UK Politics - Closing Down Sale

[Derfel Cadarn]

Heh

 

[Raja]

On 10/7/2022 at 4:56 PM, BigFatCoward said:

Another Tory MP in trouble for being a creepy weirdo and trying it on at the conference with a younger man. 

He's getting knighted

[Lord of Oop North]

Misconduct sounds in keeping with the best and most ancient traditions of knighthood.

[BigFatCoward]

Even Mel b finds his banter offensive. 

[mormont]

So the government's response to the most serious issue facing the country, climate change, is to cap prices for renewable energy and grant more licenses for oil and gas exploration, against scientific advice.

The effects of climate change are already doing damage to our daily lives. But I'm sure this will be fine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63163824

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63183946

[Heartofice]

Try going into the homes of people who can’t afford to pay their fuel bills this winter that ‘Climate change is the most serious issue facing the UK’ and see if you can get out without broken limbs.

[Poobah]

What if I told you that giving money to a bunch oil companies and allowing them to begin construction of new facilities isn't going to help anyone this winter. We're not playing a city builder, you can't just spam a bunch of new refineries and such and have them come on line next month. It's already far too late for that. 

As you well know nobody's saying that the government shouldn't have done something to help people's bills this winter but BP-employee Truss choosing to spend billions of taxpayer money to prop up oil company profits for the foreseeable future not only doesn't do that particularly effectively but also hurts alternative producers of electricity and if you read the links that's going to have nock-on effects down the line not just for our planet (because who cares about that, right HoI?) for our electricity prices, which together with her deal will ensure that those stay high in the longer term. 

[Derfel Cadarn]

Conor Burns ‘looks forward to clearing his name’

Mel B: …

 

[Liffguard]

8 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Try going into the homes of people who can’t afford to pay their fuel bills this winter that ‘Climate change is the most serious issue facing the UK’ and see if you can get out without broken limbs.

Try going into the cabins of people on the lower decks stacked up twelve to a cabin and telling them that the iceberg ahead is the most serious issue facing the ship, and see if you can get out without broken limbs.

[mormont]

Seriously, climate change and the current fuel crisis are the same issue. If the UK government had taken the climate change agenda seriously twenty or even ten years ago, we would not be dependent on gas, would not have renewable prices tied to gas prices and would not be looking for more gas. And if we don't get to grips with climate change right now, we will have many future fuel crises.

[Varysblackfyre321]

11 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Try going into the homes of people who can’t afford to pay their fuel bills this winter that ‘Climate change is the most serious issue facing the UK’ and see if you can get out without broken limbs.

This conservative mindset will kill humanity with it's lack of long term pragmatism.

Stop being petty and childish.

3 hours ago, mormont said:

Seriously, climate change and the current fuel crisis are the same issue. If the UK government had taken the climate change agenda seriously twenty or even ten years ago, we would not be dependent on gas, would not have renewable prices tied to gas prices and would not be looking for more gas. And if we don't get to grips with climate change right now, we will have many future fuel crises.

But then wasn't a good time, now isn't a good time.

in the future  when no one could be inconvenienced in any sort of way, there can be a discussion.

Maybe.

 

10 hours ago, Poobah said:

because who cares about that, right HoI?)

Well that sounds globalist.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

I can understand the attitude in poor countries, where access to food and resources is a permanent struggle: climate change is a problem you can think about once you have a full stomach, as some of them say, and of course climate change was not caused by them in the first place. But in rich countries it really should be possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But in rich countries it really should be possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Lol, that will cost the rich too much money. And if we're being honest, they're the most oppressed subgroup, hence they need some more tax cuts to feel good.

[Varysblackfyre321]

10 hours ago, Liffguard said:

Try going into the cabins of people on the lower decks stacked up twelve to a cabin and telling them that the iceberg ahead is the most serious issue facing the ship, and see if you can get out without broken limbs.

It should also be noted poor people in the UK aren't universally ignorant or dismissive of the harm that comes in climate change.

It's willfully dishonest to present such concerns as just something out of touch elites are concerned about or should be concerned about about.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

climate change aside, Its now cheaper to produce electricity via wind / solar than by gas and since we all have to convert to heat pumps in a few years why the hell would we want to spend more money on new gas sources?

 

Oil I can maybe understand we will need diesel for lorries and agricultural vehicles for longer than we need petrol for cars.

[polishgenius]

Not at all concerning. 

[The Anti-Targ]

Politicisation of the public service, now that is a legit slippery slope. The public service is charged with implementing the policies of the govts of the day, which does mean needing to take some care when inviting external parties to speak, even on unrelated matters. But also means the govt department should not become  partisan due to party political interference.

On one hand, the senior leadership in govt departments need to have enough political awareness to not seek to invite people who are too partisan to speak, esp when their partisanship is in opposition to the govt of the day. As this may imply, at a minimum, a politicisation of the public service in opposition to the govt of the day, which is really bad. But even when the person is hyper-partisan in support of the govt of the day this can be unwise, and it opens the department to opposition party accusations of lack of political neutrality in favour of the govt.

On the other hand politicians should largely not be interfering with who is invited as leaders in their field to talk on a subject that fits broadly within the govts policy objectives or the strategic objectives of the govt department.

For instance, does one want an outspoken climate change denier who is actively opposing, in public forums, govt policy on climate change to speak to a govt department about cyber security (being their area of professional expertise, and of course the concern of pretty much every govt department)? Generally it would be wise for the govt department to find someone who is not openly antagonistic to the govt on climate change policy to speak on cyber-security, since there is surely more than one expert who can speak on cyber security it should be easily possible to find someone who is not engaged in partisan opposition to the govt.

Govt departments need to be seen to be politically neutral and be above suspicion, which means they are not quite as free to invite whomever comes up in a Google search about who is a SME in a particular field as other non-govt organisations.

I interpret being blocked from speaking to a govt department as perhaps someone at the govt department making an unwise decision to offer to invite this person in the first place. Though when it comes to promoting women in STEM it may be hard to find someone who is a SME in the field who is not known to be a critic of the current UK govt. So maybe a bit of a rock and a hard place situation in this case.

[mormont]

So the Bank of England has for the second day running had to intervene in the markets to calm things down, and IFS predictions are that every single government department except health and defence will have to be cut by 15% along with real terms cuts to benefits and investment. The Chancellor bringing forward his explanation of how the numbers in his plan will add up seems to have spooked rather than calmed the markets. Government ministers are having to insist that pension funds are safe (they are not safe). Basically everyone involved appears to believe that the government's economic plans are an ill thought out disaster that will crash the UK economy. Kwasi Kwarteng and Liz Truss seem to be the only people in the UK still insisting their numbers add up, and I'm not sure Liz is 100% on that. 

Thanks, Tory party members. 

[Poobah]

On the one hand if the public has any sense whatsoever this will be the last time the Tories are ever allowed near government. On the other hand because our system is insane they have 2 years to do whatever the fuck they want to utterly burn down our country in the mean time, and my earlier statement does assume sense in the voting public where I sadly believe there to be none, or we wouldn't be in this disaster in the first place.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Well, Corbyn isn't innocent in this entire clusterfuck. Had he agreed to a caretaker PM Ken Clarke, instead of heading into an election with Brexit unresolved and a non-sensical (that's too kind, non-existent more like) position on the big issue, Labour might have done better. Ofc, the problem was there for everyone to see, before the Labour Party conference, but they were unwilling to remove captain soundbite from the wheel (thanks MEMEntum). The Tories were weak and awful, but Labour essentially folded on that election.  That's what gave those clowns their super majority.