LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
-
Yes, there's nothing wrong with overpaying in an emergency. Or doing deals to get things done.
But overpaying for stuff from people with no experience that then doesn't work, or bending rules for people just because they have the big man's phone number means they've wasted precious time and effort.1 -
-
Is that from a leak in No. 10? 🤣🤣🤣
Now that cumming has left?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.0 -
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.0 -
It's just weird.
As a half foreigner, I can tell you, it doesn't translate well. Literally.
You're the PM, this is your job. Just roll back the "i'm so posh and charmingly befuddled" bit just when you're speaking to the world in what is probably the most important global summit of the year. It's not that hard.0 -
You have yet to demonstrate that Dyson got special tax treatment.rick_chasey said:
I mean, I don't think Starmer thinks this is the best example of corruption - he's not used the word either. There are much bigger fish currently in the fryer (Greensill, the endless monster pandemic related contracts to unqualified but connected peopel)john80 said:
I am not being funny but if Kier thought this was the best example of corruption he could come up with against the Tories he needs to give his researchers a slap. It would appear that Dyson spent some money coming up with a product and then the government did not place an order costing him 20 million. He seems to be just asking for clarity on local taxes that might be paid by his staff and hurt them financially. Banging on about this stuff is likely to have missed the bigger picture I think.rick_chasey said:
He moves his firm to singers and now that he wants a bunch of them to work in the UK for a bit he doesn’t want to cough up the tax to keep their net income the same.Dorset_Boy said:
I don't think James Dyson is a tax exile, unless you call paying in excess of £100 million pa in UK tax as being an exile.rick_chasey said:
I totally understand it. He’s a tax exile but wants to help without getting a big tax smack.TheBigBean said:
You don't understand it.rick_chasey said:"I'll help the country in a dubiously useful way but it'll be really good publicity, but we won't help it by paying tax"
Got it.
He moved his company, but not himself.
Still, nothing like letting the truth get in the way of your agenda.....
That’s standard practice for secondments etc. My own firms do this.
Anyway, that isn’t why this is an issue. The issue is that he gets special treatment because he has BoJo’s phone number.
(Why do you always respond to my first post and ignore the subsequent explanation?)
I suspect it's a tactic for Starmer to make use of the *volume* of issues the Tories are facing with respect to lobbying and generally using their position in government to make favours for mates - which is what it mainly boils down to.
If we take a step back, I think it's reasonable to say that lobbying is inevitable so there is no point trying to stamp it out. It's just not practical.
You can however work hard to push it into the daylight, which I think is a much better way of running your affairs. You make the rules so that any kind of lobbying from any organisation, goes through a formal channel where it is recorded and up for public record.
I don't think that's unreasonable. Cameron himself said it was a real blight on politics 10 years ago, and now he's caught up in his own lobbying scandal.
In the same way I'm sure you wouldn't want a big trade union doing deals under the table with labour governments that are unfair, you wouldn't want big business getting special tax treatment because they've been big donors to the tory party and they have the PM's phone number.1 -
I don't understand the whole thing. Dyson's family holding company that was looking for special treatment for its employees has moved back to the UK now.0
-
My basic understanding is that he wanted to use some Singapore based presumably engineers to help develop this product in the UK. The worry is that if they came they would end up paying tax in the UK even though their reason for being here was to do work for the benefit of mainly the UK government. It was as not unreasonable to ask for clarification on the rules where he then used his personal contacts failing to get a response from the right government department. As an engineer if I was being asked to work in another country I would want to know I was covered for tax. 20-40 of your wage being lost matters to 95% of the population. Sure Dyson could cover this but any make up payment to employees would guess what incur more tax calculations.kingstongraham said:I don't understand the whole thing. Dyson's family holding company that was looking for special treatment for its employees has moved back to the UK now.
0 -
The point (as I see it) is that the Govt put in a fast track for friends and relatives of MPs who wanted to provide PPE.
You either believe this is a sub optimum way of identifying potential providers and issuance of contracts or you don't.
From there you have to decide whether this is corrupt or stupidity. Personally I think the fish rots from the head and Boris is amoral and that permeates down to people prioritising feathering nests over saving lives.
Back tomy idea of having a slush fund with which to feather nests and stop hindering the workings of govt. In this instance priority could have been given to appraising offers from people with a history of providing PPE and a couple of million could have been allocated to Hancock's landlord without clogging up the process.0 -
Do any of you work for a firm who sends people around the world?john80 said:
My basic understanding is that he wanted to use some Singapore based presumably engineers to help develop this product in the UK. The worry is that if they came they would end up paying tax in the UK even though their reason for being here was to do work for the benefit of mainly the UK government. It was as not unreasonable to ask for clarification on the rules where he then used his personal contacts failing to get a response from the right government department. As an engineer if I was being asked to work in another country I would want to know I was covered for tax. 20-40 of your wage being lost matters to 95% of the population. Sure Dyson could cover this but any make up payment to employees would guess what incur more tax calculations.kingstongraham said:I don't understand the whole thing. Dyson's family holding company that was looking for special treatment for its employees has moved back to the UK now.
