How is the Tory Government Doing?

Norpig wrote:Ever thought that the people who are denying climate change are doing it for their own dodgy and financial reasons? You only have to look at UAE doing private deals for fossil fuels at the COP summit

That is exactly what is happening Norpig.

The massive global companies and countries rich in fossil fuels are dependant on the world carrying on buying their coal and oil.

These companies and countries are all super rich and money is no object in spending fast amounts of money on right wing propaganda to deny fossil fuel is causing irreputable global warming and 'buy' politicians, scientists, or whoever they want to convince morons like W63 that they are right and that all the other scientists in the world are wrong.

Sounds a crazy plan doesn't it - but most people are to greedy or stupid to care - they like W63 rather have cheap power from fossil fuel now than pay more to protect the planet in 20, 30, or 40 years time when they won't be around - but their children and grandchildren will be though.

Everyone with a brain - even the owners of the global corporations or the rulers of the countries with all the fossil fuels, know what is going to happen but they simply don't care - their children and grandchildren will be fabulously wealthy and can buy the best protection they can for whatever they will have to face in years to come - it's the rest of us that will suffer.

It is what it is though - humans have generally always been stupid and selfish - law of the jungle type thing.

I'll not be around to see things go bad but my daughter will and if she has kids they will live to see how things go from bad to worse - and they will - the science is clear enough to know what will happen - the planet has gone through a phase like this once before several billon years ago.

It is all clearly explained in the BBC iplayer series 'Earth'

I highly recommend watching it but as it isn't being shown on GB News I know W63 won't be troubling himself to learn what he is in total denial about...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0fpwly8/earth-series-1-1-inferno

And what is going on with the MP's doing private deals with this green energy bollocks?

Sluffy wrote:

That is exactly what is happening Norpig.

The massive global companies and countries rich in fossil fuels are dependant on the world carrying on buying their coal and oil.

These companies and countries are all super rich and money is no object in spending fast amounts of money on right wing propaganda to deny fossil fuel is causing irreputable global warming and 'buy' politicians, scientists, or whoever they want to convince morons like W63 that they are right and that all the other scientists in the world are wrong.

Sounds a crazy plan doesn't it - but most people are to greedy or stupid to care - they like W63 rather have cheap power from fossil fuel now than pay more to protect the planet in 20, 30, or 40 years time when they won't be around - but their children and grandchildren will be though.

Everyone with a brain - even the owners of the global corporations or the rulers of the countries with all the fossil fuels, know what is going to happen but they simply don't care - their children and grandchildren will be fabulously wealthy and can buy the best protection they can for whatever they will have to face in years to come - it's the rest of us that will suffer.

It is what it is though - humans have generally always been stupid and selfish - law of the jungle type thing.

I'll not be around to see things go bad but my daughter will and if she has kids they will live to see how things go from bad to worse - and they will - the science is clear enough to know what will happen - the planet has gone through a phase like this once before several billon years ago.

It is all clearly explained in the BBC iplayer series 'Earth'

I highly recommend watching it but as it isn't being shown on GB News I know W63 won't be troubling himself to learn what he is in total denial about...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0fpwly8/earth-series-1-1-inferno

Or just maybe Sluffy those countries know more than a gullible, brainwashed idiot like you?

karlypants wrote:And what is going on with the MP's doing private deals with this green energy bollocks?

Steady Karly we don’t want the likes of Sluffy to know that the main green energy pushers are really in this for the money, that’s only those involved with oil and gas isn’t it?

Whitesince63 wrote:

karlypants wrote:And what is going on with the MP's doing private deals with this green energy bollocks?

Steady Karly we don’t want the likes of Sluffy to know that the main green energy pushers are really in this for the money, that’s only those involved with oil and gas isn’t it?

To be honest I'm not sure what Karly is referring to?

But saying that whatever it is, the companies who are going to design, build and supply the green energy will rightly expect a return on their investment.

I'm sure everything will have been covered under the Energy Act that came into Law last month -

The Energy Bill was given Royal Assent on Thursday 26 October and is now an Act of Parliament (law).

The Energy Bill aims to increase energy reliability, while supporting the UK's climate change commitments and minimising consumer costs, by leveraging investment in clean technologies and maintaining the safety, security and resilience of energy systems.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2022/july-2022/lords-considers-energy-bill/

Whitesince63 wrote:Or just maybe Sluffy those countries know more than a gullible, brainwashed idiot like you?

And maybe I am a gullible, brainwashed idiot, and yes I'm certain the sum of knowledge in any country would be grater in total than my knowledge could ever be but it still doesn't change the laws of physics which arw of course universal.

The current global warming is down to man made burning of fossil fuel as can be proven by the CO2 isotope driving the global warming.

