New Tory Leader

[A Load of Squit 5,223]

Who wants to update his Wikipedia page?

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

On 25/07/2023 at 21:54, ricardo said:

Never mind US Congress is investigating UFO's this week.

UAPs now. Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

[dylanisabaddog 5,013]

On 25/07/2023 at 10:42, littleyellowbirdie said:

Why would I refute points if I don't think they're wrong? The question here is not about facts, but about underlying values and priorities. I don't buy into the concept that the world's here to sustain the maximum possible number of humans in exclusion of anything else. Most discussions involve looking at different aspects of the same problem.

The point you missed is we already exceed sustainable land use. Reallocating land for different usages is shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic. Burning biofuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere just as much as conventional oil and gas production. The argument that the fact it's made from plants that have sucked Carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in being grown ignores the fact that their could have/should have been some other plant life growing in its place that might have been far more efficient for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, like woodland, that would also help the planet's biodiversity at the same time. The argument for biofuels is basically an accountancy trick.

'No one said' anything about eating less for more transport? I said it, because it's a logical fact that if you have a finite amount of land for growing food and fuel, the more you allocate the fuel, the less is available for food (or woodland, or antyhing else). It's not a straw man argument simply to point out the obvious consequences of a path.

My view is quality of life shouldn't be sacrificed for quantity of life. As far as climate change is concerned, it's already too late. There is an excess population of humans on the planet and nature is taking care of it, both through climate change and our own increasing disinclination to breed. We passed the point of no return on climate change years ago, and the big changes in human behaviour still aren't happening fast enough. You've bought into the idea that your milk on your corn flakes, red meat and your cup of tea is the difference  over destroying the world; that's rubbish. Fossil-fuel based transport and heavy industry account for the lion's share of that problem and they're simply not going away fast enough.

The UK's lucky to be one of the best bits of land on the planet for survivability as climate change gets more and more traction. Mitigation of the effects is a worthy cause, but also a futile one given too many of the world's governments are still arguing why others should be dealing with it and not them.

There's no happy ending on this one, no matter how many of life's little pleasures you're willing to be forced to give up for a desperate belief otherwise. But eventually, there'll be less people on the planet thanks to mother nature's supreme power, and the planet will adjust back in the direction of being able to sustain more animal life.

https://techxplore.com/news/2022-04-giant-grass-miscanthus-bioethanol-source.html

[Bort 34]

On 25/07/2023 at 09:17, littleyellowbirdie said:

China’s doing great on behavioural control akin to what you yearn for, but environmental protection isn’t high on their agenda. 

China clearly has work to do on environmental sustainability (like the vast majority of countries), but saying it's not high on their agenda doesn't align with reality.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/799098/global-clean-energy-investment-by-country/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/267233/renewable-energy-capacity-worldwide-by-country/

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-step-up-tree-planting-campaign-help-reach-net-zero-2021-08-20/

https://www.ft.com/content/596736ca-7b1b-4f9c-a490-4d7602d34de0

https://time.com/6187349/china-air-pollution/

etc.

 

Current per capita carbon emissions, for context:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

Just now, Bort said:

China clearly has work to do on environmental sustainability (like the vast majority of countries), but saying it's not high on their agenda doesn't align with reality.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/799098/global-clean-energy-investment-by-country/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/267233/renewable-energy-capacity-worldwide-by-country/

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-step-up-tree-planting-campaign-help-reach-net-zero-2021-08-20/

https://www.ft.com/content/596736ca-7b1b-4f9c-a490-4d7602d34de0

https://time.com/6187349/china-air-pollution/

etc.

 

Current per capita carbon emissions, for context:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita

 

Wowzers, neolib and you out on the same day. Is it a full moon tonight?

[Bort 34]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Wowzers, neolib and you out on the same day. Is it a full moon tonight?