The company foots the tax bill so the net pay is the same. It's not that big a deal. You don't need to ask the prime minister for that ffs, let alone in the middle of a pandemic.
There is no reason why he needs to ask the PM for a favour that's not given to the thousands of companies who second people to different countries around the world.
0 -
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.
0 -
This is exactly what happens.rick_chasey said:
Do any of you work for a firm who sends people around the world?john80 said:
My basic understanding is that he wanted to use some Singapore based presumably engineers to help develop this product in the UK. The worry is that if they came they would end up paying tax in the UK even though their reason for being here was to do work for the benefit of mainly the UK government. It was as not unreasonable to ask for clarification on the rules where he then used his personal contacts failing to get a response from the right government department. As an engineer if I was being asked to work in another country I would want to know I was covered for tax. 20-40 of your wage being lost matters to 95% of the population. Sure Dyson could cover this but any make up payment to employees would guess what incur more tax calculations.kingstongraham said:I don't understand the whole thing. Dyson's family holding company that was looking for special treatment for its employees has moved back to the UK now.
The company foots the tax bill so the net pay is the same. It's not that big a deal. You don't need to ask the prime minister for that ffs, let alone in the middle of a pandemic.
There is no reason why he needs to ask the PM for a favour that's not given to the thousands of companies who second people to different countries around the world.
Actually what would happen if a trusted client rung up deeply in the crap is that you jump on a plane and work it out later.
Or if you're committing to a project where you're working on it for long enough to become tax resident, you likely work from your home location and use this thing called the Internet.0 -
No. There are just better ways to articulate it. Articulation of these things is a *really important part of being a leader*0
-
I get exactly what you mean, when talking to people who's second language is English you you need to express yourself correctly and succinctly.rick_chasey said:No. There are just better ways to articulate it. Articulation of these things is a *really important part of being a leader*
I am sure this was stressed to him before his big speech but as I have suggested before there is a chance that he has an affliction akin to tourettes that causes him to say the opposite of whathe is told to.0 -
When he implies that all the climate change activists want is to look good and do some expensive things that won't make any real difference - yes.TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.0 -
Exactly.Jezyboy said:
This is exactly what happens.rick_chasey said:
Do any of you work for a firm who sends people around the world?john80 said:
My basic understanding is that he wanted to use some Singapore based presumably engineers to help develop this product in the UK. The worry is that if they came they would end up paying tax in the UK even though their reason for being here was to do work for the benefit of mainly the UK government. It was as not unreasonable to ask for clarification on the rules where he then used his personal contacts failing to get a response from the right government department. As an engineer if I was being asked to work in another country I would want to know I was covered for tax. 20-40 of your wage being lost matters to 95% of the population. Sure Dyson could cover this but any make up payment to employees would guess what incur more tax calculations.kingstongraham said:I don't understand the whole thing. Dyson's family holding company that was looking for special treatment for its employees has moved back to the UK now.
The company foots the tax bill so the net pay is the same. It's not that big a deal. You don't need to ask the prime minister for that ffs, let alone in the middle of a pandemic.
There is no reason why he needs to ask the PM for a favour that's not given to the thousands of companies who second people to different countries around the world.
Actually what would happen if a trusted client rung up deeply in the censored is that you jump on a plane and work it out later.
Or if you're committing to a project where you're working on it for long enough to become tax resident, you likely work from your home location and use this thing called the Internet.
Hell, my firm paid the rent for a flat in Manhattan when they seconded me there, on top of my pay, as I was still committed to paying the rent in London.0 -
I'm sure I read somewhere that part of the request was for high level employees of the holding company (Weybourne), but that might only have been a part of it.john80 said:
My basic understanding is that he wanted to use some Singapore based presumably engineers to help develop this product in the UK. The worry is that if they came they would end up paying tax in the UK even though their reason for being here was to do work for the benefit of mainly the UK government. It was as not unreasonable to ask for clarification on the rules where he then used his personal contacts failing to get a response from the right government department. As an engineer if I was being asked to work in another country I would want to know I was covered for tax. 20-40 of your wage being lost matters to 95% of the population. Sure Dyson could cover this but any make up payment to employees would guess what incur more tax calculations.kingstongraham said:I don't understand the whole thing. Dyson's family holding company that was looking for special treatment for its employees has moved back to the UK now.