Even if all the countries in the world pooled their knowledge they still could not change the Laws of physics.
The current global warming is man made, through the burning of fossil fuels releasing CO2 with a specific finger print/DNA in the form of its isotope.

That my right wing nutjob is a FACT whether you recognise it as such or remain in denial of it forever!

Sluffy, for a start the cost of bringing the grid up to standard to be even halfway capable of delivering the electricity needed is according to National Grid around £3 trillion. Add to that the cost of recharging mechanisms and other infrastructure to deliver it, fitment of heat pumps or similar, residential system upgrades such as insulation, radiators etc, removal of gas boilers, shutting down of the gas network and those for starters will add thousands to individual homes. Then start imagining all the Pylons traversing the country, the huge sub stations needed, farm land taken up with solar panels and the whole thing is pure pie in the sky. It will not happen. 

If CO2 is the cause of so many problems then carbon capture is a better solution but better still would be investment in carbon free/reduced fuels which will be suitable for use in conventional ICE engines. We are only at the start of serious battery technology so if electricity really is the answer to our prayers then let’s get that sorted first. The whole net zero argument is built on sand and timescales totally fictitious with scare tactics just to convince the gullible that we need to act now. Clearly you’re a believer, no problem with that but what are you doing to save the planet. EV, Heat Pump, extra insulation? Even if you have either of the first two don’t you think you’ll still need fossil fuel oil to lubricate them. Unless you’re planning to go vegan, wear hair shirt clothes you’re doing nothing to prevent this vision of disaster that you’ve been convinced of. It’s bollocks Sluffy and one day you’ll wake up to it.

Whitesince63 wrote:Sluffy, for a start the cost of bringing the grid up to standard to be even halfway capable of delivering the electricity needed is according to National Grid around £3 trillion. Add to that the cost of recharging mechanisms and other infrastructure to deliver it, fitment of heat pumps or similar, residential system upgrades such as insulation, radiators etc, removal of gas boilers, shutting down of the gas network and those for starters will add thousands to individual homes. Then start imagining all the Pylons traversing the country, the huge sub stations needed, farm land taken up with solar panels and the whole thing is pure pie in the sky. It will not happen. 

If CO2 is the cause of so many problems then carbon capture is a better solution but better still would be investment in carbon free/reduced fuels which will be suitable for use in conventional ICE engines. We are only at the start of serious battery technology so if electricity really is the answer to our prayers then let’s get that sorted first. The whole net zero argument is built on sand and timescales totally fictitious with scare tactics just to convince the gullible that we need to act now. Clearly you’re a believer, no problem with that but what are you doing to save the planet. EV, Heat Pump, extra insulation? Even if you have either of the first two don’t you think you’ll still need fossil fuel oil to lubricate them. Unless you’re planning to go vegan, wear hair shirt clothes you’re doing nothing to prevent this vision of disaster that you’ve been convinced of. It’s bollocks Sluffy and one day you’ll wake up to it.

The science isn't bollocks though, unfortunately mankind has created an unavoidable, global, natural disaster for itself.

It is going to happen - that is a given.

The only question is what if anything can we do to mitigate the worst of it.

You panic yourself with your lists of what needs to be done, clearly that is impossible to achieve in one day and pointless doing it alone if no other nations don't their bits either.

The longest journey they say begins with the first step - some say the only way you can eat an elephant is by one mouthful at a time - both proverbs amount to the same thing, namely we start the process that will take years, probably decades to get to where we need to be - even then we (the Earth) may not make it in time - but the point is we have to make a start - we all do.

You ask what I do - I have in fact told you before but no doubt you couldn't be bothered to read the few paragraphs I wrote at the time - as you appear not want to listen to those views you disagree with and prefer to live in denial than face the facts.

I tend to walk rather than drive anytime I can, I turn the heating down if I'm alone, I recycle, keep and reuse carrier bags from the supermarkets, etc, etc.

I'm not a hippy or an eco evangelist, I'm just a normal person doing the little bit I can, more in the knowledge to myself that I've tried to do something, no matter how small it really is, to give something back to the world we live in and which God willing will still be in a fit enough state to sustain my daughter and her kids for the fullness of their life's as well.

You may call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one (as John Lennon sang) I hope someday you will join me W63 and the world will live (on) as one - rather to have by then burnt everything to a crisp.  

Wishful thinking maybe but if we don't take that first step or first bite then we are never going to make that journey or eat that elephant, are we?

Clearly it doesn't help if the country hosting the next Earth summit is flogging off loads of fossil fuels themselves from their backdoor - undermines the whole thing really doesn't it?

Unfortunately for planet Earth there are far more in Team W63 than there will ever be in Team Sluffy and probably always will be until it is too late.


NOTE - No elephants were harmed or consumed in the writing of this post.

