Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope she means it and is learning from her mistakes. There's clearly a clash coming between the Growers and the Greens which hopefully Millivolt loses." I think she means what she is saying but she can't guarantee a single she is talking about will ever begin, and if it does there are no quick wins. This speech is the speech the labour party should have made in July, not now after the horse has bolted. I fear it is too little too late. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope she means it and is learning from her mistakes. There's clearly a clash coming between the Growers and the Greens which hopefully Millivolt loses. I think she means what she is saying but she can't guarantee a single she is talking about will ever begin, and if it does there are no quick wins. This speech is the speech the labour party should have made in July, not now after the horse has bolted. I fear it is too little too late." No short term gain on a huge infastructure project. Procurement and over budget it will be HS2 all over again. All they had to do was nurse along a slowly recovering economy and implement the bigger changes in a couple of years time. Instead they’ve spooked everyone Economic growth down Business confidence down Business lending down Business investment down More businesses closing than opening Housing starts down three consecutive months Unemployment up Inflation up from when they took after Upset the pensioners and farmers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope she means it and is learning from her mistakes. There's clearly a clash coming between the Growers and the Greens which hopefully Millivolt loses." Agreed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Heathrow is the single largest polluter in the UK, and its emissions account for over half of all UK aviation emissions. It currently emits around 20MtCO2 of carbon annually. A 3rd runway would increase this by approximately 7MtCO2 to 27MtCO2.” (Hacan research) 72kg carbon per tonne concrete What has Ed Miliband got to say " No Ulez cams on them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope she means it and is learning from her mistakes. There's clearly a clash coming between the Growers and the Greens which hopefully Millivolt loses. I think she means what she is saying but she can't guarantee a single she is talking about will ever begin, and if it does there are no quick wins. This speech is the speech the labour party should have made in July, not now after the horse has bolted. I fear it is too little too late." Agreed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems her plans could have come from a conservative government when you look at the amount things like deregulation and pushing through plans despite protests from groups like environmentalists etc. However it does not take away the harm done by the budget. " Agreed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope she means it and is learning from her mistakes. There's clearly a clash coming between the Growers and the Greens which hopefully Millivolt loses. I think she means what she is saying but she can't guarantee a single she is talking about will ever begin, and if it does there are no quick wins. This speech is the speech the labour party should have made in July, not now after the horse has bolted. I fear it is too little too late. No short term gain on a huge infastructure project. Procurement and over budget it will be HS2 all over again. All they had to do was nurse along a slowly recovering economy and implement the bigger changes in a couple of years time. Instead they’ve spooked everyone Economic growth down Business confidence down Business lending down Business investment down More businesses closing than opening Housing starts down three consecutive months Unemployment up Inflation up from when they took after Upset the pensioners and farmers " For sure, the list goes on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Heathrow is the single largest polluter in the UK, and its emissions account for over half of all UK aviation emissions. It currently emits around 20MtCO2 of carbon annually. A 3rd runway would increase this by approximately 7MtCO2 to 27MtCO2.” (Hacan research)" That's just the tired old Scope 3 nonsense, they're including the emissions of all the flights in that figure. Heathrow's actual emissions are closer to 1MtCO2 per annum, which is projected to increase to 1.25MtCO2 with a third runway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Heathrow is the single largest polluter in the UK, and its emissions account for over half of all UK aviation emissions. It currently emits around 20MtCO2 of carbon annually. A 3rd runway would increase this by approximately 7MtCO2 to 27MtCO2.” (Hacan research) That's just the tired old Scope 3 nonsense, they're including the emissions of all the flights in that figure. Heathrow's actual emissions are closer to 1MtCO2 per annum, which is projected to increase to 1.25MtCO2 with a third runway." So how does that work? For example: A flight from Heathrow to New York JFK produces say 10 tons of CO2. So does Heathrow get slapped with the whole 10 tons or is it split 50/50? Or do the climate "scientists" wallop both with 10 tons each? I've no idea how it works but I know where I'd bet my fiver. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Heathrow is the single largest polluter in the UK, and its emissions account for over half of all UK aviation emissions. It currently emits around 20MtCO2 of carbon annually. A 3rd runway would increase this by approximately 7MtCO2 to 27MtCO2.” (Hacan research) That's just the tired old Scope 3 nonsense, they're including the emissions of all the flights in that figure. Heathrow's actual emissions are closer to 1MtCO2 per annum, which is projected to increase to 1.25MtCO2 with a third runway. So how does that work? For example: A flight from Heathrow to New York JFK produces say 10 tons of CO2. So does Heathrow get slapped with the whole 10 tons or is it split 50/50? Or do the climate "scientists" wallop both with 10 tons each? I've no idea how it works but I know where I'd bet my fiver." By the time they get a usable 3rd runway at Heathrow, we will be flying without fossil fuels  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Heathrow is the single largest polluter in the UK, and its emissions account for over half of all UK aviation emissions. It currently emits around 20MtCO2 of carbon annually. A 3rd runway would increase this by approximately 7MtCO2 to 27MtCO2.” (Hacan research) That's just the tired old Scope 3 nonsense, they're including the emissions of all the flights in that figure. Heathrow's actual emissions are closer to 1MtCO2 per annum, which is projected to increase to 1.25MtCO2 with a third runway. So how does that work? For example: A flight from Heathrow to New York JFK produces say 10 tons of CO2. So does Heathrow get slapped with the whole 10 tons or is it split 50/50? Or do the climate "scientists" wallop both with 10 tons each? I've no idea how it works but I know where I'd bet my fiver." It'll probably be given to some third world country as part of their 'quota' in exchange for some aid or debt relief.. The modern day equivalent of pots and pans but without the diseases carried by the givers.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Heathrow is the single largest polluter in the UK, and its emissions account for over half of all UK aviation emissions. It currently emits around 20MtCO2 of carbon annually. A 3rd runway would increase this by approximately 7MtCO2 to 27MtCO2.” (Hacan research)" "That's just the tired old Scope 3 nonsense, they're including the emissions of all the flights in that figure. Heathrow's actual emissions are closer to 1MtCO2 per annum, which is projected to increase to 1.25MtCO2 with a third runway." "So how does that work? For example: A flight from Heathrow to New York JFK produces say 10 tons of CO2. So does Heathrow get slapped with the whole 10 tons or is it split 50/50? Or do the climate "scientists" wallop both with 10 tons each? I've no idea how it works but I know where I'd bet my fiver." You've got it. Scope 3 emissions are all those emissions made as a result of a company supplying its product. So an airport becomes responsible for all of the emissions made by every flight that takes off or lands there. Of course, the airlines also get charged with those emissions, as do each of the people in the plane. For business class passengers, their employer also gets charged the same emissions since they are responsible for making their employee travel. This is why fossil fuel companies get labelled as the biggest polluters on the planet, as the eco bean counters consider that all of the emissions from the petrol, diesel, and oil burnt by their customers belongs to the company that supplied it. Of course all of those customers also get charged with the same emissions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Heathrow is the single largest polluter in the UK, and its emissions account for over half of all UK aviation emissions. It currently emits around 20MtCO2 of carbon annually. A 3rd runway would increase this by approximately 7MtCO2 to 27MtCO2.” (Hacan research) That's just the tired old Scope 3 nonsense, they're including the emissions of all the flights in that figure. Heathrow's actual emissions are closer to 1MtCO2 per annum, which is projected to increase to 1.25MtCO2 with a third runway. So how does that work? For example: A flight from Heathrow to New York JFK produces say 10 tons of CO2. So does Heathrow get slapped with the whole 10 tons or is it split 50/50? Or do the climate "scientists" wallop both with 10 tons each? I've no idea how it works but I know where I'd bet my fiver. You've got it. Scope 3 emissions are all those emissions made as a result of a company supplying its product. So an airport becomes responsible for all of the emissions made by every flight that takes off or lands there. Of course, the airlines also get charged with those emissions, as do each of the people in the plane. For business class passengers, their employer also gets charged the same emissions since they are responsible for making their employee travel. This is why fossil fuel companies get labelled as the biggest polluters on the planet, as the eco bean counters consider that all of the emissions from the petrol, diesel, and oil burnt by their customers belongs to the company that supplied it. Of course all of those customers also get charged with the same emissions." So if I've got this right, a plane flying from London to New York produces say 10 tons of CO2. That 10 tons gets put into Heathrow's numbers but also into JFK's. Hey presto 10 tons becomes 20 tons. That is very creative accounting.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if I've got this right, a plane flying from London to New York produces say 10 tons of CO2. That 10 tons gets put into Heathrow's numbers but also into JFK's. Hey presto 10 tons becomes 20 tons." You have got that right. Of course, the airline also gets allocated the same 10 tons, and the aircraft manufacturer also gets the same 10 tons. So 'the airline industry' gets allocated 40 tons. And away from 'the airline industry', the fossil fuel company is also made responsible for the same 10 tons. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if I've got this right, a plane flying from London to New York produces say 10 tons of CO2. That 10 tons gets put into Heathrow's numbers but also into JFK's. Hey presto 10 tons becomes 20 tons. You have got that right. Of course, the airline also gets allocated the same 10 tons, and the aircraft manufacturer also gets the same 10 tons. So 'the airline industry' gets allocated 40 tons. And away from 'the airline industry', the fossil fuel company is also made responsible for the same 10 tons." I didn't know that, quite shocking really. So when the climate change warriors bang on about how much CO2 the aviation industry produces, the real figure is a quarter of what they claim. Or a fifth if you lump in the fuel company.
