Westminster Politics

Can’t work out if we are currently watching the Tory party explode or implode but it’s definitely one of the two.
 
I'm torn on fracking. I was against it until that cheap source of energy became the reason that my energy bills didn't go up 1000%. Could the US even support Ukraine if they were facing the same shortages of energy that Germany are facing? It seems to me that fracking is at least partially responsible for saving Ukraine and who knows what else if Russia wasn't stopped there.

I would like to see "Green" energy supplies appear everywhere, but I've read that Germany spent trillions and are getting very little from their unwise choice of solar power in a place that isn't sunny.

But then people tell me their English solar panels do a great job, so I don't understand how this can both be true, and I need to look into it more.
England and Ireland could have wind farms no problem
 
liztruss-truss.gif
Me watching United on Sunday :(
 


Shes right. Illegal immigration has soared under the Tories, especially since Brexit because they have closed all legal routes of seeking asylum. So the only way you can gain asylum here now is by arriving here illegally by risky means or when we open up specific gateways like Ukraine.

We need to do a lot more to ensure that people can arrive in this country safely and be processed fairly.
 
Have they figured out what to do with the nuclear waste yet? Other than sit on it for 1000s of years and hope the barrels don't rust or geology changes for the worse over millennia?

This is nuclear fusion, not nuclear fission. With fusion, there is no radioactivity. It fusses 2 hydrogen atoms to form helium.
 
Shes right. Illegal immigration has soared under the Tories, especially since Brexit because they have closed all legal routes of seeking asylum. So the only way you can gain asylum here now is by arriving here illegally by risky means or when we open up specific gateways like Ukraine.

We need to do a lot more to ensure that people can arrive in this country safely and be processed fairly.

Sadly I think your view (which I agree with) and Rachel Reeves's view depart from each other after your first sentence.
 
Shes right. Illegal immigration has soared under the Tories, especially since Brexit because they have closed all legal routes of seeking asylum. So the only way you can gain asylum here now is by arriving here illegally by risky means or when we open up specific gateways like Ukraine.

We need to do a lot more to ensure that people can arrive in this country safely and be processed fairly.
That's one way of spinning what she said.
 
Sadly I think your view (which I agree with) and Rachel Reeves's view depart from each other after your first sentence.
Pretty much this. Reeves from 2014
Labour would clamp down on tax credits claimed by working EU migrants, it announced , as the main parties scramble to prove they are tough on immigration.The shadow work and pensions secretary, Rachel Reeves, said the UK social security system “was never designed for the levels of migration we are now seeing”.
Reeves also said Labour would extend the period for which EU migrants are prevented from claiming out-of-work benefits from three months to two years, a move that might deter some coming to the country even if they had a job offer.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/18/labour-clamp-down-in-work-tax-credits-eu-migrants

These Labour MPs haven’t changed.
 
Last edited:
Have they figured out what to do with the nuclear waste yet? Other than sit on it for 1000s of years and hope the barrels don't rust or geology changes for the worse over millennia?

Nuclear waste won't damage geology, it is always changing however.
 
I'm torn on fracking. I was against it until that cheap source of energy became the reason that my energy bills didn't go up 1000%. Could the US even support Ukraine if they were facing the same shortages of energy that Germany are facing? It seems to me that fracking is at least partially responsible for saving Ukraine and who knows what else if Russia wasn't stopped there.

I would like to see "Green" energy supplies appear everywhere, but I've read that Germany spent trillions and are getting very little from their unwise choice of solar power in a place that isn't sunny.

But then people tell me their English solar panels do a great job, so I don't understand how this can both be true, and I need to look into it more.
In the UK, fracking is more or less a commercial non-runner. The fractured geology of the ground containing the gas and the high population density of the country make it a bad technology for the UK - and that's before I even mention the global warming damage by adding yet more fossil fuel into the mix.

Here's one of the founders of Cuadrilla (one of the companies now trying to start fracking sites in the UK) on why it's not really a serious option.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ont-work-uk-founder-chris-cornelius-cuadrilla
The only way it makes money is if the government offers massive incentives (aka handouts) to the companies involved. For the Tories it's just another flag to wave to prove how tough-minded, anti-green and anti-political correctness they are.

