LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
We already have a relatively cheap way to replace gas boilers that doesn't require wholesale upgrade of gas infrastructure. And no-one is ever going to spend money converting a boiler - they'll just replace. The expensive bit - bringing our housing stock out of the 19th century - needs doing whichever fuel source you use.skyblueamateur said:The pursuit of perfection is killing the argument on both sides. We need a level of pragmatism to get us to a much a better place.
I have an electric car, which I love, but fully accept that it is not practical for all ICE’s to be replaced in such a short time. Hybrids are the future for me over the next 10 years and I agree with Steve, there is a place for bio-fuel and synthetic fuel.
There was a really good article with Lord Bamford in the Times on Sunday. They’ve invested £100 million in inventing a hydrogen combustible engine. This for me is the future for bigger construction vehicles and lorries.
With that said we need to find a way to make green hydrogen, which could also be used to replace gas boilers. It’s why we should be pumping money into onshore wind, solar and tidal.
If we can secure our electricity generation then we’re laughing.
The same people I know decrying ‘green’ policies now were the same demanding help from the government when gas and electric went through the roof.
There’s no massive panacea but incremental steps will put us in a much better position.
It’s going to take a strong, brave leader. That definitely isn’t Sunak but I also fear isn’t Starmer.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
✨inflation✨tailwindhome said:
The bit I don't understand is how they possibly could believe that no one is going to notice the huge jump in prices.briantrumpet said:tailwindhome said:Can someone explain this to me?
I work for a drinks distributor. We carry around 1800 product lines. Roughly 1300 lines contain alcohol and roughly 1250 are going up in price
The team have spend a month putting together our most expensive brochure ever and we've increased our stock levels by a third to defer the price increases for as long as possible. You can't move in the warehouse for pallets of gin and vodka
In a week or to the new prices will filter through and there will be huge increases in wine and spirits
It's almost like they are lying.0 -
Yes. Man who has built his career around renewable energy donates to both the Labour Party and JSO. I presume we can also agree that that does not support the claim that JSO and the Labour Party are two parts of the same organisation just as the Conservative Party is not the political wing of the Saudi PIF just because one of their donors was a co-investor on an unrelated project.Stevo_666 said:
Glad you agree. I was just putting Pross straight on this as he seemed to think this wasn't the case.rjsterry said:
I mean obviously. Why else would anyone donate significant sums to any political party.Stevo_666 said:
I didn't call anything the political wing of anything else.Pross said:
If you start calling every Party the 'political wing of [insert name of something else their donors give money to]' it will get a bit silly. I'm sure he'd like to influence the policies on energy, he has a vested interest, but that's the same for pretty much every major political donor and a big issue with political donations anywhere. JSO are a bunch of fuckwits but it's hardly surprising that someone who is a lifelong 'eco warrior' supports their aims (or that he is a bit of a Leftie). However, giving money to two different groups doesn't make the one group the political wing of the other. I know Shapps understands that and I'm pretty sure that you understand it too. Like most stuff on here I think you're just posting for a reaction and don't really believe what you're saying.Stevo_666 said:
It is an attempt (and a successful one) because clearly there is a link as described - both MSO and Labour receive funding from Dale vince. Do you not think there is a risk that Labour policy could be influenced by someone who bankrolls JSO? He must clearly support their views and aims if he substantially funds them.Pross said:
I would say that just means he feels Labour are more likely to put in green policies than the Tories. If he donated huge amounts to Cancer Research would that make Labour the political wing of curing cancer?Stevo_666 said:
It is a fact that Dale Vince, a major funder of JSO, also makes substantial donations to the Labour party. Would you not consider that a link?Pross said:
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.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.
It's a blatant attempt to link Labour with a group that are widely disliked through the most tenuous thread possible in the hope that it will become an established fact. This is the sort of thing I really hate in modern politics (and all sides seem to be doing it to an extent, there was that one where Labour were saying Sunak was letting paedos out of prison). There needs to be more regulations in place to stop politicians making things up like this.
All I am saying is that there is a link and that it is far from improbable that Labour policy could be influenced by their major donors.
Say what you like about why you think I post, but challenging the mush of centrist group think on here is performing a public service in my humble opinion
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Stevo struggling with thesituation that labour have gone very centrist and Starmer is pretty laser focused on only touting popular policies, and instead it's the Tories who are a bunch of cranks.0
-
From the actual government examples, ready to drink spirits is going down, beer is not, but it will be going up by less in pubs than supermarkets.pblakeney said:Quick guess on the above. Supermarket prices are going up a few pence, pub prices are going down a few pence, giving an 11p difference. This is not what is written.