Sluffy, I think most people walk where they can or as in my case use public transport instead of driving now I have a bus pass. I always recycle everything I can and always properly unlike some. I do as much as I can to use less energy, only have the heating on when it’s necessary, always turn lights off and have made sure my boiler is as efficient as possible. All these things I do because I personally can see a benefit. What I can’t control, like you yourself said, is what the likes of China, Russia et al do and so whatever we do here will have little or no impact I’m afraid. 

Whether I agree with you on CO2 levels or not will make absolutely no difference I’m afraid so I think the elephants are safe from us for now. I’m afraid I don’t share your views on net zero which I believe is just a huge con to enable certain people to make billions whilst the likes of you and I pay for it. As for my grandkids, I have absolutely no fears for them that we can do anything about on climate change but there are other issues that we can and I’d rather worry about them thanks.

Whitesince63 wrote:Sluffy, I think most people walk where they can or as in my case use public transport instead of driving now I have a bus pass. I always recycle everything I can and always properly unlike some. I do as much as I can to use less energy, only have the heating on when it’s necessary, always turn lights off and have made sure my boiler is as efficient as possible. All these things I do because I personally can see a benefit. What I can’t control, like you yourself said, is what the likes of China, Russia et al do and so whatever we do here will have little or no impact I’m afraid. 

Whether I agree with you on CO2 levels or not will make absolutely no difference I’m afraid so I think the elephants are safe from us for now. I’m afraid I don’t share your views on net zero which I believe is just a huge con to enable certain people to make billions whilst the likes of you and I pay for it. As for my grandkids, I have absolutely no fears for them that we can do anything about on climate change but there are other issues that we can and I’d rather worry about them thanks.

Good.

At least you see a need to do something - and you are - many aren't.

Yes what you and me are doing amounts virtually to nothing in the scheme of things but if we all do our bits it does start to add up to at least something - and that something is better than nothing.

That something is a start, it is that little bit better for the planet than if we had done nothing - agreed?

Don't get hung about about net Zero, it's just a phrase, a concept an idea, a plan even - doesn't mean it will end up being what it says on the tin now - the way you should be looking at it is the same as what you and me have been doing, a start, a move towards doing something, rather than having done nothing.  No country is going to bankrupt itself doing this alone, all western countries are mindful of keeping the electorate happy in order to stay in power, so even if needed there won't be any draconian changes - look how long and how much it cost to build a bloody train line to Birmingham (and the bits to Manchester and Leeds have already been scrapped) so the country simply isn't going to have wind turbines on every hill top or heat pumps in every home - its simply more likely that every new built homes may one day have to have them similar if you will as how the country is planning to end the production of petrol and diesel cars.

What I'm saying it will take time - in other words it is a start.

Even the likes of China isn't totally stupid sooner or later they will have to accept the planet has changed and they will have to do something they should have done years earlier - but that is how it works - people are selfish, greedy and stupid - we always have been - probably always will be too.

You need to park your Tory propaganda that you clearly have been following and start to think and act rationally - net zero isn't going to be achieved by the Tory Party, the Labour Party or any other party, just think of it as some form of slowly moving from doing nothing to doing something towards helping the planet - but in step with all the other nations - and not in front of them.

And I don't care what you think/believe about man made global warming - I know the laws of physics and I know what they are telling us.

You can stick your head as deeply as you like into the sand - the damage has already been done and is continuing to be made worse - all we can do is take our foot collectively off the accelerate and one day start to begin breaking before it really is too late.

Sluffy wrote:

Good.

At least you see a need to do something - and you are - many aren't.

Yes what you and me are doing amounts virtually to nothing in the scheme of things but if we all do our bits it does start to add up to at least something - and that something is better than nothing.

That something is a start, it is that little bit better for the planet than if we had done nothing - agreed?

Don't get hung about about net Zero, it's just a phrase, a concept an idea, a plan even - doesn't mean it will end up being what it says on the tin now - the way you should be looking at it is the same as what you and me have been doing, a start, a move towards doing something, rather than having done nothing.  No country is going to bankrupt itself doing this alone, all western countries are mindful of keeping the electorate happy in order to stay in power, so even if needed there won't be any draconian changes - look how long and how much it cost to build a bloody train line to Birmingham (and the bits to Manchester and Leeds have already been scrapped) so the country simply isn't going to have wind turbines on every hill top or heat pumps in every home - its simply more likely that every new built homes may one day have to have them similar if you will as how the country is planning to end the production of petrol and diesel cars.

What I'm saying it will take time - in other words it is a start.

Even the likes of China isn't totally stupid sooner or later they will have to accept the planet has changed and they will have to do something they should have done years earlier - but that is how it works - people are selfish, greedy and stupid - we always have been - probably always will be too.

You need to park your Tory propaganda that you clearly have been following and start to think and act rationally - net zero isn't going to be achieved by the Tory Party, the Labour Party or any other party, just think of it as some form of slowly moving from doing nothing to doing something towards helping the planet - but in step with all the other nations - and not in front of them.

