news & politics:discussion

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Neil said:

Don't wish your life away too fast can all change in an instant 

exactly, I'd rather have some ability to do things in retirement...

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

If you care more about the figure being spent than the end goal of clean energy then you don’t really support tackling climate change.

errr...ok. So they should drop that 28bill pledge then?

[steviewevie]

Green isn't cool anymore. Labour hardly even mention the climate when talking about investing in clean energy, they talk about cheaper energy and self reliance and being world leaders etc etc...nothing about scary climate change stuff.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

errr...ok. So they should drop that 28bill pledge then?

I don’t really mind, as long as they can get into clean energy by 2030.

Do you care more about the money or the end goal of the policy?

[cellar]

2 hours ago, lost said:

 

Whats the book where the corrupt racist cops in the deep south bible belt are actually communists? In that people are so put off by their stupid views they immediately adobt the opposite ones. I get that alot from Ozanne i think he's secretly a Tory 😄

Haha, I've thought exactly the same thing. I don't think anyone (outside of politicians) has ever put me off voting Labour more. 

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I don’t really mind, as long as they can get into clean energy by 2030.

Do you care more about the money or the end goal of the policy?

end goal of the policy...so they shouldn't have come out with this number then, because that is the bit of the pledge that has changed.

But at same time it is hard to see how they can do any of this without borrowing sh*t loads...and the borrowing of sh*t loads is where they might struggle.

Edited January 10 by steviewevie

[Justiceforcedave]

Just now, Ozanne said:

The end goal of the policy is the same, the scaling of the amount being paid for it has changed. The policy itself remains and hasn’t been ‘watered down’ or ‘scaled back’ or whatever nonsense has been spouted this time round.

For someone that claims to support the policy you have posted a fair amount being critical of it, it doesn’t give off the perception you are that supportive. There is never this level of commentary when the Tories actually row back on green policies. 

Actually, I've not been critical of the policy at all, I've just said it's a change from the original pledge (which it is). The most critical thing I said was that the change was a bit disappointing...but I also said it was "ultimately probably sensible" in the same sentence.

As a side to that, it's entirely ok for a person to support a party and criticise them or not like some of their MPs or policies or whatever if they so choose. People can say what they want and vote for who they want... that's how the system works! It's up to the Politicians to try and win us all over and they don't get it right every time. Far from it.

[steviewevie]

Anyway, will they get to clean energy by 2030?

BET NOW!

[steviewevie]

Don't know if you've noticed but I'm actually very pessimistic about the future. I think we're at the start of very turbulent times, and climate change will be a big factor in that. Fortunately I'm near the start of the upward curve of that happiness graph. 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

end goal of the policy...so they shouldn't have come out with this number then, because that is the bit of the pledge that has changed.

But at same time it is hard to see how they can do any of this without borrowing sh*t loads...and the borrowing of sh*t loads is where they might struggle.

So why are you so bothered about the £ spent when the policy is what you want?

24 minutes ago, Justiceforcedave said:

Actually, I've not been critical of the policy at all, I've just said it's a change from the original pledge (which it is). The most critical thing I said was that the change was a bit disappointing...but I also said it was "ultimately probably sensible" in the same sentence.

As a side to that, it's entirely ok for a person to support a party and criticise them or not like some of their MPs or policies or whatever if they so choose. People can say what they want and vote for who they want... that's how the system works! It's up to the Politicians to try and win us all over and they don't get it right every time. Far from it.

You were commenting more negatively about Labour apparently changing the policy (when they haven’t) which gave off the perception you aren’t happy with them over the policy. 

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

So why are you so bothered about the £ spent when the policy is what you want?

30 minutes ago, Justiceforcedave said:

because it is being watered down...feels like there is less commitment. It's like saying any old promise...we will get brexit done or make brexit work or be the highest growing economy in the G7 or stop the boats etc etc....like ok, but how?

[Guest]

Just now, steviewevie said:

because it is being watered down...feels like there is less commitment. It's like saying any old promise...we will get brexit done or make brexit work or be the highest growing economy in the G7 or stop the boats etc etc....like ok, but how?

