LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

shirley_basso said:

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

… and yet ULEZ will be implemented.

Electorally that could be quite useful, as a lot of voters will be really hacked off now.

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

How far back are they planning to go on removing traffic management schemes?

Or is it bye bye to any cul de sac and one way system? The car must be able to go anywhere.

At a guess, quite a LTNs and blanket 20mph limits will be in the firing line, as they should be.

I love how easily stevo is activated. A politicians dream. Zero cognitive thought. Easily manipulated to the cause. Robotic in response, on time with reply. Shallower than a chatbot but better - a real person.

Nice bit of condescension there Shirley. You do seem to fit the left of centre profile of thinking that you know better while not being massively successful.

He probably can let a mention slide without responding though 🙂.

He'd clearly run out of arguments so had to resort to making disparaging comments. Which I don't mind as then I feel free to give it back with a bit of interest

tailwindhome

Theresa May's former advisor Nick Timothy has been selected to run as Tory candidate in Matt Hancock's to be vacated seat.

Presumably his election campaign will be run by someone with a successful track record in running election campaigns

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

shirley_basso said:

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

… and yet ULEZ will be implemented.

Electorally that could be quite useful, as a lot of voters will be really hacked off now.

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

How far back are they planning to go on removing traffic management schemes?

Or is it bye bye to any cul de sac and one way system? The car must be able to go anywhere.

At a guess, quite a LTNs and blanket 20mph limits will be in the firing line, as they should be.

I love how easily stevo is activated. A politicians dream. Zero cognitive thought. Easily manipulated to the cause. Robotic in response, on time with reply. Shallower than a chatbot but better - a real person.

Nice bit of condescension there Shirley. You do seem to fit the left of centre profile of thinking that you know better while not being massively successful.

He probably can let a mention slide without responding though 🙂.

He'd clearly run out of arguments so had to resort to making disparaging comments. Which I don't mind as then I feel free to give it back with a bit of interest

You need to put your rates up.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

shirley_basso said:

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

… and yet ULEZ will be implemented.

Electorally that could be quite useful, as a lot of voters will be really hacked off now.

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

How far back are they planning to go on removing traffic management schemes?

Or is it bye bye to any cul de sac and one way system? The car must be able to go anywhere.

At a guess, quite a LTNs and blanket 20mph limits will be in the firing line, as they should be.

I love how easily stevo is activated. A politicians dream. Zero cognitive thought. Easily manipulated to the cause. Robotic in response, on time with reply. Shallower than a chatbot but better - a real person.

Nice bit of condescension there Shirley. You do seem to fit the left of centre profile of thinking that you know better while not being massively successful.

He probably can let a mention slide without responding though 🙂.

He'd clearly run out of arguments so had to resort to making disparaging comments. Which I don't mind as then I feel free to give it back with a bit of interest

You need to put your rates up.

I'm being proportionate.

Funny how you had didn't say anything to Shirley about his unprovoked dig but had a word with me about replying. Is this the old centre leftie free pass?

rick_chasey

tailwindhome said:

Theresa May's former advisor Nick Timothy has been selected to run as Tory candidate in Matt Hancock's to be vacated seat.

Presumably his election campaign will be run by someone with a successful track record in running election campaigns

Mr Citizens of Nowhere. Loathe that man. Basically said me and my family don't belong here, the pr!ck.

kingstongraham

Sunak flies by private jet to do his net zero fantasy announcement, then accuses an interviewer who asks him a question about it of wanting to ban holidays.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

shirley_basso said:

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

… and yet ULEZ will be implemented.

Electorally that could be quite useful, as a lot of voters will be really hacked off now.

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

How far back are they planning to go on removing traffic management schemes?

Or is it bye bye to any cul de sac and one way system? The car must be able to go anywhere.

At a guess, quite a LTNs and blanket 20mph limits will be in the firing line, as they should be.

I love how easily stevo is activated. A politicians dream. Zero cognitive thought. Easily manipulated to the cause. Robotic in response, on time with reply. Shallower than a chatbot but better - a real person.

Nice bit of condescension there Shirley. You do seem to fit the left of centre profile of thinking that you know better while not being massively successful.

He probably can let a mention slide without responding though 🙂.

He'd clearly run out of arguments so had to resort to making disparaging comments. Which I don't mind as then I feel free to give it back with a bit of interest

You need to put your rates up.

I'm being proportionate.

Funny how you had didn't say anything to Shirley about his unprovoked dig but had a word with me about replying. Is this the old centre leftie free pass?

I tend to think the best response to a cheap shot is to ignore it. If you must reply it needs to have a really good put down and that was a bit lukewarm.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

shirley_basso said:

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

… and yet ULEZ will be implemented.