And I don't care what you think/believe about man made global warming - I know the laws of physics and I know what they are telling us.

You can stick your head as deeply as you like into the sand - the damage has already been done and is continuing to be made worse - all we can do is take our foot collectively off the accelerate and one day start to begin breaking before it really is too late.

Sluffy, just to clarify, I don’t recycle with a save the planet attitude, though I do particularly feel we must all consider the environmental situation when disposing of plastics which can be recycled and used again. Similarly tins and cardboard can also be recycled and general waste incinerated. It just makes sense to do it. Also, whilst I don’t share your views on CO2, I walk or use public transport where I can for both exercise and to save money on fuel and also because it’s one of the free things I get for being an old git. 

I know that you are totally convinced by the fossil fuel is bad lobby and CO2 being “proved” according to you to be the cause of Global Warming and I do fully respect your right to hold that view but along with an increasing number of environmentalists, scientists and physicists who take a different view I don’t subscribe to it. That’s my choice, I’m entitled to it and I haven’t seen anything to change it.

One absolutely indisputable fact is Sluffy that neither of us will be here to see if we’re right so there is little point our disagreeing over it. None of the major CO2 producers are going to relent so it’s only going to be the likes of our children who are going to be punished by our completely fruitless efforts to meet net zero timescales as governments in the virtue signalling west destroy our economies by removing a perfectly economic and efficient energy supply network by pinning our futures on systems that will never work. That won’t stop them destroying our countryside with windmills and solar farms and thousands of miles of ugly pylons in order to supply the EVs, Heat pumps and other paraphernalia that they’ll force upon us by removing what’s there now. If you think that’s worth it more fool you but hopefully the people like me will eventually force politicians of its folly before it becomes irreversible.

Whitesince63 wrote:
Sluffy, just to clarify, I don’t recycle with a save the planet attitude, though I do particularly feel we must all consider the environmental situation when disposing of plastics which can be recycled and used again. Similarly tins and cardboard can also be recycled and general waste incinerated. It just makes sense to do it. Also, whilst I don’t share your views on CO2, I walk or use public transport where I can for both exercise and to save money on fuel and also because it’s one of the free things I get for being an old git. 

I know that you are totally convinced by the fossil fuel is bad lobby and CO2 being “proved” according to you to be the cause of Global Warming and I do fully respect your right to hold that view but along with an increasing number of environmentalists, scientists and physicists who take a different view I don’t subscribe to it. That’s my choice, I’m entitled to it and I haven’t seen anything to change it.

One absolutely indisputable fact is Sluffy that neither of us will be here to see if we’re right so there is little point our disagreeing over it. None of the major CO2 producers are going to relent so it’s only going to be the likes of our children who are going to be punished by our completely fruitless efforts to meet net zero timescales as governments in the virtue signalling west destroy our economies by removing a perfectly economic and efficient energy supply network by pinning our futures on systems that will never work. That won’t stop them destroying our countryside with windmills and solar farms and thousands of miles of ugly pylons in order to supply the EVs, Heat pumps and other paraphernalia that they’ll force upon us by removing what’s there now. If you think that’s worth it more fool you but hopefully the people like me will eventually force politicians of its folly before it becomes irreversible.

You wouldn't recycle if you hadn't a conscience - I know plenty people who couldn't give a fuck what they throw in the bin.

Recycling has no direct benefit to anyone who does it - they aren't earning money from doing so, it is a bit of an inconvenience to sort things out into the right piles, you aren't exercising as such - so why do it otherwise?

Right, who are these "increasing number of environmentalists, scientists and physicists" who deny this global warming is not from the burning of fossil fuels?

Name names and I'll research their backgrounds and funding.

I bet you haven't bothered to check any of them out have you...?

You just believe them as gospel because they simply say the things you want to hear...

The physics is real - there is no doubt whatsoever that the C02 isotope causing the current global warming is from the burning of fossil fuel - it can't be created otherwise.

And I asked you in my last post to be realistic - and you are not being so.

Clearly no one is going to say that from tomorrow we no longer burn fossil fuels and we will spend all the money there is in the world to cover the earth in windmills and solar panels.

So stop such a silly narrative that you continue to use.

We will carry on burning fossil fuels for decades ahead, the plan is to phase them out over time - that's how reality works.

Also it isn't virtue signalling changing from one thing to an alternative - for example we weren't 'virtue signalling' when we changed from leaded to unleaded petrol were we - we did so because the science told us it was polluting the air we breathed.

You're probably old enough to remember doing the same stopping having coal fires in our homes and moving to 'smokeless' zones, similarly because of air pollution.

So why to you is it such a big difference when the same 'science' (that doesn't change - it is universal and what we've built everything we know on) tells us about how this global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuel, and why is it 'virtue signalling' trying to do something about it?