We’ve been here so many times, the policy isn’t being watered down, it’s the still the same policy as it was.

[Justiceforcedave]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

You were commenting more negatively about Labour apparently changing the policy (when they haven’t) which gave off the perception you aren’t happy with them over the policy. 

I was just insisting that the pledge had changed and that was more in response to you denying that it had than anything else.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

We’ve been here so many times, the policy isn’t being watered down, it’s the still the same policy as it was.

A big part of the policy was the pledge to borrow 28bill to invest. That has been watered down.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

A big part of the policy was the pledge to borrow 28bill to invest. That has been watered down.

So you are more bothered about the amount being invested? The funding might be scaled differently but the policy itself (clean energy etc) is the same.

Edited January 10 by Ozanne

[Guest]

 

[philipsteak]

51 minutes ago, cellar said:

Haha, I've thought exactly the same thing. I don't think anyone (outside of politicians) has ever put me off voting Labour more. 

Literally just thinking the same thing while reading his reply to stevie about 5 or 6 posts back. I assume he doesn't but I REALLY hope he doesn't do any real life campaigning.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, philipsteak said:

Literally just thinking the same thing while reading his reply to stevie about 5 or 6 posts back. I assume he doesn't but I REALLY hope he doesn't do any real life campaigning.

I wouldn’t believe him, if he’s claiming that a randomer on a message board would change his mind on voting Labour he was probably never voting for them in the first place. 

[steviewevie]

8 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

 

Ok,so relative to other countries..not really that much,but more than the Tories.

[steviewevie]

I've heard that Ed Conway before on podcasts and stuff and he's very good at explaining stuff...that video was a bit rushed though.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

Ok,so relative to other countries..not really that much,but more than the Tories.

I didn’t realise it would be around £20b when you take into account current green investment, already the amount needed isn’t as much. Also as Ed points out extending the fiscal rules by a year to be able to hit their current fiscal rules.

[lazyred]

7 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I didn’t realise it would be around £20b when you take into account current green investment, already the amount needed isn’t as much. Also as Ed points out extending the fiscal rules by a year to be able to hit their current fiscal rules.

Its also not uprated for inflation. 20bn in 2028 will be worth less than today in real terms.

Anyone have a link to how the money would be spent or a plan of the stages to clean energy by 2030?

Edited January 10 by lazyred

[mattiloy]

I dont really understand why Labour moved to kill the 28bn figure though.

People pay such little attention to the blither comes out of Starmer’s mouth that nobody would have remembered that they were going to spend 28bn.

Then its not like anybody actually knows what that can buy anyway and nobody is going to figure out whether the 28bn is fully costed or not. Which actually doesnt matter because the tories will still say its uncosted whatever figure they put it at.

So whats the point?

Edited January 10 by mattiloy

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, mattiloy said:

I dont really understand why Labour moved to kill the 28bn figure though.

People pay such little attention to the blither comes out of Starmer’s mouth that nobody would have remembered that they were going to spend 28bn.

Then its not like anybody actually knows what that can buy anyway and nobody is going to figure out whether the 28bn is fully costed or not. Which actually doesnt matter because the tories will still say its uncosted whatever figure they put it at.

So whats the point?

Because the Tories were already using it as something to attack them on and they're sh*t scared.

[mattiloy]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Because the Tories were already using it as something to attack them on and they're sh*t scared.

Yeah.. so now that its 20bn or whatever, the tories are gonna lay off or what?

The folk that are gonna be raging about 28bn are also gonna be raging about 20bn spent on green stuff.

The folk that are gonna be buzzing about 28bn are gonna now mostly be raging about 20bn. Even though nobody has any idea about what either of those figures can actually buy.

Tbh i dont really get why politics is so often done like that. Salience is number 1 in any marketing message. 20bill here, 10bill there. Its utterly meaningless. Is it because they dont have any real ideas beyond spunking more dough on something than the other guys (or less if they want to appear to be more fiscally prudent with their spunk).