NPR

Steve Baker appointed Northern Ireland minister

A kinder, gentler politics

EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 6:02 pm

SaintK wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 5:37 pm Steve Baker appointed Northern Ireland minister

Not a surprise really. Putting hardliners in to teach the uppity Euros and Oirish a lesson

A fantasist like Baker then has to actually deal with reality. Like David Davis as brexit negotiator who preferred to fantasy so resigned.

Dan hodges is a top propagandist. His whataboutery and smearing groups of society shows he was a shrewd purchase by the Mail owners. A stupid tweet by a journalist and he is on it. Hope like some of the kremlins top media people he at least got an Italian villa out of it.

petej wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 7:09 pm Dan hodges is a top propagandist. His whataboutery and smearing groups of society shows he was a shrewd purchase by the Mail owners. A stupid tweet by a journalist and he is on it. Hope like some of the kremlins top media people he at least got an Italian villa out of it.

It should also be pointed out that the journalist in question owned the tweet, he apologised properly, he said he was sorry for the distress he caused.
Note he did not say, "I'm sorry if someone took offence" which is not any kind of apology.
This is what taking responsibility for one's actions looks like.
This is not the first time that had to be pointed out the poster.

On Dr Shawn Baker, he seems to be an American physician who promotes the carnivore diet and exercise, I'm not sure how his tweet ties in with the "gentler politics" in this country.

ia801310 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 6:10 pm A kinder, gentler politics

You happy with a vaccuous obese smoking anti abortionist religious zealot being Health secretary?

Say something, and nothing good, the Tories and their sycophants are content with Windrush (still not resolved and compensated) but upset by a reference to coconuts which is withdrawn and rightly apologised for. It's like ignoring Grenfell (still not addressed) and ranting about someone littering 4 streets over by rubbing a cigarette out underfoot

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 7:40 pm

petej wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 7:09 pm Dan hodges is a top propagandist. His whataboutery and smearing groups of society shows he was a shrewd purchase by the Mail owners. A stupid tweet by a journalist and he is on it. Hope like some of the kremlins top media people he at least got an Italian villa out of it.

It should also be pointed out that the journalist in question owned the tweet, he apologised properly, he said he was sorry for the distress he caused.
Note he did not say, "I'm sorry if someone took offence" which is not any kind of apology.
This is what taking responsibility for one's actions looks like.
This is not the first time that had to be pointed out the poster.

On Dr Shawn Baker, he seems to be an American physician who promotes the carnivore diet and exercise, I'm not sure how his tweet ties in with the "gentler politics" in this country.

He told the truth about the left's racism

"Earlier, I made an ironic reference to a term used by some on the left about black people who are deemed traitors to the cause through joining the Tory Party"

C69 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 10:13 pm

ia801310 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 6:10 pm A kinder, gentler politics

You happy with a vaccuous obese smoking anti abortionist religious zealot being Health secretary?

I am happy with Therese Coffey being Health Secretary. The labels are yours

From someone I know who works in the Civil Service.

She (Truss) is a former Secretary of State in my department, and only stood out for her mediocrity. Coffey was a junior minister around the same time - and she was laughably shit. She turned up for a grilling by the departmental parliamentary select committee on trees and woodlands, armed with a 90-page briefing our team had prepared for her. She was torn to shreds, and then admitted to us after the meeting that she hadn't read any of the briefing.

ia801310 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 11:28 pm

C69 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 10:13 pm

ia801310 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 6:10 pm A kinder, gentler politics

You happy with a vaccuous obese smoking anti abortionist religious zealot being Health secretary?

I am happy with Therese Coffey being Health Secretary. The labels are yours

Labels?
See above re vacuous, she is undoubtably obese, she smokes, she is anti abortion and anti gay marriage on religious grounds.
Not labels but facts.

ia801310 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 11:25 pm
He told the truth about the left's racism

"Earlier, I made an ironic reference to a term used by some on the left about black people who are deemed traitors to the cause through joining the Tory Party"

"some on the left" is the key there.

"Coconut", "Oreo", "Banana" etc are epithets that imagine everyone in a group should act or think in the same way.

Just like saying this epithet has been used by some on the left, so all on the left are racist.

Or, if you like, some on the right may talk about "Piccininnis", "watermelon smiles" and women looking like letterboxes and so all on the right are racists.

Racism is serious, it's there in all walks of life and no one group has an exclusive on it, it's not confined to white people or leftists or rightists and imo it shouldn't be used as a facile political point scoring game.

Oxbow wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 5:14 am From someone I know who works in the Civil Service.