Cute. Let me know when you've read the articles (which you presumably will do, as you're engaging in good faith) x

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

1 minute ago, Bort said:

Cute. Let me know when you've read the articles (which you presumably will do, as you're engaging in good faith) x

Actually, I'm not engaging on this one at all having spent plenty of time thinking about this one already and not under any illusion I can convince you of anything.

[Bort 34]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

Actually, I'm not engaging on this one at all having spent plenty of time thinking about this one already and not under any illusion I can convince you of anything.

I'd suggest you maybe need to spend a bit more time thinking about this one, if you're still parroting lazy anti-China propaganda and apparently ignoring relevant data on the topic.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

2 hours ago, Bort said:

I'd suggest you maybe need to spend a bit more time thinking about this one, if you're still parroting lazy anti-China propaganda and apparently ignoring relevant data on the topic.

China's the single biggest polluting state in the world. That's just fact.

In a spirit of cooperation, we can help China clean up by buying less stuff from them.

[Bort 34]

27 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

China's the single biggest polluting state in the world. That's just fact.

In a spirit of cooperation, we can help China clean up by buying less stuff from them.

Yes, and as I've demonstrated, they're taking steps to address that. Besides, their per capita emissions are currently roughly on par with the UK (and around half of the US).

What specifically do you think we should buy less of from China? Non-essential consumer goods, or something more fundamental? If it is essential, will we manufacture it here instead, or somewhere else overseas?

[benchwarmer 625]

The shortest book ever written

"Rishi Sunak: My Principles"

Edited July 31, 2023 by benchwarmer

[A Load of Squit 5,223]

54 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

The shortest book ever written

"Rishi Sunak: My Principles"

 

 

[dylanisabaddog 5,013]

It would appear that the suggestion to scrap Inheritance Tax didn't work so following the Uxbridge success Sunak has decided that drilling for oil is the way to win the next election. The latest opinion polls suggest that the public doesn't agree and Labour actually gained another point last week. 

I think I'm quite moderate but I have an intense dislike of the current Government. I was chatting to a friend last night who is disillusioned with the Tories who he has always supported. I asked him how he would fight the next election in their shoes and he gave up after 5 minutes. I'm not at all impressed with Starmer but perhaps he's right. All he really has to do is keep his head down and watch the other side implode. Or is it not that simple? 

[TheGunnShow 6,019]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

It would appear that the suggestion to scrap Inheritance Tax didn't work so following the Uxbridge success Sunak has decided that drilling for oil is the way to win the next election. The latest opinion polls suggest that the public doesn't agree and Labour actually gained another point last week. 

I think I'm quite moderate but I have an intense dislike of the current Government. I was chatting to a friend last night who is disillusioned with the Tories who he has always supported. I asked him how he would fight the next election in their shoes and he gave up after 5 minutes. I'm not at all impressed with Starmer but perhaps he's right. All he really has to do is keep his head down and watch the other side implode. Or is it not that simple? 

Exactly. Never interrupt the enemy when they are making mistakes.

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

Exactly. Never interrupt the enemy when they are making mistakes.

SKS has a badly wounded, cornered dangerous animal. It isn't going anywhere but will lash out in unexpected illogical directions in desperation to escape its fate, aided and abetted by fetid right wing rags.  

No need to give it any easy targets or get too close before it expires. 

[Barbe bleu 832]

51 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

SKS has a badly wounded, cornered dangerous animal. It isn't going anywhere but will lash out in unexpected illogical directions in desperation to escape its fate, aided and abetted by fetid right wing rags.  

No need to give it any easy targets or get too close before it expires. 

I think that's right. 

Shame though.  Elections should primarily be about parties putting a list of policies together and the electorate choosing which they prefer.

I had hopes that with two uncharismatic leaders we might see a policy heavy election. I'm not sure that this will happen now though, SKS is clever enough to know that all he needs to do is track the Conservatives and he'll be in no.10 in less than two years.