That isn't what I would call "settled" science. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rachel Reeves is an out and out liar, as is Kier Starmer. Why would any sane person believe a word they utter?" I totally agree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope she means it and is learning from her mistakes. There's clearly a clash coming between the Growers and the Greens which hopefully Millivolt loses. I think she means what she is saying but she can't guarantee a single she is talking about will ever begin, and if it does there are no quick wins. This speech is the speech the labour party should have made in July, not now after the horse has bolted. I fear it is too little too late. No short term gain on a huge infastructure project. Procurement and over budget it will be HS2 all over again. All they had to do was nurse along a slowly recovering economy and implement the bigger changes in a couple of years time. Instead they’ve spooked everyone Economic growth down Business confidence down Business lending down Business investment down More businesses closing than opening Housing starts down three consecutive months Unemployment up Inflation up from when they took after Upset the pensioners and farmers For sure, the list goes on." Things are about to gey a whole lot worse: yesterday AstraZeneca quietly slipped out that they have abandoned plans to build a new £450m net zero factory in Liverpool. Meanwhile the Norwegian coalition government has collapse because electricity prices there have rocketed because the UK and Germany have been buying up their generated power because there's no wind or sun. Norway will now seek to negotiate massive price increases with Millipede. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope she means it and is learning from her mistakes. There's clearly a clash coming between the Growers and the Greens which hopefully Millivolt loses. I think she means what she is saying but she can't guarantee a single she is talking about will ever begin, and if it does there are no quick wins. This speech is the speech the labour party should have made in July, not now after the horse has bolted. I fear it is too little too late. No short term gain on a huge infastructure project. Procurement and over budget it will be HS2 all over again. All they had to do was nurse along a slowly recovering economy and implement the bigger changes in a couple of years time. Instead they’ve spooked everyone Economic growth down Business confidence down Business lending down Business investment down More businesses closing than opening Housing starts down three consecutive months Unemployment up Inflation up from when they took after Upset the pensioners and farmers For sure, the list goes on. Things are about to gey a whole lot worse: yesterday AstraZeneca quietly slipped out that they have abandoned plans to build a new £450m net zero factory in Liverpool. Meanwhile the Norwegian coalition government has collapse because electricity prices there have rocketed because the UK and Germany have been buying up their generated power because there's no wind or sun. Norway will now seek to negotiate massive price increases with Millipede." I'd seen the Astra Zeneca story. Apparently it was to be a zero carbon vaccine factory. Seems Rachel wanted to chip 50 million off what the previous government had negotiated and AZ pulled the plug. Nice one Rach. 
I'd missed the Norway story but EU governments are going down like flies at the moment. Yes before anyone chips in, I know Norway is not a full member of the EU but is in all but name and the current situation is because of EU energy directives.
France has no government as such. Germany's collapsed last year and is going to the polls at the end of the month. Sanchez in Spain is hanging on by his fingernails, and now Norway.
It's hardly sunshine and roses across the water.