On alternatives, nuclear plant take a long time to build but solar and wind power are fast. A commitment to those and to the development of higher volume energy storage can actually change things in a matter of a few years.

Last month, wind power provided 20% of the UK national electricity supply and solar added another 5%. That only includes the solar power supplied to the grid, not the solar used by the people who own their own panels.
 


People using tax to top up their salaries are the bankers and hedge fund sponsors she has who use loopholes to avoid paying tax, not the people who fecking need a tax credit to survive while already working. What the actual feck are these people?
 
Braverman even by the standards of these right wing Tories in Government and cabinet is particularly evil.

She's a horrible, vile woman. The fact she is home secretary is disgusting.
 
She seems fun…


Didn't she also say today that annoying "lefties" makes her really happy? Because that's obviously her job and primary focus.

She's that perfect combination of plain evil and stupid as feck.
 
She seems fun…




what's wrong with these people? are they that desperate to appear nationalistic, for the sake of middle-racist-england, that they'll praise things they know to be wrong? here she's saying "but the empire gave us roads". in kenya, post-1950s, there was a brutal regime backed by the declining british empire which went about torturing and murdering people. that's the thing she's defending here.

neither left nor right, in economic terms, has a monopoly on "good". government is complex and the redistribution choices made aren't always obvious. but... you generally can make decisions. to make current tensions worse and appeal to the worst aspects in everyone, which is lowest common demoninator racism passing for nationalistic pride in this case, or to give a complex answer about labour markets and, as an example, perhaps the fact that the nhs shortages are tied to migrant worker visas and their demonization post-brexit, certainly in part.

they're making decisions to define themselves on racial issues in ways they think offer a favourable contrast, in the minds of the nationalistic voters, between what they call "left wing" voters. it's an intentional divisionary tactic. entirely unnecessary and highly cynical.

the successor to pritti patel extolling the virtues of being a nasty piece of work. what a surprise.

there's no retreat from positions like this. if/when people start to turn on the tories, which is happening en masse already, these clips with people clearly stating their racist positions without any hesitation will exist in perpetuity. you can't say you were taken out of context or mishead. so this is a statement of intent. they intend to cling to the demonization of migrants for the rest of their political lives, and to try and spin it as a virtue. just more reasons to get rid of them.
 
Last edited:
This is nuclear fusion, not nuclear fission. With fusion, there is no radioactivity. It fusses 2 hydrogen atoms to form helium.

The nuclear industry told us nuclear fission was totally clean energy when it first came out. In fact, they still do. I'd be hesitant to trust that it is totally safe with no unforseen consequences.
 
https://www.thenational.scot/news/2...lowed-vet-proposed-rent-freeze-bill-scotland/

KING Charles has been allowed to vet emergency legislation to freeze rents in Scotland because it could affect tenants on the Balmoral estate in Aberdeenshire.

A bill to stop landlords raising rent prices for the next six months is making its way through Holyrood this week.

It comes after rules were changed at Holyrood last year following a Guardian investigation into the monarch's power to influence UK laws, under rules known in Scotland as Crown Consent.
The paper revealed last year that ministers in Edinburgh had allowed Queen Elizabeth to vet at least 67 pieces of legislation that affected her personal property and public powers. A Scottish government memo revealed it was “almost certain” proposed laws had been secretly changed to secure the Queen’s approval.
 
The nuclear industry told us nuclear fission was totally clean energy when it first came out. In fact, they still do. I'd be hesitant to trust that it is totally safe with no unforseen consequences.

It's fundamentally not the same physics. You end up with "heavy water" and helium as waste if I remember rightly, which already exist in great quantities in nature. I don't think they are greenhouse gases or anything either. At least not significantly so.

The unforeseen/ unaccounted for problems would more likely be in capital costs e.g. environmental cost of mining the rare earths you might need or carbon cost of concrete and steel etc. But that's the same for any power generation method really, just magnitudes and details of types to quibble over.
 
Nuclear waste won't damage geology, it is always changing however.
I wasn't suggesting it would.

I was explaining that for the "long term" storage solutions for nuclear waste underground assume that there will not be any significant geological changes to impact safe storage over millenia, while the waste remains radioactive. Many unoredictable things could impact safe storage over such a long period of time from sea levels rising to Earthquakes and water table changes.