Electorally that could be quite useful, as a lot of voters will be really hacked off now.

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

How far back are they planning to go on removing traffic management schemes?

Or is it bye bye to any cul de sac and one way system? The car must be able to go anywhere.

At a guess, quite a LTNs and blanket 20mph limits will be in the firing line, as they should be.

I love how easily stevo is activated. A politicians dream. Zero cognitive thought. Easily manipulated to the cause. Robotic in response, on time with reply. Shallower than a chatbot but better - a real person.

Nice bit of condescension there Shirley. You do seem to fit the left of centre profile of thinking that you know better while not being massively successful.

He probably can let a mention slide without responding though 🙂.

He'd clearly run out of arguments so had to resort to making disparaging comments. Which I don't mind as then I feel free to give it back with a bit of interest

You need to put your rates up.

I'm being proportionate.

Funny how you had didn't say anything to Shirley about his unprovoked dig but had a word with me about replying. Is this the old centre leftie free pass?

I tend to think the best response to a cheap shot is to ignore it. If you must reply it needs to have a really good put down and that was a bit lukewarm.

I was tempted to ignore your reply

rjsterry

😁

wallace_and_gromit

kingstongraham said:

Sunak flies by private jet to do his net zero fantasy announcement, then accuses an interviewer who asks him a question about it of wanting to ban holidays.

You do hint at a major issue though. "Net zero by a specific year" is great in principle, but will require sacrifices of one sort or another from the masses e.g. less leisure travel, accepting periodic power cuts or being prevented from driving when/where they want to.

focuszing723

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Sunak flies by private jet to do his net zero fantasy announcement, then accuses an interviewer who asks him a question about it of wanting to ban holidays.

You do hint at a major issue though. "Net zero by a specific year" is great in principle, but will require sacrifices of one sort or another from the masses e.g. less leisure travel, accepting periodic power cuts or being prevented from driving when/where they want to.

Really, everyone should have a chip implanted with a pollution credit and a yearly allowance. Use it as you will, if you go over you have to ride a bike linked to a generator to put power back into the grid.

focuszing723

If it's that serious, wealth or position shouldn't buy you out of it.

focuszing723

With World War Two the old class system crumbled because the vast majority had to muck in together. A posh family estate could be turned into a hospital.

focuszing723

Seeing all the jets fly into Glasgow for COP26 summed it up nicely.

TheBigBean

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Sunak flies by private jet to do his net zero fantasy announcement, then accuses an interviewer who asks him a question about it of wanting to ban holidays.

You do hint at a major issue though. "Net zero by a specific year" is great in principle, but will require sacrifices of one sort or another from the masses e.g. less leisure travel, accepting periodic power cuts or being prevented from driving when/where they want to.

It needs a government with clarity, but at the moment we have one who thinks it is sensible to tax renewable generators at 70%, consult on changing the entire grid network despite opposition from just about everyone and fail to do anything with the hydrogen consultation they launched.

They are just going back to the same policies that effectively banned wind turbines in England and offered no CfDs to onshore wind and solar.

None of this is really about price, it is about about appealing to voters that think renewable energy is going to have a bad impact on their lives.

pblakeney

Any and all announcements between now and the election (and has been for some time) is all about the election. Anyone thinking otherwise is either a fool or blinkered.
This applies to all parties.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Sunak flies by private jet to do his net zero fantasy announcement, then accuses an interviewer who asks him a question about it of wanting to ban holidays.

You do hint at a major issue though. "Net zero by a specific year" is great in principle, but will require sacrifices of one sort or another from the masses e.g. less leisure travel, accepting periodic power cuts or being prevented from driving when/where they want to.

It needs a government with clarity, but at the moment we have one who thinks it is sensible to tax renewable generators at 70%, consult on changing the entire grid network despite opposition from just about everyone and fail to do anything with the hydrogen consultation they launched.

They are just going back to the same policies that effectively banned wind turbines in England and offered no CfDs to onshore wind and solar.

None of this is really about price, it is about about appealing to voters that think renewable energy is going to have a bad impact on their lives.

I think we all need to get over that there is a no-pain way of getting to where we need to be. It will just be less painful than the alternative. After 3 years of being conditioned into thinking the that the government will compensate for any loss whatsoever, and listening to some stats about how everyone is pro general green policies but not those that specifically cost them money I'm a little bit pessimistic.

kingstongraham

Wait until the penny drops that we'll need to replace the revenue from fuel duty somehow.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Sunak flies by private jet to do his net zero fantasy announcement, then accuses an interviewer who asks him a question about it of wanting to ban holidays.