She (Truss) is a former Secretary of State in my department, and only stood out for her mediocrity. Coffey was a junior minister around the same time - and she was laughably shit. She turned up for a grilling by the departmental parliamentary select committee on trees and woodlands, armed with a 90-page briefing our team had prepared for her. She was torn to shreds, and then admitted to us after the meeting that she hadn't read any of the briefing.

This is my eternal frustration that you can slot unqualified mates in charge of real stuff.

Was in a ministry for three changes of the guard. Grayling comes in, instantly outsources all the assurance functions of our department to third party companies -who now had no enforcement power over our suppliers beyond ringing and asking nicely.

Was done with it by that stage but kept in touch with my line manager who confirmed it took several years and not unsignificant cost to undo the mess and put things back the way they were in the first place.

Oxbow wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 5:14 am From someone I know who works in the Civil Service.

She (Truss) is a former Secretary of State in my department, and only stood out for her mediocrity. Coffey was a junior minister around the same time - and she was laughably shit. She turned up for a grilling by the departmental parliamentary select committee on trees and woodlands, armed with a 90-page briefing our team had prepared for her. She was torn to shreds, and then admitted to us after the meeting that she hadn't read any of the briefing.

According to Tory mouthpiece Dan Hodges, “Therese Coffey is precisely the sort of hard working, unflashy, delivery-focussed politician we need in public office”. However looking at the record of her achievements as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, which included not knowing how Universal Credit worked, I’d say “laughably shit” is probably too generous an assessment of her abilities.

lemonhead wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 7:14 am

Oxbow wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 5:14 am From someone I know who works in the Civil Service.

She (Truss) is a former Secretary of State in my department, and only stood out for her mediocrity. Coffey was a junior minister around the same time - and she was laughably shit. She turned up for a grilling by the departmental parliamentary select committee on trees and woodlands, armed with a 90-page briefing our team had prepared for her. She was torn to shreds, and then admitted to us after the meeting that she hadn't read any of the briefing.

This is my eternal frustration that you can slot unqualified mates in charge of real stuff.

Was in a ministry for three changes of the guard. Grayling comes in, instantly outsources all the assurance functions of our department to third party companies -who now had no enforcement power over our suppliers beyond ringing and asking nicely.

Was done with it by that stage but kept in touch with my line manager who confirmed it took several years and not unsignificant cost to undo the mess and put things back the way they were in the first place.

It is like the ultimate piss-taking exercise, see whoever is least suitable for any role in the Cabinet and appoint them to it judging that the nation is just a giant test lab for their policies. A load of empty vessels just right for the ERG to pump in its poisonous seed to spread...

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 6:58 am

ia801310 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 11:25 pm
He told the truth about the left's racism

"Earlier, I made an ironic reference to a term used by some on the left about black people who are deemed traitors to the cause through joining the Tory Party"

"some on the left" is the key there.

"Coconut", "Oreo", "Banana" etc are epithets that imagine everyone in a group should act or think in the same way.

Just like saying this epithet has been used by some on the left, so all on the left are racist.

Or, if you like, some on the right may talk about "Piccininnis", "watermelon smiles" and women looking like letterboxes and so all on the right are racists.

Racism is serious, it's there in all walks of life and no one group has an exclusive on it, it's not confined to white people or leftists or rightists and imo it shouldn't be used as a facile political point scoring game.

I think it is a far more insidious and sinister problem on the left as the right are far more "open" with their racism. Hassan Mamdani Sums it up well. "This is what what the left does when your the wrong kind of gay/Asian/Black person. When we dare to reject their narrative and think for ourselves."

_Os_ wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 3:20 pm Isn't giving oil and as companies a free lunch, just the way the UK has done things since Thatcher? It's become completely ridiculous during this era of Tory rule though.

Oil and gas is one area of the UK economy that needs urgent reform, but it's probably already too late.

The comparison should be to Norway, which adopted the opposite strategy to the UK. The UK went with low tax and completely private ownership from the mid-1980s, the tax returns from that oil boom were used to fund tax cuts during the Thatcher era, it all went on consumption in a round about way. Norway chose the opposite direction, excessive taxes, huge state ownership which means a state oil company accounting for a lot of production in addition to privately owned assets being required to be in partnership with the state (50% of the asset state owned?), Norway then invested the revenue into a sovereign wealth fund that's now worth over $1 trillion (that will be shared for a long time among Norway's tiny population). From memory both countries have produced about the same amount but the value per barrel Norway's government has received is x3 what the UK has.