So we can continue to enjoy the cheap, cheap beer in pubs that we've all been noticing.0 -
Yeah but that poster above claims pub prices are lower than supermarket prices.kingstongraham said:
From the actual government examples, ready to drink spirits is going down, beer is not, but it will be going up by less in pubs than supermarkets.pblakeney said:Quick guess on the above. Supermarket prices are going up a few pence, pub prices are going down a few pence, giving an 11p difference. This is not what is written.
So we can continue to enjoy the cheap, cheap beer in pubs that we've all been noticing.
Nonsense.
"Pub pints will now be up to 11p lower than in the supermarket."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 -
Negative £5 lower counts as "up to 11p" surely.pblakeney said:
Yeah but that poster above claims pub prices are lower than supermarket prices.kingstongraham said:
From the actual government examples, ready to drink spirits is going down, beer is not, but it will be going up by less in pubs than supermarkets.pblakeney said:Quick guess on the above. Supermarket prices are going up a few pence, pub prices are going down a few pence, giving an 11p difference. This is not what is written.
So we can continue to enjoy the cheap, cheap beer in pubs that we've all been noticing.
Nonsense.
"Pub pints will now be up to 11p lower than in the supermarket."0 -
I never made any such claims - my posts above are clear enough on what I am claiming and I'm not fussed about what others are claiming.rjsterry said:
Yes. Man who has built his career around renewable energy donates to both the Labour Party and JSO. I presume we can also agree that that does not support the claim that JSO and the Labour Party are two parts of the same organisation just as the Conservative Party is not the political wing of the Saudi PIF just because one of their donors was a co-investor on an unrelated project.Stevo_666 said:
Glad you agree. I was just putting Pross straight on this as he seemed to think this wasn't the case.rjsterry said:
I mean obviously. Why else would anyone donate significant sums to any political party.Stevo_666 said:
I didn't call anything the political wing of anything else.Pross said:
If you start calling every Party the 'political wing of [insert name of something else their donors give money to]' it will get a bit silly. I'm sure he'd like to influence the policies on energy, he has a vested interest, but that's the same for pretty much every major political donor and a big issue with political donations anywhere. JSO are a bunch of fuckwits but it's hardly surprising that someone who is a lifelong 'eco warrior' supports their aims (or that he is a bit of a Leftie). However, giving money to two different groups doesn't make the one group the political wing of the other. I know Shapps understands that and I'm pretty sure that you understand it too. Like most stuff on here I think you're just posting for a reaction and don't really believe what you're saying.Stevo_666 said:
It is an attempt (and a successful one) because clearly there is a link as described - both MSO and Labour receive funding from Dale vince. Do you not think there is a risk that Labour policy could be influenced by someone who bankrolls JSO? He must clearly support their views and aims if he substantially funds them.Pross said:
I would say that just means he feels Labour are more likely to put in green policies than the Tories. If he donated huge amounts to Cancer Research would that make Labour the political wing of curing cancer?Stevo_666 said:
It is a fact that Dale Vince, a major funder of JSO, also makes substantial donations to the Labour party. Would you not consider that a link?Pross said:
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.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.
It's a blatant attempt to link Labour with a group that are widely disliked through the most tenuous thread possible in the hope that it will become an established fact. This is the sort of thing I really hate in modern politics (and all sides seem to be doing it to an extent, there was that one where Labour were saying Sunak was letting paedos out of prison). There needs to be more regulations in place to stop politicians making things up like this.
All I am saying is that there is a link and that it is far from improbable that Labour policy could be influenced by their major donors.
Say what you like about why you think I post, but challenging the mush of centrist group think on here is performing a public service in my humble opinion
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Nope.rick_chasey said:Stevo struggling with thesituation that labour have gone very centrist and Starmer is pretty laser focused on only touting popular policies, and instead it's the Tories who are a bunch of cranks.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And the Lib Dems, what is their stance/policies?rick_chasey said:Stevo struggling with thesituation that labour have gone very centrist and Starmer is pretty laser focused on only touting popular policies, and instead it's the Tories who are a bunch of cranks.
