votes off the Tories. I suspect if some digging was done on every hastily appointed Reform candidate this would look pretty tame in comparison to most.
1
General Election Thread on 23:52 - Jun 16 with 1000 views
General Election Thread on 23:49 - Jun 16 by Watford_Ranger
On the bright side he stays on the ballot so can still nick a few votes off the Tories. I suspect if some digging was done on every hastily appointed Reform candidate this would look pretty tame in comparison to most.
I've been trying to marry my daughter off for some time…..he seems the right sort of chappy, the right sort of background ( pronounced “ beckgrind ).
0
General Election Thread on 09:24 - Jun 17 with 829 views
I for one can only hope those paragons of virtue that are the phalanx of Labour and Tory party mp's, councillors, Mayor's, House of lords members and electorial candidates for public office that have faced charges of child grooming, sexual assault, GBH, threats with menance and various fiscal frauds of the public purse over the past few years, can stand shoulder to shoulder today and condem this reform candidates tweet in the most vigorous of terms.
Alas lads i'm off to Puerto de Mogan in Gran Canaria in a couple of hours until satuday evening for my wifes 5oth birthday celebrations to see the bees and things and flowers.
However , i can be contacted via western union transcontiental telegram at the Raddison Blu hotel , Puerto de Mogan , should any further tweets from 2015 be unearthed about a reform candidates 3rd cousin twice removed attendance at a 1999 charity dinner for white south african farmers, hosted by Eugene Terre'Blanche.
[Post edited 17 Jun 9:25]
"...The monkey is never dead, Dealer. The monkey never dies. When you kick him off, he just hides in a corner, waiting his turn."
0
General Election Thread on 11:26 - Jun 17 with 722 views
General Election Thread on 09:24 - Jun 17 by Discodroids
I for one can only hope those paragons of virtue that are the phalanx of Labour and Tory party mp's, councillors, Mayor's, House of lords members and electorial candidates for public office that have faced charges of child grooming, sexual assault, GBH, threats with menance and various fiscal frauds of the public purse over the past few years, can stand shoulder to shoulder today and condem this reform candidates tweet in the most vigorous of terms.
Alas lads i'm off to Puerto de Mogan in Gran Canaria in a couple of hours until satuday evening for my wifes 5oth birthday celebrations to see the bees and things and flowers.
However , i can be contacted via western union transcontiental telegram at the Raddison Blu hotel , Puerto de Mogan , should any further tweets from 2015 be unearthed about a reform candidates 3rd cousin twice removed attendance at a 1999 charity dinner for white south african farmers, hosted by Eugene Terre'Blanche.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.