0 -
I think it certainly applies to a fair few. I've posted a lot of about Net Zero, but still find Extinction Rebellion to fit your description.kingstongraham said:
When he implies that all the climate change activists want is to look good and do some expensive things that won't make any real difference - yes.TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.
0 -
Boris is a much better writer than speaker, but it can be useful to drop in an expression like that as it makes it memorable and attracts attention to what he is saying.rick_chasey said:No. There are just better ways to articulate it. Articulation of these things is a *really important part of being a leader*
0 -
It's difficult to tell as that paragraph is so muddled and ambiguous. Is he objecting to people campaigning, which seems odd, or corporate 'greenwash' which is a valid target?TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I also didn't listen to it or read more than has been posted here, but I assumed that the message was to actually do things that matter rather than simply talk about doing things.rjsterry said:
It's difficult to tell as that paragraph is so muddled and ambiguous. Is he objecting to people campaigning, which seems odd, or corporate 'greenwash' which is a valid target?TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.
For me an example of this is upgrading the grid. It's very expensive, it needs to happen and no one talks about it.
0 -
His bit about conserving habitats could be taken from Extinction Rebellion's website. All the bits in the speech about relying exclusively on future technology to get us out of the mess and not changing anything else is what Extinction Rebellion see as one of the problems.TheBigBean said:
I think it certainly applies to a fair few. I've posted a lot of about Net Zero, but still find Extinction Rebellion to fit your description.kingstongraham said:
When he implies that all the climate change activists want is to look good and do some expensive things that won't make any real difference - yes.TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.0 -
Extinction Rebellion has three demands:kingstongraham said:
His bit about conserving habitats could be taken from Extinction Rebellion's website. All the bits in the speech about relying exclusively on future technology to get us out of the mess and not changing anything else is what Extinction Rebellion see as one of the problems.TheBigBean said:
I think it certainly applies to a fair few. I've posted a lot of about Net Zero, but still find Extinction Rebellion to fit your description.kingstongraham said:
When he implies that all the climate change activists want is to look good and do some expensive things that won't make any real difference - yes.TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.
1. Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
2. Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
3. Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
The Committee on Climate Change was created in 2008. This is a far more powerful and informed group than being requested by Extinction Rebellion over a decade later in item 3. I would imagine the vast majority of its supporters have never read any report published by the Climate Change Committee (name now changed). So, if it so important that this highly effective committee includes members of the public with little expertise, I think they should articulate why. Consequently, I file this in the category of time wasting virtue signalling.
The government has legislated multiple times on climate change which I think covers the first item.
The first half of the second item is campaign worthy, but the net zero by 2025 is impossible which they would know if they bothered to read anything published on the subject.
So, a lot of misplaced energy that could be used for something effective.
As I have said before, if they favour direct action, then plant some trees. Anywhere. Do it in parliament square if needs be. There are loads of other things like this that they could do.
Also, draw up a sensible list of demands. Include things like grid upgrading.
0 -
We wouldn't be discussing them if they were off planting trees somewhere.TheBigBean said:
Extinction Rebellion has three demands:kingstongraham said:
His bit about conserving habitats could be taken from Extinction Rebellion's website. All the bits in the speech about relying exclusively on future technology to get us out of the mess and not changing anything else is what Extinction Rebellion see as one of the problems.TheBigBean said:
I think it certainly applies to a fair few. I've posted a lot of about Net Zero, but still find Extinction Rebellion to fit your description.kingstongraham said:
When he implies that all the climate change activists want is to look good and do some expensive things that won't make any real difference - yes.TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.
1. Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
2. Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
3. Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
The Committee on Climate Change was created in 2008. This is a far more powerful and informed group than being requested by Extinction Rebellion over a decade later in item 3. I would imagine the vast majority of its supporters have never read any report published by the Climate Change Committee (name now changed). So, if it so important that this highly effective committee includes members of the public with little expertise, I think they should articulate why. Consequently, I file this in the category of time wasting virtue signalling.
The government has legislated multiple times on climate change which I think covers the first item.
The first half of the second item is campaign worthy, but the net zero by 2025 is impossible which they would know if they bothered to read anything published on the subject.
So, a lot of misplaced energy that could be used for something effective.
As I have said before, if they favour direct action, then plant some trees. Anywhere. Do it in parliament square if needs be. There are loads of other things like this that they could do.
