The house newspaper of the Conservative and UKIPist party has helpfully produced a confused voters' guide to people to hate, who are presumably those responsible for small boats, the shocking state of public services, the ruined economy, and the lowest-ever standards in government.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12352115/The-Mail-Sundays-Woke-List-2023-reveals-male-police-chief-wore-menopause-vest-BBC-presenter-said-Lionesses-white.html
|
I see Rishi and Co are now going to go against the green agenda and play into the hands of all the climate deniers.
Anything to get votes.
Very Trumpian.
|
>> Very Trumpian.
>>
With respect so is your comment, its not an absolute where everyone who has an opposing view on any 'green/climate change' is a denier. There may well be issues with certain aspects of any policy.
Let's not lump everyone into either a with us or against us, I don't think it's very helpful.
|
Bobby's words were spot on. Sunak isn't denying climate change, but he is "play[ing] into the hands of ... climate deniers". He has said environmental measures shouldn't cost consumers, and implied measures could be dropped or delayed. That's just dishonest. Who else will pay?
Populists need a problem and somebody to blame. He's making environmental costs one of the problems and trying to create a dividing line between his party and Labour, when in reality the environment is everybody's problem. It's unbelievably irresponsible. They will do anything, cross any line, to get re-elected.
|
>> Bobby's words were spot on. Sunak isn't denying climate change, but he is "play[ing] into
>> the hands of ... climate deniers". He has said environmental measures shouldn't cost consumers, and
>> implied measures could be dropped or delayed.
Sunak is desperately trying to appeal to everyone and everything to rescue the car crash that is the Tory parties election hopes. At the end of the day the strident climate protestors aint gonna vote for anyone is who is not promising to takes us back to the stone age, so politically its best to enrage them and disenfranchise them in the minds of the rest of the voters.
>>That's just dishonest.
Since when has *any* politician been honest. Its never happened and never will.
>>Who else will pay?
Who do you think? the middle ground population, always has and always will.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 30 Jul 23 at 13:01
|
>> They will do anything, cross any
>> line, to get re-elected.
It really is despicable desperation at the moment, very very unedifying, they are now talking about holding a snap election any time next year that there is even the feint glimmer of good economic news. They know, this could be the end of the party for many many years to come.
Well done Boris.
|
Yes, well done Boris!
The next Labour government, if there is one, will really have to work harder at getting some tax out of the very well off this time. That's difficult, as there are many more means open to the super rich to avoid tax than there are for those of us on PAYE. Didn't Sunak and Starmer publish their tax returns? Sunak - income £5m, tax 22%. Starmer, income £360k, tax 33%. This usually ends up with a discussion of wealth taxes.
I agree that lying, or at least presenting the best possible version of events and lying by omission, is practically a definition of politics. But there's lying and lying. We used to think spin was a form of lying, and maybe it is, but what has now been almost normalised is way beyond that. And many of the lies will have absolutely nothing to do with policy that affects any but very few people.
It's going to get even dirtier if that's possible, and difficult for Labour if they want to remain at least reasonably truthful. A rebuttal, refutation or even correction is never as powerful as the lie that preceded it.
Starmer, like Blair in 1997, has been compared to a man carrying a priceless Ming vase across a highly polished floor - Labour's lead could be destroyed if it gives the Conservative propaganda machine too much to work with, so its policies and especially any ideas that could be made to sound like reckless spending plans are being kept securely wrapped up.
Regarding election timing, the consensus seems to be that Sunak will hang on through this winter, despite the prospect of a huge overload of the NHS even without any strikes. By next spring, they might well think that when the sun comes out is their best hope, because they certainly won't be able to fix anything by the winter of 24/25.
|
Both main parties place electoral perceptions well above objective or rational policy. Neither wants to offend or upset its possible voter base.
For the Tories currently in power this means somewhat empty rhetoric their potential voter base might appreciate. Motorists, climate change sceptics, are part of his constituency.
Labour desperately want the reins, are busy rolling back on earlier policy expectations and have become a largely policy free zone. Non-dom status and private education feed their constituency.
Election timing is in Tory hands and they have an uphill battle. They will not call one if the likely outcome is a massive defeat.
Much depends on the outcome of Sunak 5 pledges, and international events over which he has even less control - eg: end to war in Ukraine could ease cost of living issues.
Sunak can delay until January 2025. He may decide to go earlier (even if victory is unlikely) if the polls suggest a hung parliament - a further election may be the outcome as hung parliaments are inherently unstable.
|
>> Bobby's words were spot on. Sunak isn't denying climate change, but he is "play[ing] into
>> the hands of ... climate deniers". He has said environmental measures shouldn't cost consumers, and
>> implied measures could be dropped or delayed. That's just dishonest. Who else will pay?
>>
>> Populists need a problem and somebody to blame. He's making environmental costs one of the
>> problems and trying to create a dividing line between his party and Labour, when in
>> reality the environment is everybody's problem. It's unbelievably irresponsible. They will do anything, cross any
>> line, to get re-elected.
>>
I thought it might have not been helpful to lump people together, especially with what's happened over the past few years. Clearly not, but that's one feature of SM it helps people seem more on the extreme of any debate. No thought that theres a mixture of people in the middle.
