Investing in such technology and ignoring the lobbying from fossil fuel companies.
General UK politics
- Thread starter dee
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Yes we outsource our production of oil and gas needs and pretend we are reducing our emissions. As if co2 doesn't happen elsewhere.
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.
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.
Sure, that's what you meant.
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'.
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'.
Supposedly a Freedom of Speech March but has a speaker that wants to ban all other religions other than Christianity
Your party seem to have ripped themselves apart before even starting.
An email came out this morning with a link to a membership portal. 20,000 signed up straight away.
This afternoon a follow up email was sent saying don’t use that link, cancel all payments and direct debits. It was signed by everyone involved apart from Zarah Sultana.
Zarah released a statement saying it was the right portal and the funding would be used for party then said all others involved are geriatric, misogynistic pricks.
An email came out this morning with a link to a membership portal. 20,000 signed up straight away.
This afternoon a follow up email was sent saying don’t use that link, cancel all payments and direct debits. It was signed by everyone involved apart from Zarah Sultana.
Zarah released a statement saying it was the right portal and the funding would be used for party then said all others involved are geriatric, misogynistic pricks.
I honestly don't understand why these idiots don't just join the Greens. It's all so Judean Peoples Front.
On the face of it, yes, that would make a lot more sense.
These are people who are very seriously into politics though.
If we just take Corbyn as an example, because it's easier, this is hardly a man known for his willingness to compromise. The Green Party is an established party with policy positions. You can easily imagine that if there's even one he doesn't like, it's a red line. I suspect his mates are probably even more extreme on this than he is.
Secondly, and on the subject of his friends, there's bound to be loads of old Labour types involved in this. Whereas Corbyn and Sultana would probably end up in prominent positions in the Greens if they wanted to, the background people would not, so it's probably more appealing to them to have their own party.
Fair enough I suppose. And to add to that, Corbyn does have an undeniable brand to draw upon. It's just a bit of an absurd situation when you take a step back.
What a shit show. They haven't been fully aligned from day one - she announced the party before Corbyn was prepared to comment, but this is a misstep that goes beyond that. They clearly can't stand one another if they can't communicate over fundamental decisions.
Kind of hard to do much when all the self interest and money seems to exist with the right currently and all the motivation and drive seems to be focussed tearing society apart whichever country you are in.
Just take a look at how many prominent right wing parties there is in UK. So much choice between center right, right and far right shouting loudest.
Just take a look at how many prominent right wing parties there is in UK. So much choice between center right, right and far right shouting loudest.
Raisin the stakes then....
The grape of wrath.
I had a friend who drowned in a bowl of muesli. A strong currant pulled him in.
It's the kind of policy that would easily unravel if you were to pull at any thread of it.
Unfortunately it's also the kind of policy where it's intended audience wouldn't bother pulling at any of those threads.
My worry is that the other parties won't counter it properly and will simply try to adopt something similar, so we'll end with a choice of picking on foreigners turquoise version, picking on foreigners blue version or picking on foreigners red version.
Unfortunately it's also the kind of policy where it's intended audience wouldn't bother pulling at any of those threads.
My worry is that the other parties won't counter it properly and will simply try to adopt something similar, so we'll end with a choice of picking on foreigners turquoise version, picking on foreigners blue version or picking on foreigners red version.
It seems obvious (at least to me) that successive governments have ignored the electorate on immigration. In fact the numbers and rate of entry seems to be increasing.
Consequently we now have a burgeoning population without the means to process or support them, thus we have lots of 'economically inactive' persons (forgive the jargon) - over 9 million.
If you like numbers: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9366/CBP-9366.pdf from the House of Commons library.
How do we fund all this. More taxes and borrowing?
I don't think that's the most pertinent question at this point. Many people would have liked much less immigration. Personally I'd have liked much more. There are all kinds of ways the challenges associated with either of those outcomes could've been approached, but it's essentially an academic argument at this point.
The people are here and came legally. Most of them will have put down secure roots. To start talking about deporting them is imo fucking shameful.
The people are here and came legally. Most of them will have put down secure roots. To start talking about deporting them is imo fucking shameful.