Don't you even realise that the phrase 'virtue signalling' is in itself is just social-political phrase deliberately used to 'lead' people into a mindset that suits their cause?

Doing the right things for the right reasons isn't 'virtue signalling' it never has been.

You need to park all these propaganda narratives that you have let fill your head and look at things in a sensible and realistic way.

W63, thought you might find this interesting seeing you always refer to China as your reason that the rest of the world won't do much if anything until they get their finger out over global warming.

(fwiw I have posted about this before but clearly you hadn't bothered to read most of what I post...)

15:37
How can China be held to account on climate?

Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, reporting from COP28

Climate agreements like the Paris agreement generally avoid the big stick, preferring to encourage and sometimes embarrass countries large and small into compliance.

In relation to China, this has been a very successful approach so far.

China has achieved what it promised in Copenhagen in 2009 and is well on track to beat what was agreed in Paris.

True, these were the easy bits as previous pacts allowed China to continue to increase overall emissions but at a slower rate.

But by not criticising China in public and by encouraging the Asian giant’s engagement with the UN process, the US has helped the country to greater ambition.

In 2020 President Xi announced that China would peak emissions before 2030. Such has been the acceleration of renewables there’s a growing view that China might achieve this goal by next year - with huge implications for the rest of the world.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/science-environment-67440257


It would seem even China sees that the global warming is man made and have realised they've got to get their arse into gear and do something immediate about it themselves!

I’m not against renewables Sluffy, I’ve always said we should look for other sources of energy because sooner or later fossil fuels will run out and we need alternatives, but for me wind and solar farms aren’t the answer. They may be part of it but not on their own. Desecrating the countryside with them plus thousands of miles of pylons doesn’t sound too good to me. If we’re going to reduce the use of oil and gas then put the money into similar fuels that can take advantage of current infrastructure. Surely if the money going into wind and solar went into bio fuels it would save a fortune. You might argue that would take time whilst wind and solar are here now but surely it makes sense to wait rather than throwing all the current technology like ICE engines and the gas systems and boilers away. 

I refuse to believe that science can’t come up with an alternative which doesn’t result in so much change and cost. As for the carbon argument, if the truth about the cost, life and environmental damage of EV’s was revealed I’m sure the public, including you would resist. I’m not having this need to rush all these things through by the scare stories of the eco zealots. The world isn’t going to end any time soon and even though I accept that efforts should be made to create alternatives to fossil fuels, the current options aren’t it for me. Nuclear is the obvious alternative along with small modular reactors which can be situated in current power stations already linked to the grid. That along with a move to eco fuels would be much more sensible. They’ve even flown a plane across the Atlantic with one so we know it works, it’s just about money and development like everything else.

Whitesince63 wrote:I’m not against renewables Sluffy, I’ve always said we should look for other sources of energy because sooner or later fossil fuels will run out and we need alternatives, but for me wind and solar farms aren’t the answer. They may be part of it but not on their own. Desecrating the countryside with them plus thousands of miles of pylons doesn’t sound too good to me. If we’re going to reduce the use of oil and gas then put the money into similar fuels that can take advantage of current infrastructure. Surely if the money going into wind and solar went into bio fuels it would save a fortune. You might argue that would take time whilst wind and solar are here now but surely it makes sense to wait rather than throwing all the current technology like ICE engines and the gas systems and boilers away. 

I refuse to believe that science can’t come up with an alternative which doesn’t result in so much change and cost. As for the carbon argument, if the truth about the cost, life and environmental damage of EV’s was revealed I’m sure the public, including you would resist. I’m not having this need to rush all these things through by the scare stories of the eco zealots. The world isn’t going to end any time soon and even though I accept that efforts should be made to create alternatives to fossil fuels, the current options aren’t it for me. Nuclear is the obvious alternative along with small modular reactors which can be situated in current power stations already linked to the grid. That along with a move to eco fuels would be much more sensible. They’ve even flown a plane across the Atlantic with one so we know it works, it’s just about money and development like everything else.

You still don't get it.

No the world isn't going to end anytime soon but it is going to change in a way that the environment won't be able to support human life as we know it.

The weather will change for a start, the oceans will start to lose its oxygen levels and not sustain sea life, the tropics will get to hot to support farming, the ice at the poles will melt and raise sea levels, drought and famine in many parts of the world would become the norm.

If you think world migration is bad now, we've seen absolutely nothing as to how it will become.

Yes, I know it sounds like a bad movie script but all that will begin to happen if we don't act before it becomes too late - that's the science of what WILL happen.

WE (the world) have to act now - the longer we leave it the worse it will be.

Even China seems to be getting its finger out, Brazil has finally got around to slowing down the chopping down of the Amazon forest...

