UK Politics

[steviewevie]

13 minutes ago, lost said:

 

Could be even sooner:

 

 

What's counter terrorism offences?

[lazyred]

16 minutes ago, lost said:

 

Could be even sooner:

 

 

 

Shockat Adams brother (not the man arrested) helped found an Islamist group the Friends of Al-Aqsa.

Edited July 10, 2024 by lazyred

[lazyred]

1 hour ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Seems Labour are keeping, what they called in their manifesto, an 'ineffective' cull.

Such a Tory thing to do, kill wild animals pretending it will sort a man made problem.

Angry, much.

https://www.badgertrust.org.uk/post/confusion-and-disappointment-as-labour-now-say-they-will-not-end-the-badger-cull-immediately

It's disgusting. If I remember right, there was a proper Govt Inquiry years ago that said the cull wouldn't work.

[mattiloy]

19 hours ago, steviewevie said:

 

 

Whats the issue? If you are a green MP and your choice is the destruction of a sizeable amount of green space to get electricity from A to B or to not do that, I think its fairly clear that you’d choose to not do that?

 

It is clear that Labour are worried about the greens though, and that over the next 5 years they should expect to be given the Corbyn treatment.

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

 

Whats the issue? If you are a green MP and your choice is the destruction of a sizeable amount of green space to get electricity from A to B or to not do that, I think its fairly clear that you’d choose to not do that?

 

It is clear that Labour are worried about the greens though, and that over the next 5 years they should expect to be given the Corbyn treatment.

depends if priority is to de-carbonise as quickly and as cheaply as possible, or those green spaces.

 

Not sure how it is clear Labour are worried about greens at all. Zero carbon power by 2030 was in their manifesto...and this whole pylons in Anglia thing pre-dated this govt anyway...previously is was local tory MPs moaning about it...

f**k all to do with Corbyn either.

[steviewevie]

[kaosmark2]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

depends if priority is to de-carbonise as quickly and as cheaply as possible, or those green spaces.

 

Not sure how it is clear Labour are worried about greens at all. Zero carbon power by 2030 was in their manifesto...and this whole pylons in Anglia thing pre-dated this govt anyway...previously is was local tory MPs moaning about it...

f**k all to do with Corbyn either.

An issue on the left wing generally, and the Green party specifically, is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. It happened with Corbyn's Labour, and it's happened for the Greens before about wind power, wave power, nuclear power. I think their councillors have done a good job in Bristol and Carla has generally spoken responsibly about this,

 

I'm not going to give the Greens a free pass if they're going to impede more efficient energy by indulging NIMBYism. I want the party as a whole to grow up.

[fraybentos1]

22 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

 

Whats the issue? If you are a green MP and your choice is the destruction of a sizeable amount of green space to get electricity from A to B or to not do that, I think its fairly clear that you’d choose to not do that?

 

It is clear that Labour are worried about the greens though, and that over the next 5 years they should expect to be given the Corbyn treatment.

They don't want pylons, they don't want solar farms, they don't want HS2, they don't want nuclear power. They just don't want anything built. Embarrassing party.

[Neil]

2 hours ago, Crazyfool01 said:

 MOD

 

 Neil please refer to people by username and without insults this thread is much improved of late . would be great to keep it that way . Thank you 

Has he turned his lights off or is he noise not action.

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

An issue on the left wing generally, and the Green party specifically, is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. It happened with Corbyn's Labour, and it's happened for the Greens before about wind power, wave power, nuclear power. I think their councillors have done a good job in Bristol and Carla has generally spoken responsibly about this,

 

I'm not going to give the Greens a free pass if they're going to impede more efficient energy by indulging NIMBYism. I want the party as a whole to grow up.

In the end he did it because it is obviously a big issue in that area and he wanted to win. Simple as that.

[kaosmark2]

25 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

In the end he did it because it is obviously a big issue in that area and he wanted to win. Simple as that.

Oh yes, and pandering to NIMBYism is losing my respect. I don't think it's surprising but it's same old politics.

[fraybentos1]

32 minutes ago, Neil said:

Has he turned his lights off or is he noise not action.

Yeah cause the only way you can possibly be in favour of green policies is to live like a caveman! Good point.

It's a bit like you telling people not to fly when you've flown plenty yourself and bragged about spending this summer on a yacht.. which I'm assuming didn't actually happen lol

[steviewevie]

 

[mattiloy]

2 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

An issue on the left wing generally, and the Green party specifically, is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. It happened with Corbyn's Labour, and it's happened for the Greens before about wind power, wave power, nuclear power. I think their councillors have done a good job in Bristol and Carla has generally spoken responsibly about this,

 

I'm not going to give the Greens a free pass if they're going to impede more efficient energy by indulging NIMBYism. I want the party as a whole to grow up.

 

I disagree. The government should take decisions based on the lifetime value- including trying to quantify the nature value of the alternatives and the implied costs of financing- and then make the best decision. Not the one that gives them the best bang for the buck in a moment, or a 5 year term. A lot of the issues with the current state of uk public finances are a product of short term decision making. I understand that the political system disincentivises long term decision making, and that its difficult to quantify things like nature value. But they should always strive to make that decision:

 

Lifetime value of alternative = present value of infrastructure + future value added from nature benefits - present value of cost (including maintenance, financing costs, opportunity cost of funds)

 

Whichever is the greater should be the winner and they should show their workings and lets be honest about it.