Also, draw up a sensible list of demands. Include things like grid upgrading.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
In Parliament sq? Did you miss that bit? They could also insulated some windows in high profile public places. There are lots of things they could do that might draw attention to relevant issues.pangolin said:
We wouldn't be discussing them if they were off planting trees somewhere.TheBigBean said:
Extinction Rebellion has three demands:kingstongraham said:
His bit about conserving habitats could be taken from Extinction Rebellion's website. All the bits in the speech about relying exclusively on future technology to get us out of the mess and not changing anything else is what Extinction Rebellion see as one of the problems.TheBigBean said:
I think it certainly applies to a fair few. I've posted a lot of about Net Zero, but still find Extinction Rebellion to fit your description.kingstongraham said:
When he implies that all the climate change activists want is to look good and do some expensive things that won't make any real difference - yes.TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.
1. Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
2. Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
3. Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
The Committee on Climate Change was created in 2008. This is a far more powerful and informed group than being requested by Extinction Rebellion over a decade later in item 3. I would imagine the vast majority of its supporters have never read any report published by the Climate Change Committee (name now changed). So, if it so important that this highly effective committee includes members of the public with little expertise, I think they should articulate why. Consequently, I file this in the category of time wasting virtue signalling.
The government has legislated multiple times on climate change which I think covers the first item.
The first half of the second item is campaign worthy, but the net zero by 2025 is impossible which they would know if they bothered to read anything published on the subject.
So, a lot of misplaced energy that could be used for something effective.
As I have said before, if they favour direct action, then plant some trees. Anywhere. Do it in parliament square if needs be. There are loads of other things like this that they could do.
Also, draw up a sensible list of demands. Include things like grid upgrading.0 -
No I didn't miss it. They could fill parliament square with trees and it would make the news and soon be forgotten. People discuss them / their cause because they are personally inconvenienced by the protests.TheBigBean said:
In Parliament sq? Did you miss that bit? They could also insulated some windows in high profile public places. There are lots of things they could do that might draw attention to relevant issues.pangolin said:
We wouldn't be discussing them if they were off planting trees somewhere.TheBigBean said:
Extinction Rebellion has three demands:kingstongraham said:
His bit about conserving habitats could be taken from Extinction Rebellion's website. All the bits in the speech about relying exclusively on future technology to get us out of the mess and not changing anything else is what Extinction Rebellion see as one of the problems.TheBigBean said:
I think it certainly applies to a fair few. I've posted a lot of about Net Zero, but still find Extinction Rebellion to fit your description.kingstongraham said:
When he implies that all the climate change activists want is to look good and do some expensive things that won't make any real difference - yes.TheBigBean said:
Is he wrong?kingstongraham said:
Same speech, two paras earlier: "If we’re going to tackle climate change sustainably, we have to deal with the disaster of habitat loss and species loss across our planet and we want to see even more examples of government and private industry working hand in hand as with the newly launched LEAF Coalition to reduce deforestation and the multi-trillion dollar Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero."rick_chasey said:
I find his inability to articulate things in a way that the rest-of-the-world can understand, remarkable.pblakeney said:Not sure whether to give BJ credit for at least being honest about environmental stuff being about money and not the environment.
"Tackling climate change is about "growth and jobs" not "expensive bunny hugging", Boris Johnson has said.
Speaking at a virtual summit, the prime minister told world leaders "we can build back better from this pandemic by building back greener."
Most of the world's leaders speak English yet he cannot help but talk in weird idioms.
He had the world's attention and he talks about bunny hugging, wtf.
Then: "it’s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive politically correct green act of ‘bunny hugging’ or however you want to put it. Nothing wrong with ‘bunny hugging’ but you know what I’m driving at."
It's quite something to call out climate change activism in this speech by implying that it's just a politically correct act and the activists are just virtue signalling.
Then of course: "Cake have eat is my message to you." because he can't help himself.
1. Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
2. Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
3. Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
The Committee on Climate Change was created in 2008. This is a far more powerful and informed group than being requested by Extinction Rebellion over a decade later in item 3. I would imagine the vast majority of its supporters have never read any report published by the Climate Change Committee (name now changed). So, if it so important that this highly effective committee includes members of the public with little expertise, I think they should articulate why. Consequently, I file this in the category of time wasting virtue signalling.
The government has legislated multiple times on climate change which I think covers the first item.
The first half of the second item is campaign worthy, but the net zero by 2025 is impossible which they would know if they bothered to read anything published on the subject.
So, a lot of misplaced energy that could be used for something effective.
As I have said before, if they favour direct action, then plant some trees. Anywhere. Do it in parliament square if needs be. There are loads of other things like this that they could do.
Also, draw up a sensible list of demands. Include things like grid upgrading.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Looks like you've already saved me the effort BB. Another couple of pages that prove yet again when it comes to tax, a little knowledge is a dangerous thingTheBigBean said:I don't have the energy.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