0 -
Whatever helps them win the by-election.focuszing723 said:
And the Lib Dems, what is their stance/policies?rick_chasey said:Stevo struggling with thesituation that labour have gone very centrist and Starmer is pretty laser focused on only touting popular policies, and instead it's the Tories who are a bunch of cranks.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Who cares tbh?focuszing723 said:
And the Lib Dems, what is their stance/policies?rick_chasey said:Stevo struggling with thesituation that labour have gone very centrist and Starmer is pretty laser focused on only touting popular policies, and instead it's the Tories who are a bunch of cranks.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Whoever they are up against in marginal seats, I'd imagine. It's not a very principled position but they are good at identifying a local issue and using it to their advantage.Stevo_666 said:
Who cares tbh?focuszing723 said:
And the Lib Dems, what is their stance/policies?rick_chasey said:Stevo struggling with thesituation that labour have gone very centrist and Starmer is pretty laser focused on only touting popular policies, and instead it's the Tories who are a bunch of cranks.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Bit like the Tories did with ULEZ in Uxbridge recently.rjsterry said:
Whoever they are up against in marginal seats, I'd imagine. It's not a very principled position but they are good at identifying a local issue and using it to their advantage.Stevo_666 said:
Who cares tbh?focuszing723 said:
And the Lib Dems, what is their stance/policies?rick_chasey said:Stevo struggling with thesituation that labour have gone very centrist and Starmer is pretty laser focused on only touting popular policies, and instead it's the Tories who are a bunch of cranks.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I take it all back about the private jet. He needs the time and space to focus on the open air chess board strategy of the country.
0 -
It feels like the whole country is being trolled now.0
-
0
-
Good luck with forming a majority like that 😆Stevo_666 said:
Bit like the Tories did with ULEZ in Uxbridge recently.rjsterry said:
Whoever they are up against in marginal seats, I'd imagine. It's not a very principled position but they are good at identifying a local issue and using it to their advantage.Stevo_666 said:
Who cares tbh?focuszing723 said:
And the Lib Dems, what is their stance/policies?rick_chasey said:Stevo struggling with thesituation that labour have gone very centrist and Starmer is pretty laser focused on only touting popular policies, and instead it's the Tories who are a bunch of cranks.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It's policies like this that have made the thick of it sadly redundant.kingstongraham said:I take it all back about the private jet. He needs the time and space to focus on the open air chess board strategy of the country.
0 -
Jezyboy said:
It's policies like this that have made the thick of it sadly redundant.kingstongraham said:I take it all back about the private jet. He needs the time and space to focus on the open air chess board strategy of the country.
It has all the smack of "It made me super intelligent, so let's get everyone playing chess so that they can be like me".0 -
Am I the only one who doesn’t think this is a bad policy? I think more kids playing chess would be a good thing.
I can see why in the current state, it seems massively irrelevant but I think it’s a good thing.0 -
Fair does0
-
Clearly not that super intelligent if you think playing chess 'made you clever'. Made you good at playing chess, maybe.briantrumpet said:Jezyboy said:
It's policies like this that have made the thick of it sadly redundant.kingstongraham said:I take it all back about the private jet. He needs the time and space to focus on the open air chess board strategy of the country.
It has all the smack of "It made me super intelligent, so let's get everyone playing chess so that they can be like me".1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It's obviously not a bad thing. Just several chapters down the to do list.skyblueamateur said:Am I the only one who doesn’t think this is a bad policy? I think more kids playing chess would be a good thing.
I can see why in the current state, it seems massively irrelevant but I think it’s a good thing.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
rjsterry said:
It's obviously not a bad thing. Just several chapters down the to do list.skyblueamateur said:Am I the only one who doesn’t think this is a bad policy? I think more kids playing chess would be a good thing.
I can see why in the current state, it seems massively irrelevant but I think it’s a good thing.
Quite so. Goes along with Starmer's wish to get everyone playing a musical instrument, and I suppose this is super-cool-dude Sunak's counter-play.
(FWIW, in some ways we're in a better place than we were, with at least giving everyone the chance to *try* musical instruments, what with 'Wider Opps' and First Access stuff, but the devil is in the detail of not only translating that into keeping it up beyond the first access, but, of course, funding it. Also in there not being skilled enough to do it, with many of the 'music co-ordinators' in primary schools not actually having any practical music skills.)0 -
It's 100 chess boards.skyblueamateur said:Am I the only one who doesn’t think this is a bad policy? I think more kids playing chess would be a good thing.
I can see why in the current state, it seems massively irrelevant but I think it’s a good thing.0 -
-
"To combat obesity, we will commit to funding 100 Frisbees in parks."0
-
So the total invest meant could be in the £2000 ball park?kingstongraham said:
It's 100 chess boards.skyblueamateur said:Am I the only one who doesn’t think this is a bad policy? I think more kids playing chess would be a good thing.
I can see why in the current state, it seems massively irrelevant but I think it’s a good thing.
Want to bet it ends up being £200,000+?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