You do hint at a major issue though. "Net zero by a specific year" is great in principle, but will require sacrifices of one sort or another from the masses e.g. less leisure travel, accepting periodic power cuts or being prevented from driving when/where they want to.

It needs a government with clarity, but at the moment we have one who thinks it is sensible to tax renewable generators at 70%, consult on changing the entire grid network despite opposition from just about everyone and fail to do anything with the hydrogen consultation they launched.

They are just going back to the same policies that effectively banned wind turbines in England and offered no CfDs to onshore wind and solar.

None of this is really about price, it is about about appealing to voters that think renewable energy is going to have a bad impact on their lives.

I think we all need to get over that there is a no-pain way of getting to where we need to be. It will just be less painful than the alternative. After 3 years of being conditioned into thinking the that the government will compensate for any loss whatsoever, and listening to some stats about how everyone is pro general green policies but not those that specifically cost them money I'm a little bit pessimistic.

My "go to" for this subject.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Sunak flies by private jet to do his net zero fantasy announcement, then accuses an interviewer who asks him a question about it of wanting to ban holidays.

You do hint at a major issue though. "Net zero by a specific year" is great in principle, but will require sacrifices of one sort or another from the masses e.g. less leisure travel, accepting periodic power cuts or being prevented from driving when/where they want to.

It needs a government with clarity, but at the moment we have one who thinks it is sensible to tax renewable generators at 70%, consult on changing the entire grid network despite opposition from just about everyone and fail to do anything with the hydrogen consultation they launched.

They are just going back to the same policies that effectively banned wind turbines in England and offered no CfDs to onshore wind and solar.

None of this is really about price, it is about about appealing to voters that think renewable energy is going to have a bad impact on their lives.

I think we all need to get over that there is a no-pain way of getting to where we need to be. It will just be less painful than the alternative. After 3 years of being conditioned into thinking the that the government will compensate for any loss whatsoever, and listening to some stats about how everyone is pro general green policies but not those that specifically cost them money I'm a little bit pessimistic.

My point is that a lot of it can be done without a great deal of cost.

rjsterry

I'm

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Sunak flies by private jet to do his net zero fantasy announcement, then accuses an interviewer who asks him a question about it of wanting to ban holidays.

You do hint at a major issue though. "Net zero by a specific year" is great in principle, but will require sacrifices of one sort or another from the masses e.g. less leisure travel, accepting periodic power cuts or being prevented from driving when/where they want to.

It needs a government with clarity, but at the moment we have one who thinks it is sensible to tax renewable generators at 70%, consult on changing the entire grid network despite opposition from just about everyone and fail to do anything with the hydrogen consultation they launched.

They are just going back to the same policies that effectively banned wind turbines in England and offered no CfDs to onshore wind and solar.

None of this is really about price, it is about about appealing to voters that think renewable energy is going to have a bad impact on their lives.

I think we all need to get over that there is a no-pain way of getting to where we need to be. It will just be less painful than the alternative. After 3 years of being conditioned into thinking the that the government will compensate for any loss whatsoever, and listening to some stats about how everyone is pro general green policies but not those that specifically cost them money I'm a little bit pessimistic.

My point is that a lot of it can be done without a great deal of cost.

Perhaps I have a skewed view at the expensive end of this, but upgrading 75% of the entire building stock to even meet the standards of a few years ago never mind switch to a heat pump is a five figure sum per dwelling.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

Wait until the penny drops that we'll need to replace the revenue from fuel duty somehow.

It's a surprise that petrophiles are so happy to pay so much tax.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

I'm

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Sunak flies by private jet to do his net zero fantasy announcement, then accuses an interviewer who asks him a question about it of wanting to ban holidays.

You do hint at a major issue though. "Net zero by a specific year" is great in principle, but will require sacrifices of one sort or another from the masses e.g. less leisure travel, accepting periodic power cuts or being prevented from driving when/where they want to.

It needs a government with clarity, but at the moment we have one who thinks it is sensible to tax renewable generators at 70%, consult on changing the entire grid network despite opposition from just about everyone and fail to do anything with the hydrogen consultation they launched.

They are just going back to the same policies that effectively banned wind turbines in England and offered no CfDs to onshore wind and solar.

None of this is really about price, it is about about appealing to voters that think renewable energy is going to have a bad impact on their lives.

I think we all need to get over that there is a no-pain way of getting to where we need to be. It will just be less painful than the alternative. After 3 years of being conditioned into thinking the that the government will compensate for any loss whatsoever, and listening to some stats about how everyone is pro general green policies but not those that specifically cost them money I'm a little bit pessimistic.

My point is that a lot of it can be done without a great deal of cost.