Amazon rainforest: Deforestation in Brazil at six-year low
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-66393360

...the world IS slowly taking this very, very seriously at long last.

Shame that many people like you are still in denial about the urgency and need to change even if it costs us money or creates 'eyesores' to look at.

Not that I think you will even bother with this but I'll try anyway...

Remember all your comments about immigration and Muslims and how I told you about it being right wing 'white supremacy' propaganda, how I told you how life really is in highly urbanised environments with majority ethnic residents, how the vast majority of us live in peace together, etc, etc..

Well here is a 30 minute audio podcast from an expert in terrorism, more or less saying exactly what I did...

Try listening to someone who is informed and knowledgeable and not simply to the voices who tell you what you want to hear for a change...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0ghbs1x

Released On: 29 Sep 2023Available for over a year

The Great Replacement is an idea fuelling far-right recruitment around the world - the idea that white communities and culture are being purposely replaced by non-white migrants.

Many far-right terrorists have referenced this theory as the driving force behind their murderous actions - but where does this idea originate from, and how seriously should we be taking its proliferation here in the UK?

Terrorism expert Raffaello Pantucci explores the roots of the Great Replacement and asks if this is just a far-right conspiracy theory as some critics claim, or is there a kernel of truth reflected in the UK's changing demography?

If so, how are communities - and the government - managing this change? Immigration is often a difficult topic of public debate, with many people concerned that any questioning of immigration policy will label them as racist.

But if we can’t talk more openly, without fear of judgement, are we at risk of handing control of the immigration narrative to extremists?

Sluffy wrote:

You still don't get it.

No the world isn't going to end anytime soon but it is going to change in a way that the environment won't be able to support human life as we know it.

The weather will change for a start, the oceans will start to lose its oxygen levels and not sustain sea life, the tropics will get to hot to support farming, the ice at the poles will melt and raise sea levels, drought and famine in many parts of the world would become the norm.

If you think world migration is bad now, we've seen absolutely nothing as to how it will become.

Yes, I know it sounds like a bad movie script but all that will begin to happen if we don't act before it becomes too late - that's the science of what WILL happen.

WE (the world) have to act now - the longer we leave it the worse it will be.

Even China seems to be getting its finger out, Brazil has finally got around to slowing down the chopping down of the Amazon forest...

Amazon rainforest: Deforestation in Brazil at six-year low
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-66393360

...the world IS slowly taking this very, very seriously at long last.

Shame that many people like you are still in denial about the urgency and need to change even if it costs us money or creates 'eyesores' to look at.

Sluffy, I’m not denying climate change, nor the need to move away from fossil fuels to renewables but I’m sorry that I don’t agree with the scare stories of impending doom and gloom if we don’t do it right now. My problem is the pace we’re trying to make the massive and expensive changes to systems that are unproven and could itself end in disaster.

We moved away from windmills centuries ago the only people who drove EVs were the milkmen who delivered my pinta’s every day. We removed water tanks from our houses, now we’re supposed to put them back as part of our heat pumps which so far have been proved to be both ineffective and hugely expensive. Look, I’m all for renewables but only when both the cost, technology and efficiency warrant it, not when some artificial date set by bureaucrats decided things should happen. 

This country is already a leader in carbon reduction so good on us, I’m in no way against that but we’re being scammed by people, some rich, some just gullible, on this net zero malarkey to fill the pockets of the likes of Bill Gates and his WEF cronies and yet you think I’m the one who’s daft.

Whitesince63 wrote: Sluffy, I’m not denying climate change, nor the need to move away from fossil fuels to renewables but I’m sorry that I don’t agree with the scare stories of impending doom and gloom if we don’t do it right now. My problem is the pace we’re trying to make the massive and expensive changes to systems that are unproven and could itself end in disaster.

We moved away from windmills centuries ago the only people who drove EVs were the milkmen who delivered my pinta’s every day. We removed water tanks from our houses, now we’re supposed to put them back as part of our heat pumps which so far have been proved to be both ineffective and hugely expensive. Look, I’m all for renewables but only when both the cost, technology and efficiency warrant it, not when some artificial date set by bureaucrats decided things should happen. 

This country is already a leader in carbon reduction so good on us, I’m in no way against that but we’re being scammed by people, some rich, some just gullible, on this net zero malarkey to fill the pockets of the likes of Bill Gates and his WEF cronies and yet you think I’m the one who’s daft.

You don't believe in the scare stories of impending doom and gloom but you believe in the scare stories of being scammed by the likes of Bill gates and the WEF???

As to your question if I really think you are daft - then I think you've just answered it yourself..!

Don't you read what I post?

Well clearly you don't as you have several times admitted you don't.

Look, I've stated numerous times that the changes needed to be made ARE NOT going to be done BY ANYONE in the near future - I don't know why you persist to have this bee in your bonnet that it would be???