Edited August 1, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

7 hours ago, TheDarkKnight said:

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23689567.rishi-sunak-confirms-new-oil-gas-licences-north-sea/

Great. More asset stripping of Scotland so that we can prop up Westminster, again.

And we were told back in 2014 that the North Sea would be dry by 2019. (And there were three more occasions before that)

The paradox of it all is amusing. Too poor to be independent and yet rich enough to power Westminster.

No other country would tolerate it. Having our national resources stolen and then paying to get to use it. Then watching the Eton brain-trust **** the profits against the wall.

Meanwhile, in Norway, a nation who has had an almost identical supply of Oil as Scotland, have a national financial reserve worth close to £2 trillion.

As well as the government paying 80% of their citizens gas bills.

Apparently we're "Better together".

Being tethered to Westminster is akin to being a conjoined twin with Trigger from "Only Fools and Horses".

There was originally a similar argument for an 'Independent Norfolk'.

Of all the English counties it was the only one that could make viable mini-state.

It had capital, financial services, could feed itself and also had North Sea Gas.

All squandered.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

8 hours ago, TheDarkKnight said:

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23689567.rishi-sunak-confirms-new-oil-gas-licences-north-sea/

Great. More asset stripping of Scotland so that we can prop up Westminster, again.

And we were told back in 2014 that the North Sea would be dry by 2019. (And there were three more occasions before that)

The paradox of it all is amusing. Too poor to be independent and yet rich enough to power Westminster.

No other country would tolerate it. Having our national resources stolen and then paying to get to use it. Then watching the Eton brain-trust **** the profits against the wall.

Meanwhile, in Norway, a nation who has had an almost identical supply of Oil as Scotland, have a national financial reserve worth close to £2 trillion.

As well as the government paying 80% of their citizens gas bills.

Apparently we're "Better together".

Being tethered to Westminster is akin to being a conjoined twin with Trigger from "Only Fools and Horses".

Norway has a very commercially-minded investment approach to make money for the tax payer. You could never do that in the UK or Scotland because there'd be too much pressure for political interference over whatever cause the single issue campaigners are making a living off at the time.

The SNP really hasn't done anything to show it's any more capable of running a drinks party in a brewery.

Edited August 1, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Norway has a very commercially-minded investment approach to make money for the tax payer. You could never do that in the UK or Scotland because there'd be too much pressure for political interference over whatever cause the single issue campaigners are making a living off at the time.

What a bizzare and completely erroneous proposition - as far as I can see the one and only reason that the UK couldn't and of course didn't follow Norway's approach (even though it was advocated by many people here as well)  is because of our dysfunctional electoral system, our two party system where both are far more interested in short term political objectives aand have little interest in the long term interests of the county (well, none at all in the case of the Tories) and the frankly very low expectations most voters have of politicians of all colours.

It rather feels as though most voters in this country have completely given up - most seem to think our governments and governing systems are sh*t (which they clearly are so no surprise there) but still don't think or at least really believe that genuine changes and improvements can be made.

Unfortunately, our recent (and not so recent) history rather suggests that they are correct in that assumption!

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

4 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I think that's right. 

Shame though.  Elections should primarily be about parties putting a list of policies together and the electorate choosing which they prefer.

I had hopes that with two uncharismatic leaders we might see a policy heavy election. I'm not sure that this will happen now though, SKS is clever enough to know that all he needs to do is track the Conservatives and he'll be in no.10 in less than two years.

I would agree BB but the time and place for detailed policies from SKS beyond the broad concepts we currently have (Green Energy, Reform HoL etc) is when Sunak has run out of time and is forced to call the election. About six weeks max.

No time to pinch the good ones or manipulate / neuter or confuse the public on any others. Just don't give the Tory party any undeserved opportunity to dissemble. They will be bad enough with the rags of the Mail Express Telegraph as it is! 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

3 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

What a bizzare and completely erroneous proposition - as far as I can see the one and only reason that the UK couldn't and of course didn't follow Norway's approach (even though it was advocated by many people here as well)  is because of our dysfunctional electoral system, our two party system where both are far more interested in short term political objectives aand have little interest in the long term interests of the county (well, none at all in the case of the Tories) and the frankly very low expectations most voters have of politicians of all colours.

