General UK politics

[MomoWASright]

Well the hole in the ozone layer isn't fixed yet despite CFC's being replaced. As regards clean energy it'll be technology that makes progress and not martyrdom..

Investing in such technology and ignoring the lobbying from fossil fuel companies.

 

[jexykrodic]

Billions leave the UK every year to pay for oil and gas. Billions.

Yes we outsource our production of oil and gas needs and pretend we are reducing our emissions. As if co2 doesn't happen elsewhere.

 

[jexykrodic]

Investing in such technology and ignoring the lobbying from fossil fuel companies.

Now that I could live with but then I'm not promised a non executive position on retirement with a healthy stipend and expense account by a giant fossil fuel company.

 

[dogboy]

You can pay more I wouldn't stop you.

Are we seeing what is called "the end of the uniparty" in the UK?

It's doesn't seem a stretch to think many voters will 'try something different' next time.

I suppose that if you increase the population by 10 million+ in the last two decades it's not entirely surprising that the infrastructure begins to degrade as available funds are spread thinner.

Everybody can see the lack of housebuilds, the potholes in the road, the reduction in local authority services etc

To upgrade all infrastructure needs money and the markets won't lend except at high rates currently as they seem nervy about the chance of seeing money well spent.

Above all it needs political will and (in my opinion) the traditional parties are hamstrung due to their respective ideologies (we see this in numerous EU states as well), it needs shock treatment that new entities can provide.

Still waiting for an answer on what "shock treatment" we require.

 

[jexykrodic]

Still waiting for an answer on what "shock treatment" we require.

Well, put it down to eliminating waste if you need a simplification. We're in debt but still spending on ideologies. Post #287 will guide you as to where my shock treatment would begin.

 

[dogboy]

Well, put it down to eliminating waste if you need a simplification. We're in debt but still spending on ideologies. Post #287 will guide you as to where my shock treatment would begin.

Sure, that's what you meant.

 

[Richey]

I wouldn't be against raising loads of tax from the rich if it was absolutely necessary and the government at least acknowledged it was a necessary evil that they'd stop as soon as they could. It probably is absolutely necessary right now tbf, but I just never see any sign of that concession.

I think parties like the Greens would take as much as they could forever just because they passionately hate the rich. I don't like that personally.

Yes, I'd probably take a similar position to be honest.

It would be unlikely to be a one-off because it rarely is. Once a tax becomes acceptable it doesn't tend to away and the reach of it just extends.

You can learn a lot about how a party thinks from how they attack other parties.

Not long ago I was seeing the attack lines from the Green Party against Reform. The lines were essentially 'Reform are run by billionaires'. That was it. Of all the things you can attack Reform for, that was what they landed on. Perhaps unsurprisingly, not a lot of people gave a shit about that.

 

[dogboy]

Yes, I'd probably take a similar position to be honest.

It would be unlikely to be a one-off because it rarely is. Once a tax becomes acceptable it doesn't tend to away and the reach of it just extends.

You can learn a lot about how a party thinks from how they attack other parties.

Not long ago I was seeing the attack lines from the Green Party against Reform. The lines were essentially 'Reform are run by billionaires'. That was it. Of all the things you can attack Reform for, that was what they landed on. Perhaps unsurprisingly, not a lot of people gave a shit about that.

I'd guess that angle from the Green's was to highlight that Reform aren't a party of the 'people'.

 

[Richey]

I'd guess that angle from the Green's was to highlight that Reform aren't a party of the 'people'.

Sure, and I agree with them on that, but it's just telling that that was the angle that they took.

I can think of other times when parties have tried to attack opponents based on them being rich or being posh or whatever, but I can't think of a time when it has worked. I honestly think that the vast majority have no interest in how much money someone has or how a party is funded or whatever as long as they agree with what they are saying.

It's not countering the arguments, it's just saying 'don't listen to them. They're rich or they're posh or they're backed by billionaires'.

 

[dogboy]

Over 100k gormless clowns on parade in London today.