We (the world) knows that we HAVE TO make a start (which we have) and move towards greatly reducing the use of fossil fuel.

We (the world) can only do that by playing the cards we have in our hands now, no doubt better ways of doing it will be developed and implemented in time but we (the world) simply do not have the time to sit on our hands, doing nothing, until we eventually come up with something better than the ways we have to use now.

Things change as well - thirty years ago it was unimaginable that we would all be driving about in electric cars and it seems likely that in the next 20 years most of us will.

No doubt if you and I were talking about this 30 years ago, you would be telling me the experts were wrong, you didn't believe in the science, we would have to spend billions on infrastructure changes, building many thousands of charging points, scrapping thousands of petrol stations, that the likes of Richard Branson or whoever back then, would be ripping us off for billions and a million other reasons why in your view we should not be moving from petrol cars to electric drive ones!!!

Point being that it wasn't done in a day as you seem to believe the change to green energy will be?  We (the world) have been talking about global warming at have got to this stage from the start of this century.  China as an example has committed to carbon neutrality before 2060 - ie from start to finish is 60 years not by this time next week or whatever timescale you seem to have in your head for global warming changes!

And it's just absolutely ridiculous to talk about going back to things like windmills and water tanks (I've still got mine, doesn't everyone, how did they get their water otherwise?), things change, some rightly so and some in retrospect wrongly - take putting asbestos into properties for instance.

As for Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum and stuff like that, well that's what your right wing Libertarian beliefs are all about - this is in fact what YOU are voting for namely the end of government restraints - minimum wage, Health and Safety legislation, equal pay, racial discrimination, air pollution legislation, etc, etc, and instead for free unfettered corporate globalism - don't you understand the implications of your own beliefs???

I've said previously that your basic problem is that you are a solid Conservative voter who has over time been radicalised into believing more and more right wing Libertarian rhetoric and find yourself conflicted in that you can't understand (and to your credit), disagree with their behaviour yet believe in their polices which have lurched towards extremism (exiting the Human rights Commission, talk about white supremacy (the Muslim 'threat') Trickledown Economics and the dismantling of the state (Trump rejection of the 2020 election, Johnson lies to Parliament, etc, etc).

You realise that the politicians who represent the party you vote for are 'bad' but you fully believe in their policies they 'push' are 'good'- hence your awareness that something is wrong but you can't work out exactly what it is?

I don't doubt your heart is in the right place but you've been been politicised into believing what comes out of the Conservative central office and haven't realised it has dragged you into mainstream Libertarian ideology.

You've been politically hi-jacked by the right wing of your own party and haven't even realised it!

To prove my point about what I've said here...

Sluffy wrote:I've said previously that your basic problem is that you are a solid Conservative voter who has over time been radicalised into believing more and more right wing Libertarian rhetoric and find yourself conflicted in that you can't understand (and to your credit), disagree with their behaviour yet believe in their polices which have lurched towards extremism (exiting the Human rights Commission, talk about white supremacy (the Muslim 'threat') Trickledown Economics and the dismantling of the state (Trump rejection of the 2020 election, Johnson lies to Parliament, etc, etc).

You realise that the politicians who represent the party you vote for are 'bad' but you fully believe in their policies they 'push' are 'good'- hence your awareness that something is wrong but you can't work out exactly what it is?

I don't doubt your heart is in the right place but you've been been politicised into believing what comes out of the Conservative central office and haven't realised it has dragged you into mainstream Libertarian ideology.

You've been politically hi-jacked by the right wing of your own party and haven't even realised it!

...which of course you disagree with and can't self identify yourself as being - and claim you are a centralist (and are speaking for the majority in this country) whilst it is me and my ilk that are raving lefty loonies, I thought you might like to reflect on the current Conservative Party MP's in Parliament view on Braverman's views on scrapping the laws on Human Rights over immigration...

This from todays speech by Braverman -

"The Conservative Party faces electoral oblivion in a matter of months if we introduce yet another bill destined to fail," she told MPs.

"Do we fight for sovereignty or do we let our party die?"

Mrs Braverman said the bill must deliver on the prime minister's pledge to stop small boats crossing the Channel and set out a number of tests she said it must meet to do this.

These included addressing the Supreme Court's concerns about the safety of Rwanda and "blocking off all routes of challenge" to enable flights carrying asylum seekers to the east African country before the next election.

Although Mrs Braverman said she supported leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), she said this was not the only way to stop the boats.

"I accept that the government won't do that and that it is a debate for another day," she added.

Instead she proposed that the bill should override the UK's Human Rights Act, the ECHR and other international law.

"The powers to detain and remove must be exercisable notwithstanding the Human Rights Act, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Refugee Convention, and all other international law," she said.

She added that Parliament should be prepared to sit over Christmas to pass the bill.