Perhaps I have a skewed view at the expensive end of this, but upgrading 75% of the entire building stock to even meet the standards of a few years ago never mind switch to a heat pump is a five figure sum per dwelling.

After one of the Truro graduations, I sat next to a Polish PhD student whose research is into how to convert entire UK buildings to net zero standards at minimal cost... and we had the conversation about how a large part of the equation is necessarily political... but she did reference how laughably archaic UK housing stock is (I count my draughty mud hut in that category).

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

I'm

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Sunak flies by private jet to do his net zero fantasy announcement, then accuses an interviewer who asks him a question about it of wanting to ban holidays.

You do hint at a major issue though. "Net zero by a specific year" is great in principle, but will require sacrifices of one sort or another from the masses e.g. less leisure travel, accepting periodic power cuts or being prevented from driving when/where they want to.

It needs a government with clarity, but at the moment we have one who thinks it is sensible to tax renewable generators at 70%, consult on changing the entire grid network despite opposition from just about everyone and fail to do anything with the hydrogen consultation they launched.

They are just going back to the same policies that effectively banned wind turbines in England and offered no CfDs to onshore wind and solar.

None of this is really about price, it is about about appealing to voters that think renewable energy is going to have a bad impact on their lives.

I think we all need to get over that there is a no-pain way of getting to where we need to be. It will just be less painful than the alternative. After 3 years of being conditioned into thinking the that the government will compensate for any loss whatsoever, and listening to some stats about how everyone is pro general green policies but not those that specifically cost them money I'm a little bit pessimistic.

My point is that a lot of it can be done without a great deal of cost.

Perhaps I have a skewed view at the expensive end of this, but upgrading 75% of the entire building stock to even meet the standards of a few years ago never mind switch to a heat pump is a five figure sum per dwelling.

That's the hardest bit, but plenty of other stuff to do before declaring it all too hard.

rjsterry

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

I'm

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Sunak flies by private jet to do his net zero fantasy announcement, then accuses an interviewer who asks him a question about it of wanting to ban holidays.

You do hint at a major issue though. "Net zero by a specific year" is great in principle, but will require sacrifices of one sort or another from the masses e.g. less leisure travel, accepting periodic power cuts or being prevented from driving when/where they want to.

It needs a government with clarity, but at the moment we have one who thinks it is sensible to tax renewable generators at 70%, consult on changing the entire grid network despite opposition from just about everyone and fail to do anything with the hydrogen consultation they launched.

They are just going back to the same policies that effectively banned wind turbines in England and offered no CfDs to onshore wind and solar.

None of this is really about price, it is about about appealing to voters that think renewable energy is going to have a bad impact on their lives.

I think we all need to get over that there is a no-pain way of getting to where we need to be. It will just be less painful than the alternative. After 3 years of being conditioned into thinking the that the government will compensate for any loss whatsoever, and listening to some stats about how everyone is pro general green policies but not those that specifically cost them money I'm a little bit pessimistic.

My point is that a lot of it can be done without a great deal of cost.

Perhaps I have a skewed view at the expensive end of this, but upgrading 75% of the entire building stock to even meet the standards of a few years ago never mind switch to a heat pump is a five figure sum per dwelling.

After one of the Truro graduations, I sat next to a Polish PhD student whose research is into how to convert entire UK buildings to net zero standards at minimal cost... and we had the conversation about how a large part of the equation is necessarily political... but she did reference how laughably archaic UK housing stock is (I count my draughty mud hut in that category).

It's nuts. My European colleagues can't quite believe their eyes. Sash windows: the heritage crowd think they are the pinnacle of window evolution. Everyone else wonders why a single glazed window with a quarter inch gap around the perimeter is a serious solution for anything other than a garden shed.

briantrumpet

Whoever did this ought to learn the difference in British English between 'license' (verb) and licence (noun). (As with practice/practise, check with 'advice' and 'advise' if in doubt.) Still, the Tories screwing up English is probably the least of our/their worries.

https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1685898044791828480

rick_chasey

I am beyond fed up with these f&cking strikes, it’s endless.

Pross

briantrumpet said:

Whoever did this ought to learn the difference in British English between 'license' (verb) and licence (noun). (As with practice/practise, check with 'advice' and 'advise' if in doubt.) Still, the Tories screwing up English is probably the least of our/their worries.

https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1685898044791828480

I wonder how long it will be until it is a ‘fact’ that Just Stop Oil are linked to the Labour Party. Another example of Trumpian tactics that need stamping out.

rick_chasey

Real energy security would be weaning us off an energy source Britain has more or less exhausted, no?

First.Aspect

I'm not sure I understand how producing more of a globally traded commodity helps energy security anyway.