It rather feels as though most voters in this country have completely given up - most seem to think our governments and governing systems are sh*t (which they clearly are so no surprise there) but still don't think or at least really believe that genuine changes and improvements can be made.

Unfortunately, our recent (and not so recent) history rather suggests that they are correct in that assumption!

Weird how you can kick off by disagreeing with my assertion superficially to go on to illustrate how my own personal pet peeve is at the heart of why I'm right...

[Terminally Yellow 2,485]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Weird how you can kick off by disagreeing with my assertion superficially to go on to illustrate how my own personal pet peeve is at the heart of why I'm right...

Oh come on. You're not right. You can't possibly believe you are, do you?

Delusional.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

3 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Oh come on. You're not right. You can't possibly believe you are, do you?

Delusional.

Yeah I am. If you think I'm wrong, tell me any examples of successful government investment strategies in the UK comparable to what Norway has done with its sovereign wealth fund.

I'm looking forward to your answer.

Edited August 1, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Terminally Yellow 2,485]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

Yeah I am. If you think I'm wrong, tell me any examples of successful government investment strategies in the UK comparable to what Norway has done.

I'm looking forward to your answer.

You can't even justify it yourself. Pathetic attempts above.

Looking forward to your answer. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

5 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

You can't even justify it yourself. Pathetic attempts above.

Looking forward to your answer. 

My assertion is based on there being no examples of the UK making sound commercial investments for the taxpayer like Norway has. You say, I'm wrong, so it's up to you to provide examples of how the UK has, because YOU could provide supporting evidence for your claim... If it was true. But it isn't, which you know full well, but you're prevaricating to avoid admitting you're talking rubbish.

 

Edited August 1, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Terminally Yellow 2,485]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

My assertion is based on there being no examples of the UK making sound commercial investments for the taxpayer like Norway has. You say, I'm wrong, so it's up to you to provide examples of how the UK has, because YOU could provide supporting evidence for your claim... If it was true. But it isn't, which you know full well, but you're prevaricating to avoid admitting you're talking rubbish.

 

I'm not talking anything. Just asking for better justification for what you're saying.

Still waiting. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

1 minute ago, Terminally Yellow said:

I'm not talking anything. Just asking for better justification for what you're saying.

Still waiting. 

You can't provide evidence for a negative, you utter Muppet; you can only provide evidence to refute a negative, which you're not doing because you can't because you're talking rubbish.

Edited August 1, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Terminally Yellow 2,485]

5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You can't provide evidence for a negative, you utter Muppet; you can only provide evidence to refute a negative, which you're not doing because you can't because you're talking rubbish.

You can justify an opinion. 

I've not offered an opinion for it to be rubbish.

Still waiting. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

6 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

You can justify an opinion. 

I've not offered an opinion for it to be rubbish.

Still waiting. 

It's not an opinion,  it's a fact. The UK has not got any history of successful government investment comparable to Norway. You say I'm not right and even 'delusional', in which case you're saying it's not true and there ARE examples of successful UK government investment like the Norwegian sovereign fund. So give me the examples that show I'm wrong or stop being ridiculous.

Edited August 1, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Terminally Yellow 2,485]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's not an opinion,  it's a fact. The UK has not got any history of successful government investment. You say I'm wrong, in which case you're saying it's not true and there ARE examples of successful UK government investment like the Norwegian sovereign fund. So give me the examples that show I'm wrong is stop being ridiculous.

There are plenty that would offer the opposing view. Which makes what your saying definitely not factual. 

It's interesting how I'm asking for more information on your opinion and all you have done is just tried to insult me.

Still waiting.