It's going to be a very interesting year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope she means it and is learning from her mistakes. There's clearly a clash coming between the Growers and the Greens which hopefully Millivolt loses. I think she means what she is saying but she can't guarantee a single she is talking about will ever begin, and if it does there are no quick wins. This speech is the speech the labour party should have made in July, not now after the horse has bolted. I fear it is too little too late. No short term gain on a huge infastructure project. Procurement and over budget it will be HS2 all over again. All they had to do was nurse along a slowly recovering economy and implement the bigger changes in a couple of years time. Instead they’ve spooked everyone Economic growth down Business confidence down Business lending down Business investment down More businesses closing than opening Housing starts down three consecutive months Unemployment up Inflation up from when they took after Upset the pensioners and farmers For sure, the list goes on. Things are about to gey a whole lot worse: yesterday AstraZeneca quietly slipped out that they have abandoned plans to build a new £450m net zero factory in Liverpool. Meanwhile the Norwegian coalition government has collapse because electricity prices there have rocketed because the UK and Germany have been buying up their generated power because there's no wind or sun. Norway will now seek to negotiate massive price increases with Millipede. I'd seen the Astra Zeneca story. Apparently it was to be a zero carbon vaccine factory. Seems Rachel wanted to chip 50 million off what the previous government had negotiated and AZ pulled the plug. Nice one Rach.
I'd missed the Norway story but EU governments are going down like flies at the moment. Yes before anyone chips in, I know Norway is not a full member of the EU but is in all but name and the current situation is because of EU energy directives.
France has no government as such. Germany's collapsed last year and is going to the polls at the end of the month. Sanchez in Spain is hanging on by his fingernails, and now Norway.
It's hardly sunshine and roses across the water.
It's going to be a very interesting year."The BBC do not say what changed but do confirm that AZ have sited a change in the deal from the previous government and will no longer be investing in Britain as planned. The report mentions shadow business secretary Andrew Griffiths who said: "There's no vaccine for incompetence", which is a shame given the amount on display. Perhaps this is what SKS means about getting closer to the EU  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Takes some doing to blow a 450m deal that was practically signed and sealed. "Yes I thought Louise Haigh slagging off P&O when its parent company was planning to invest 2 billion in the UK was bad enough. They got away with that one by the skin of their teeth. Seems that was only the training session for the main event. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Takes some doing to blow a 450m deal that was practically signed and sealed.
Yes I thought Louise Haigh slagging off P&O when its parent company was planning to invest 2 billion in the UK was bad enough. They got away with that one by the skin of their teeth.
Seems that was only the training session for the main event. "Also not inviting Elon Musk to their investment conference. 🤦♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Takes some doing to blow a 450m deal that was practically signed and sealed. "Apparently not. ☹ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are about to get a whole lot worse: yesterday AstraZeneca quietly slipped out that they have abandoned plans to build a new £450m net zero factory in Liverpool. " Corporate snouts in tax-payer's troughs. Never forget that ! All tax-payer funded. . Corporate Welfare in the UK is estimated at approx £180 Billion PER YEAR. Tax breaks: Tax credits, deductions, exemptions, and other tax benefits . Subsidies: Grants, low-interest loans, and loan guarantees . Government contracts: Public-private partnerships and other contracts with the government . Regulatory treatment: Preferential treatment from regulators . Debt write-offs: Debt forgiveness or other debt relief . Publicly-subsidized services: Access to roads, rail, shipping, and air transportation systems . State insurance: Access to insurance services funded by the government . Education and training: Access to services that help workers acquire the skills needed by employers . In-work benefits: Benefits that help subsidize employer wage costs . Providing publicly-funded benefits and services that are aimed at meeting the needs and/or wants of private businesses is a key part of what governments do and have always done. However, the net effect of such interventions is to socialise business risks and ultimately profits. . There are plenty of things which need "life-support", but private business is not one of them. Their viability is down to them, not the tax-payer, nor a government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are about to get a whole lot worse: yesterday AstraZeneca quietly slipped out that they have abandoned plans to build a new £450m net zero factory in Liverpool. Corporate snouts in tax-payer's troughs. Never forget that ! All tax-payer funded. . Corporate Welfare in the UK is estimated at approx £180 Billion PER YEAR. Tax breaks: Tax credits, deductions, exemptions, and other tax benefits . Subsidies: Grants, low-interest loans, and loan guarantees . Government contracts: Public-private partnerships and other contracts with the government . Regulatory treatment: Preferential treatment from regulators . Debt write-offs: Debt forgiveness or other debt relief . Publicly-subsidized services: Access to roads, rail, shipping, and air transportation systems . State insurance: Access to insurance services funded by the government . Education and training: Access to services that help workers acquire the skills needed by employers . In-work benefits: Benefits that help subsidize employer wage costs . Providing publicly-funded benefits and services that are aimed at meeting the needs and/or wants of private businesses is a key part of what governments do and have always done. However, the net effect of such interventions is to socialise business risks and ultimately profits. . There are plenty of things which need "life-support", but private business is not one of them. Their viability is down to them, not the tax-payer, nor a government. " Unfortunately, the government we have in power tends to agree with Leftist Economic Populism, wrapped in a libertarian disguise. The problem isn’t just corporate welfare, it’s that nobody at the helm understands capitalism enough to run a productive economy. We’re in for a bleak few years of ideology over economic reality. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Corporate Welfare in the UK is estimated at approx £180 Billion PER YEAR. ... Publicly-subsidized services: Access to roads, rail, shipping, and air transportation systems .... Education and training: Access to services that help workers acquire the skills needed by employers" Hang on. You're saying that the existence of roads and universities constitutes a government subsidy to private business? Have I got that right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Hang on. You're saying that the existence of roads and universities constitutes a government subsidy to private business? Have I got that right?" Not quite. We're talking about private enterprises in this context, that suckle the teat of tax-payer money that flows from the breast of the government du jour. (Making this neither a left/middle or right-wing gripe at all.) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hang on. You're saying that the existence of roads and universities constitutes a government subsidy to private business? Have I got that right?" "Not quite. We're talking about private enterprises in this context, that suckle the teat of tax-payer money that flows from the breast of the government du jour. (Making this neither a left/middle or right-wing gripe at all.)" So what have I misunderstood? You said that "Access to roads, rail, shipping, and air transportation systems" should be classed as "corporate welfare". That sounds very much like you're saying that private enterprises shouldn't be allowed to use the roads. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Hang on. You're saying that the existence of roads and universities constitutes a government subsidy to private business? Have I got that right? Not quite. We're talking about private enterprises in this context, that suckle the teat of tax-payer money that flows from the breast of the government du jour. (Making this neither a left/middle or right-wing gripe at all.) " And where exactly do you think those taxes come from? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Hang on. You're saying that the existence of roads and universities constitutes a government subsidy to private business? Have I got that right? Not quite. We're talking about private enterprises in this context, that suckle the teat of tax-payer money that flows from the breast of the government du jour. (Making this neither a left/middle or right-wing gripe at all.) And where exactly do you think those taxes come from?"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Hang on. You're saying that the existence of roads and universities constitutes a government subsidy to private business? Have I got that right? Not quite. We're talking about private enterprises in this context, that suckle the teat of tax-payer money that flows from the breast of the government du jour. (Making this neither a left/middle or right-wing gripe at all.) And where exactly do you think those taxes come from?" The public sector. I know that for a fact, it says so on the payslip. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Hang on. You're saying that the existence of roads and universities constitutes a government subsidy to private business? Have I got that right? Not quite. We're talking about private enterprises in this context, that suckle the teat of tax-payer money that flows from the breast of the government du jour. (Making this neither a left/middle or right-wing gripe at all.) And where exactly do you think those taxes come from? The public sector. I know that for a fact, it says so on the payslip. "And the public sector is funded in turn by the private sector. Granted that some of the public sector has been commercialised (universities, private schools, some hospitals, parts of the utilities). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Hang on. You're saying that the existence of roads and universities constitutes a government subsidy to private business? Have I got that right? Not quite. We're talking about private enterprises in this context, that suckle the teat of tax-payer money that flows from the breast of the government du jour. (Making this neither a left/middle or right-wing gripe at all.) And where exactly do you think those taxes come from? The public sector. I know that for a fact, it says so on the payslip.
And the public sector is funded in turn by the private sector. Granted that some of the public sector has been commercialised (universities, private schools, some hospitals, parts of the utilities)."I wasn't being serious. Hence the emojis. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In a very timely video by Jonathan Pie on YT, called "The Corporate Con", he sums it up far better than I can." Jonathan Pie is as funny and original as herpes.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In a very timely video by Jonathan Pie on YT, called "The Corporate Con", he sums it up far better than I can. Jonathan Pie is as funny and original as herpes. "And yet both carry an important message for those who take heed of it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In a very timely video by Jonathan Pie on YT, called "The Corporate Con", he sums it up far better than I can. Jonathan Pie is as funny and original as herpes.
And yet both carry an important message for those who take heed of it."Haha, well played  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
