news & politics:discussion

[steviewevie]

57 minutes ago, lost said:

I've seen comments that Reeves is commited to keep the NI cut. Also suggestions it will mean worse austerity than under Osborne. Something has to give. I can see Starmers honeymoon period from the likes of momentum being measured in weeks rather than months.

I think he needs a big win to shore up the party with centrists to push through any cuts.

I think there will be a bit of everything, some cuts to spending, but some increases of taxes. Even if tories won I think would be similar, it isn't sustainable.

And Starmer's honeymoon with the left will be non existent from the start.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Not meaningless at all, that article doesn’t really say anything and Labour are still committed to green investment and making the U.K. a clean energy country. As much as that might annoy the right wingers…

You might just as well say they're committed to ending world hunger. That's just as meaningless.
I think Labour breaking commitments will annoy Labour voters much more than right wingers.

[steviewevie]

But but...Tories are setting up this whole green investment thingy as their attack on Labour in election campaign...want to go with tax cutting Tories, or Labour who will put us in even more debt and/or put up taxes to pay for all this green crap and stop you driving your range rovers.

So, there is some of that too I expect. A calculation. Labour are terrified of another 1992.

[steviewevie]

maybe a bit of kite flying...

 

[pink_triangle]

29 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

So meaningless then.

 

I think they've finally realised that Labour will never get elected with a far left wing manifesto. Far better to wait until they're elected with more moderate policies and then slowly infiltrate the party again. They certainly haven't gone away.

I think a lot in momentum are middle class protesters who like screaming from opposition, but wouldn’t want the hard work of government.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

maybe a bit of kite flying...

 

You mean the story was complete nonsense, which shockingly came out a day after that Sunak video and again shockingly people overreacted too. Well I never…

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

You mean the story was complete nonsense, which shockingly came out a day after that Sunak video and again shockingly people overreacted too. Well I never…

Came from somewhere...maybe some at top of labour are not on board with it..

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Came from somewhere...maybe some at top of labour are not on board with it..

I doubt it really came from anyone that has much insight into the policy. People really should not fall for this type of thing again and again. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

Came from somewhere...maybe some at top of labour are not on board with it..

Possibly not at the top for much longer.

[Guest]

... also Labour are going to be finding this more and more. It's easy to make commitments to make you popular when in opposition, but when you get closer to an election (and subsequently in Government), you quickly find you can't do half of what you promised.  

Edited November 25, 2023 by Ommadawn

[steviewevie]

2nd day and ceasefire and hostage release thing has already hit a problem.

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

 

[Rufus Gwertigan]

11 hours ago, Ozanne said:

Not meaningless at all, that article doesn’t really say anything and Labour are still committed to green investment and making the U.K. a clean energy country. As much as that might annoy the right wingers…

We keep on saying clean energy but it isn't while nuclear is a central tenate.

[steviewevie]

 

[mattiloy]

4 hours ago, Barry Fish said:

No energy is truly clean.  It takes a lot of carbon admissions to make a wind turbine.  But obviously it pays you back.

Same can be said for nuclear.

Wind and tidal is just too variable.  We need something that is a constant producer like nuclear instead of coal.

Nuclear mixed with the likes of wind and solar is the only game in town and its green enough.

There is now a wealth of literature suggesting that renewables combined with greater efficiency would be sufficient alone.

The real problem is that rare metals required for the green transition are located mainly in countries that are competitors to the west, whilst uranium reserves are located in either friendly or at least malleable countries.

Thats why the venn diagram between people horny for nuclear power and people horny for NATO is a circle.

The issues with nuclear are the cost and time before putting it into production and the cost and hazards of decommissioning.

Its just kicking a great big barrel of nuclear waste into the long grass. You invite limited liability companies to come in and generate electricity and maximise their profits on the promise that they’ll clean up after themselves, they pinky promise, make a stack of cash, pay it out in dividends and then when the partys over they go out of business and the govt is left with the bill for tidying it up.

The Sellafield decommissioning has already cost the taxpayer over 100bn. Meanwhile its also had various incidents leaking tens of thousands of gallons of radioactive waste water into the irish sea.

Edited November 26, 2023 by mattiloy

[Neil]

21 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

There is now a wealth of literature suggesting that renewables combined with greater efficiency would be sufficient alone.

The real problem is that rare metals required for the green transition are located mainly in countries that are competitors to the west, whilst uranium reserves are located in either friendly or at least malleable countries.

Thats why the venn diagram between people horny for nuclear power and people horny for NATO is a circle.

The issues with nuclear are the cost and time before putting it into production and the cost and hazards of decommissioning.

Its just kicking a great big barrel of nuclear waste into the long grass. You invite limited liability companies to come in and generate electricity and maximise their profits on the promise that they’ll clean up after themselves, they pinky promise, make a stack of cash, pay it out in dividends and then when the partys over they go out of business and the govt is left with the bill for tidying it up.

The Sellafield decommissioning has already cost the taxpayer over 100bn. Meanwhile its also had various incidents leaking tens of thousands of gallons of radioactive waste water into the irish sea.

the govt were always on the hook for sellafield decommissioning  as it was always all  a govt project.

[steviewevie]

yeah...isn't cost of renewables coming down and nuclear spiraling upwards? 

[Neil]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

yeah...isn't cost of renewables coming down and nuclear spiraling upwards? 

mostly, but output from renewables is tied to oil and gas prices, so mostly more expensive.

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Neil said:

mostly, but output from renewables is tied to oil and gas prices, so mostly more expensive.

they need to do something about that.

[steviewevie]

HAHAHA horrible racist twat.

[steviewevie]

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Are his pants on fire?

[Paul ™]

Is that pic real 😁

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Paul ™ said:

Is that pic real 😁