Tory splits
Mrs Braverman was flanked by supporters as she gave her statement but there are splits within the Conservative Party over her proposals.

One senior Tory MP told the BBC her statement "was just the latest performance in the leadership pantomime".

Rather than disregarding human rights law, another option is for the bill to simply declare Rwanda a safe country.

The BBC understands Mr Sunak is hoping to steer a middle course between those options.

The One Nation Caucus, which has a current membership of 106 Tory MPs, called on the prime minister to "think twice before overriding" either the ECHR and HRA.

The group's chairman, former Deputy Prime Minister Damian Green said: "Successive Conservative governments have played a vital role in creating and protecting the ECHR as well as the Refugee and Torture conventions."

Another leading member of the group, Matt Warman, said overriding the ECHR was "a red line for a number of Conservatives".

However, Mark Francois, chairman of the right-wing European Research Group (ERG), said it would not back any new legislation that does not "fully respect the sovereignty of Parliament, with unambiguous wording".

Former Minister Sir Simon Clarke said there was "raw anger" among his constituents about migration.

He told the BBC's Politics Live programme: "It cannot be the case that a human rights framework which was set up in the late 1940s, which could never have envisaged a world in which tens of thousands of people were coming to this country illegally and we were unable to deport them, is regarded as so sacrosanct that we can't change it."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67639843


So there you have it - 1 in 3 Conservative MP's are already signed up AGAINST scrapping Human Rights legislation and the group that supports ignoring Human Rights is a Right Wing group and has been described as "operating as a party within a party"...

Labour MPs are demanding a full investigation by parliament's expenses watchdog, IPSA, into the ''funding and activities'' of a group of hard-line Conservative MPs who have been branded a ''party within a party'' .

More than a quarter of a million pounds in official expenses has been claimed by a group of 40 Tory MPs for ''research'' carried out by the European Research Group (ERG). All the MPs are members or supporters of the ERG whose stated aim is a hard, uncompromised exit from the European Union.

The Tory MPs, including members of Theresa May's cabinet, have channelled the money to the ERG over the last five years, covering the period of both the David Cameron and May administrations.

Under IPSA rules, MPs cannot claim for research or work ''done for, or on behalf of a political party.''

Following an investigation by open Democracy, the former Conservative minister, Anna Soubry, called the operation of the ERG ''a party within a party'' and stated that there were  questions over whether or not public money should be given to the group.

No accounts or membership list of the ERG is published, despite repeated requests from open Democracy in recent weeks. During an interview with Channel Four News this week, the current chair of the ERG, the Fareham MP Suella Fernandes [now Braverman], refused once again to reveal who were members of the ERG and said that information was only available to the group itself.

Fernandes looked increasingly uncomfortable after she accepted that the ERG did take public money, but dismissed the suggestion that transparency of its activities should be automatic.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/mps-demand-full-investigation-of-hard-brexit-backing-tory-party-within-par/

Ok that article is a few years old now but it does show the ideology behind the group which has not changed - Braverman having been there all along.

In simple terms it IS part of the extreme right wing groups and ideologies that you have bought into and thus doing moved away from the centralist views that you believe you hold.

There is nothing wrong in having extreme right wing beliefs, there's no shame in being a Conservative centralist BUT you can't be both at the same time!

And again about being extreme right wing in your beliefs...

Robert Jenrick resigns as immigration minister

Robert Jenrick has resigned as immigration minister, the home secretary has said.

"That has been confirmed," James Cleverly said after repeated questioning from MPs in the Commons.

It comes as the government unveiled emergency legislation aimed at enabling its Rwanda policy to go ahead.

Ministers say it will prevent further legal challenges to deportation flights - but it does not go as far as some on the Tory right were demanding.

Mr Jenrick has previously suggested the government could quit the European Convention on Human Rights (EHCR).

Instead, the bill allows ministers to disregard parts of UK human rights law.

Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman - an ally of Mr Jenrick - earlier told MPs the legislation was "destined to fail".


The legislation aims to address the concerns of the Supreme Court, which last month ruled plans to send some asylum seekers to the east African country were unlawful.

The bill, which must be voted on by Parliament, orders the courts to ignore key sections of the Human Rights Act in an attempt to sidestep the Supreme Court's existing judgment.

It also orders the courts to ignore other British laws or international rules - such as the international Refugee Convention - that stand in the way of deportations to Rwanda.

However, it does not go as far as some Tory MPs wanted.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67640833


The government of the day muzzling the judiciary!!!

Just like Russia and China do...

And even then the likes of Braverman and Jenrick clearly believe there should be NO Human Right legislation at all on the matter!!!

If any government does this sort of thing once then sooner or later someone will do it again and again.

Are you still certain you are the one speaking up for the people and I'm the crazy one - you know the idiot who is standing up for freedom and democracy for ALL of us including you..!