news & politics:discussion

[stuie]

3 minutes ago, Neil said:

are you too dumb to recognise why flying is bad?

you really can't comment on passive aggression when you post stuff like that. 

is your son too dumb to recognise why flying is bad?  were you too dumb when you used to fly to the states?  we've always known flying is bad. 

[Neil]

Just now, stuie said:

you really can't comment on passive aggression when you post stuff like that. 

is your son too dumb to recognise why flying is bad?  were you too dumb when you used to fly to the states?  we've always known flying is bad. 

hes smart enough to realise, despite being a kid. he's pledged to give it up.

[Gingerfish79]

2 hours ago, steviewevie said:

That Blair guy again

 

He's not wrong though. 

[Neil]

1 minute ago, stuie said:

you really can't comment on passive aggression when you post stuff like that. 

i'm not the one who complains about it.

[Neil]

3 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

Could we get the thread back on track please 

labour are officially ditching their green pledge today.

[fraybentos1]

8 minutes ago, Neil said:

how long have yacht's been flying???

i'll be going there by train. mr troll

are you too dumb to recognise why flying is bad?

Mega yachts are obviously famous for their green credentials!

First and foremost, owning a megayacht is the most polluting activity a single person can possibly engage in. Abramovich’s yachts emit more than 22,000 tonnes of carbon every year, which is more than some small countries. Even flying long-haul every day of the year, or air-conditioning a sprawling palace, would not get close to those emissions levels.

 

‘Megayachts’ are environmentally indefensible. The world must ban them | Chris Armstrong | The Guardian

[fraybentos1]

4 minutes ago, Neil said:

 he's pledged to give it up.

That's brave of him.

You told us on here the other day he'd just booked another holiday lol

[stuie]

6 minutes ago, Neil said:

you ever thought of giving it up? you're like the geezer in the traffic jam complaining about it  but not realising that he is the traffic jam.

Maybe I will one day but I want to see some of the world first, just like you did.  I don't have kids and I don't eat meat anymore so I'm happy with my carbon trade off. 

[Gingerfish79]

Tory's re-writing Labours election manifesto one attack at a time. They must be dying of laughter over at CCHQ. Starmer U-turns more than Theresa May did, and she was basically a spinning top by the end.

Seriously, how are they falling into this trap again? Decade after decade. They're so determined to give the Tory's nothing to attack, there'll be nothing for the non-affiliated public to vote for come the election. If they think 'vote for us because we're not them' will be enough, they're sadly mistaken.

[Skip997]

19 minutes ago, stuie said:

Labour or Conservative, there is no way this country can achieve clean energy by 2030.  We have motorways full of fossil fuel cars and lorries, 7000 planes in our skies every day and about 50% of our energy still comes from non-renewable sources. Even 28 billion a year won't fix that. 

Correct

 

[fraybentos1]

2 minutes ago, Gingerfish79 said:

If they think 'vote for us because we're not them' will be enough, they're sadly mistaken.

it probably will be in 2024 due to the extreme unpopularity of the tories

[steviewevie]

 

[1986]

27 minutes ago, Gingerfish79 said:

Tory's re-writing Labours election manifesto one attack at a time. They must be dying of laughter over at CCHQ. Starmer U-turns more than Theresa May did, and she was basically a spinning top by the end.

Seriously, how are they falling into this trap again? Decade after decade. They're so determined to give the Tory's nothing to attack, there'll be nothing for the non-affiliated public to vote for come the election. If they think 'vote for us because we're not them' will be enough, they're sadly mistaken.

I'm not defending Labour cus the gap between the parties is getting thinner by the day. But they don't just have the Tories' attacks to worry about, it's every one of the biggest papers in the country telling their readers how evil Labour are with every move they make.

Labour's best bet is to shut up all together until the election and let the Tories keep destroying themselves.

[lazyred]

1 hour ago, stuie said:

Labour or Conservative, there is no way this country can achieve clean energy by 2030.  We have motorways full of fossil fuel cars and lorries, 7000 planes in our skies every day and about 50% of our energy still comes from non-renewable sources. Even 28 billion a year won't fix that. 

The target is just green electricity by 2030 and net zero by 2050. The 2030 target is still not achievable without massive investment and planning reform

[steviewevie]

19 minutes ago, 1986 said:

I'm not defending Labour cus the gap between the parties is getting thinner by the day. But they don't just have the Tories' attacks to worry about, it's every one of the biggest papers in the country telling their readers how evil Labour are with every move they make.

Labour's best bet is to shut up all together until the election and let the Tories keep destroying themselves.

I'm sure they'd love to, but they came up with this big flagship policy, so either stick with it and defend it from Tory attacks, or drop it and look uturny and indecisive and just a bit boring same old but maybe a bit more competent.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, lazyred said:

The target is just green electricity by 2030 and net zero by 2050. The 2030 target is still not achievable without massive investment and planning reform

yeah, I think people need reminding of what goals are. 

What are current government goals, any different?

[lazyred]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

yeah, I think people need reminding of what goals are. 

What are current government goals, any different?

Make up some lower future spending plan and cut taxes before the election

[steviewevie]

This is what Labour currently have...

 

[steviewevie]

[Gingerfish79]

7 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I'm sure they'd love to, but they came up with this big flagship policy, so either stick with it and defend it from Tory attacks, or drop it and look uturny and indecisive and just a bit boring same old but maybe a bit more competent.

The problem they'll find, the public don't know that they will be more competent. And the more they U-turn and show no conviction in their ideas, the less and less people will believe that they can be competent

[lost]

Hinkley might be ready by 2030. I think Sizewell is looking more like the middle of the next decade.

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, Gingerfish79 said:

The problem they'll find, the public don't know that they will be more competent. And the more they U-turn and show no conviction in their ideas, the less and less people will believe that they can be competent

yes, true...but even with this they will still look more competent than the current lot.

Some people will think they are being sensible with the countries finances, but at same time the country is obviously crying out for change..it's why we had brexit, Corbyn, Johnson. But now it's a choice between two rather dull leaders, but Sunak is in charge of a crazed divided party, Starmer's Labour seems to be very much his party at moment, but this change of policy could f**k that.

[Skip997]

 

 

Edited February 8, 2024 by Skip997

[steviewevie]

Anyway...when's the announcement...Starmer might surprise us all and say f**k it he's binning the 28bn and replacing it with 128bn.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Skip997 said:

 

Nuclear better that solar/hydro...