Deniers, even the language is interesting, what's everyone else, believers?
|
|
Perhaps it would be better if we held elections every ten or even twelve years instead if five. Five is really too short a time to enable a government to take on the important challenges like NHS reform and tackling climate change, when the effects of necessary change take time to bear fruit and initially be unpopular. Whereas now anything that might prove controversial only has three and a bit years to get right before being abandoned in favour of what is more likely to win votes at the next election.
|
Ten or twelve years to rape the country, full your mates/donors' pockets, and change the rules to stay in power indefinitely by packing the Lord's with your gimps.
No thanks!
|
>> Deniers, even the language is interesting, what's everyone else, believers?
Deniers, as in those who deny that changes in climate are due to human action, is a reasonable enough term.
Would accepters be an acceptable antonym?
|
The term "denier" is mainly used in the context of one who disbelieves conventional, widely held, and scientifically justified theories.
Other examples would be (say) the holocaust or evolution where denial runs counter to generally accepted and largely proven consensus.
Denialists are the anomaly. "Accepter" is not needed as an autonym - any more than one who in believes in gravitational force rather than magnetic boots are "accepters".
|
> Deniers, as in those who deny that changes in climate are due to human action,
>> is a reasonable enough term.
>>
>> Would accepters be an acceptable antonym?
>>
IIRC the CEO of Octopus Energy said that using Hydrogen to heat homes is like using champagne to flush your toilet.
Is he a denier or a beliver?
My point is that this debate encompasses a wide range of views, trying to put everyone's views into two neat little boxes is neither helpful nor possible. Further it amplifier the endless SM media trend of eliminating any middle ground and carries the us and them, no subtleties.
For example what if you have economic or technical objections to the plans proposed, does that make you are a denier or believer? I don't believe labelling helps, it didn't help over brexit. It certainly won't help in this issue.
|
As Terry says denier is used as an absolute term for those, like the late Lord Lawson, who say changes in climate are not due to human activity liberating stored carbon as CO2.
More measured debate, for example about whether hydrogen could/should replace natural gas for domestic heating is at another level. If people are saying that somebody likening hydrogen for combustion to flushing the loo with champagne is some form of denialism then they're wide of the mark.
As you say though Social Media encourages this sort of binary nonsense.
|
What about those that think climate change isn't happening
Those that think it is, but humans have nothing to do with it
Those that think humans have something to do with it but not really that much,
Those that think humans are to blame but nothing can be done because its too late,
Those that think humans are to blame but don't care
Those that think humans are to blame but china and india should do more first.
Are they all in the neat little deniers box ?
Like i said there's a wide range of views on this. That we accept that, would in my view be helpful.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Mon 31 Jul 23 at 10:47
|
>> What about those that think climate change isn't happening
>> Those that think it is, but humans have nothing to do with it
>> Those that think humans have something to do with it but not really that much,
The first two are slam dunk outright deniers, I think the third counts as denialism too.
The rest agree it's happening so cannot be deniers.
|
>> The first two are slam dunk outright deniers, I think the third counts as denialism
>> too.
>>
>> The rest agree it's happening so cannot be deniers.
>>
And the rest are believers, their views are helpful? Even the CBA ones, or are they unhelpful believers?
You don't have to answer its more a question as food for thought. We humans do like our labels. Anyway I feel like I'm flogging a dead horse here!
|
>> As you say though Social Media encourages this sort of binary nonsense.
Not sure how anyone who experienced the 40c we had last summer can be a denier, they cant even say the number was fudged because they suffered it.
The denier argument is of course that it's a natural very long term, (like millions of years long term) historical cycle and nothing to do with man made global warming. In which case ask them what is the best way to mitigate it, for our sakes, and they come up with blank looks. Specially when you tell them the natural cycle is an ice age, or the return of dinosaurs, or most of the world covered in water or fiery deserts.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 31 Jul 23 at 10:49
|
>> >> As you say though Social Media encourages this sort of binary nonsense.
>>
>> Not sure how anyone who experienced the 40c we had last summer can be a
>> denier, they cant even say the number was fudged because they suffered it.
>
Of course people have questioned 40c last summer
dailysceptic.org/2023/01/02/more-reasons-to-doubt-the-u-k-s-record-40c-temperature-was-attained-last-summer/
|
>> Of course people have questioned 40c last summer
>>
>> dailysceptic.org/2023/01/02/more-reasons-to-doubt-the-u-k-s-record-40c-temperature-was-attained-last-summer/
Pfftt they are arguing over 1.5/2c, but have to admit the trend is UP, and quickly
|
>> Pfftt they are arguing over 1.5/2c, but have to admit the trend is UP, and
>> quickly
>>
Over the whole planet, I'm led to believe 1.5/2c difference is relatively important.
|
>> Over the whole planet, I'm led to believe 1.5/2c difference is relatively important.
AIUI the key measure is, as you say, around increases across the planet from pre industrial levels.
That's where 1.5-2 degrees is key.
As to picking nits over whether 40 degrees recorded last year in the UK is accurate it doesn't seem to me to be up for disagreement. It was recorded at Coningsby (RAF?), Heathrow and in Central London.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 31 Jul 23 at 11:59
|
>>Is he a denier or a believer?
Not enough data. But he's right isn't he?
If you want a kWh to heat your home, it's probably better to use direct electric than inefficiently make enough hydrogen to produce a kWh worth of hydrogen.
Even better to use the kWh of electricity to put 3+kWh of heat in the house using a heat pump.
|
>> >>Is he a denier or a believer?
>>
>> Not enough data. But he's right isn't he?
>>
>>
Possibly, but I think there's alot of technical and economic issues to settle before we know what is to be done with heating houses.
|
Daily Mail woke list - Bobby