[kaosmark2]

2 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

I disagree. The government should take decisions based on the lifetime value- including trying to quantify the nature value of the alternatives and the implied costs of financing- and then make the best decision. Not the one that gives them the best bang for the buck in a moment, or a 5 year term. A lot of the issues with the current state of uk public finances are a product of short term decision making. I understand that the political system disincentivises long term decision making, and that its difficult to quantify things like nature value. But they should always strive to make that decision:

 

Lifetime value of alternative = present value of infrastructure + future value added from nature benefits - present value of cost (including maintenance, financing costs, opportunity cost of funds)

 

Whichever is the greater should be the winner and they should show their workings and lets be honest about it.

Governments/politicians making short term decisions isn't the same issue as voting down policies that improve infrastructure and people's lives because "they're not good enough". I criticise people who voted against AV in the referendum because "it was the wrong system". I'll criticise Blair for a lot of things, but introducing civil partnerships was a step in the right direction and helped make progress that then led to Cameron and Miliband legalising gay marriage.

 

Progress is progress, and while there's a lot of times I wish it were faster, or went further, I strongly believe in voting for some progress over none if you're chasing it at all.

[mattiloy]

2 hours ago, fraybentos1 said:

They don't want pylons, they don't want solar farms, they don't want HS2, they don't want nuclear power. They just don't want anything built. Embarrassing party.

HS2 is a white elephant whose only conceivable purpose was to be to get MPs home quicker to their constituencies in the north on the weekend. The funding should have gone to regional high speed like liverpool to hull.

 

Nuclear power is unnecessary in the uk. Its an island at the far end of the gulf stream. There will never be a day when tidal, solar and wind isnt sufficient if their is sufficient capacity. 
 

Not sure where you get that on wind farms. Theyre in their manifesto.

[steviewevie]

I don't know why they bother with experts, they're all on this forum.

[mattiloy]

1 minute ago, kaosmark2 said:

Governments/politicians making short term decisions isn't the same issue as voting down policies that improve infrastructure and people's lives because "they're not good enough". I criticise people who voted against AV in the referendum because "it was the wrong system". I'll criticise Blair for a lot of things, but introducing civil partnerships was a step in the right direction and helped make progress that then led to Cameron and Miliband legalising gay marriage.

 

Progress is progress, and while there's a lot of times I wish it were faster, or went further, I strongly believe in voting for some progress over none if you're chasing it at all.

You look at the voting record of almost any labour MP 2010-2024 and you’ll see that they vote against a net good tory policy because they prefer a net better solution (not least over brexit). Thats how opposition works and its healthy, many ideas that come to light from the opposition in the battleground of ideas in the commons end up being adopted later.

[fraybentos1]

27 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

whose only conceivable purpose was to be to get MPs home quicker to their constituencies in the north on the weekend

aw shut up lol 'only conceivable purpose' utter shite.

Corbyn 'would keep HS2' if elected | Meridian - ITV News Here's corbyn backing it anyway just for the lols

 

29 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Nuclear power is unnecessary in the uk. Its an island at the far end of the gulf stream. There will never be a day when tidal, solar and wind isnt sufficient if their is sufficient capacity. 

aw sorry it's so simple, we will put you in charge! what about actually harnessing that energy even if what you say is true. Oppose nuclear and get more coal burning- see germany for further details

 

30 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

 

Not sure where you get that on wind farms. Theyre in their manifesto

I said solar farms- google it and you'll see plenty of green opposition. But but let me guess ''they aren't against them they just think XYZ is better' nope- they're NIMBYs plain and simple. Look at their co-leader rallying against some pylons the other day. 

 

They will always make perfect the enemy of good and it's not how to run a country or get things done quickly

[steviewevie]

Greens are themselves a coalition like all parties...a mix of ecologically minded conservatives, hippies, and now disgruntled corbynites. But, they now have 4 MPs and so have become more of a player and could have a bigger say in the years to come, but they too will have their own internal trouble on stuff like this like all parties do.

 

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

You look at the voting record of almost any labour MP 2010-2024 and you’ll see that they vote against a net good tory policy because they prefer a net better solution (not least over brexit). Thats how opposition works and its healthy, many ideas that come to light from the opposition in the battleground of ideas in the commons end up being adopted later.

Half of it isn't about preferring a net better solution, it's about playing politics. The way opposition works in this country hasn't been healthy for a while, and the fact that the Tories got away with not doing anything except electioneering for the past 20 months in government is on the opposition as well as them. I'm glad Labour are trying to get something (anything) moving now, but we've been in standstill since Truss/Kwarteng got kicked out, and that inertia wasn't held to account.

[lazyred]

When the tories relaxed the steps to net zero it repelled centrists but didnt attract reform supporters

 

[lazyred]

2 hours ago, steviewevie said:

I don't know why they bother with experts, they're all on this forum.

 

 

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]