Huge tax cuts on oil and gas producers in the hope of creating another oil and gas boom, so that a low tax can be placed on the resulting production, which then all gets squandered on consumption. Is the Tory way.

They've gone one better on their old model.

They're now using a crisis to hand out fracking and oil drilling licences, the Tory claim is this will create energy independence. But it's all sold at international market rates, because the UK government doesn't own any of it and has no stake. If this new production is taxed it's going to take 5+ years to yield the new taxes, and there's nothing to immediately privatise like Thatcher could in the 1980s (NHS isn't politically possible). There's no windfall from privatisations and no new taxes either. But Truss is still committed to Thatcher like tax cuts, just without the revenue streams that made this possible for Thatcher.

The new twist is that Truss is going to increase the deficit and pump up the UK's national debt to fund her tax cut. The energy company extracts gas inside UK territory at a fraction of the wholesale price, the UK then increases its national debt so the same energy company can sell retail gas in the UK below market price. The UK model is now private ownership and state subsidies. All to fund consumption and not actually build anything long term.

But it gets worse, the pound is weakening because of all this madness, this is the glorious Brexit dividend. A weaker pound boosts inflation as imports become more expensive, which means higher interest rates and more expensive debt ...

_Os_ wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 8:39 am

_Os_ wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 3:20 pm Isn't giving oil and as companies a free lunch, just the way the UK has done things since Thatcher? It's become completely ridiculous during this era of Tory rule though.

Oil and gas is one area of the UK economy that needs urgent reform, but it's probably already too late.

The comparison should be to Norway, which adopted the opposite strategy to the UK. The UK went with low tax and completely private ownership from the mid-1980s, the tax returns from that oil boom were used to fund tax cuts during the Thatcher era, it all went on consumption in a round about way. Norway chose the opposite direction, excessive taxes, huge state ownership which means a state oil company accounting for a lot of production in addition to privately owned assets being required to be in partnership with the state (50% of the asset state owned?), Norway then invested the revenue into a sovereign wealth fund that's now worth over $1 trillion (that will be shared for a long time among Norway's tiny population). From memory both countries have produced about the same amount but the value per barrel Norway's government has received is x3 what the UK has.

Huge tax cuts on oil and gas producers in the hope of creating another oil and gas boom, so that a low tax can be placed on the resulting production, which then all gets squandered on consumption. Is the Tory way.

They've gone one better on their old model.

They're now using a crisis to hand out fracking and oil drilling licences, the Tory claim is this will create energy independence. But it's all sold at international market rates, because the UK government doesn't own any of it and has no stake. If this new production is taxed it's going to take 5+ years to yield the new taxes, and there's nothing to immediately privatise like Thatcher could in the 1980s (NHS isn't politically possible). There's no windfall from privatisations and no new taxes either. But Truss is still committed to Thatcher like tax cuts, just without the revenue streams that made this possible for Thatcher.

The new twist is that Truss is going to increase the deficit and pump up the UK's national debt to fund her tax cut. The energy company extracts gas inside UK territory at a fraction of the wholesale price, the UK then increases its national debt so the same energy company can sell retail gas in the UK below market price. The UK model is now private ownership and state subsidies. All to fund consumption and not actually build anything long term.

But it gets worse, the pound is weakening because of all this madness, this is the glorious Brexit dividend. A weaker pound boosts inflation as imports become more expensive, which means higher interest rates and more expensive debt ...

Even as a Conservative, I think we should nationalise the energy and other utility companies.

I believe in free markets in most cases but not this one. I think Paul Embery sums it up well.

ia801310 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 8:41 am Even as a Conservative, I think we should nationalise the energy and other utility companies.

I believe in free markets in most cases but not this one. I think Paul Embery sums it up well.

Your team need to stop their tax cuts and tax energy companies more (private ownership is fine, but you actually have to milk the cow, not be paid by the cow to not milk it), instead of setting about cratering the UK economy.

ia801310 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 8:38 am I think it is a far more insidious and sinister problem on the left as the right are far more "open" with their racism.

Phew! Thank goodness for that

ia801310 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 8:38 am

I think it is a far more insidious and sinister problem on the left as the right are far more "open" with their racism. Hassan Mamdani Sums it up well. "This is what what the left does when your the wrong kind of gay/Asian/Black person. When we dare to reject their narrative and think for ourselves."

That tweet just does the same thing, it lumps the Left together as one homogenised mass which all thinks the same. The Left comes from Methodism and Marxism and many other origins, they are not all the same.

I don't know anyone personally who would use the term coconut in that context.

I also reject the idea that racism or greed and self-interest are somehow mitigated if it comes from a conservative, "Oh they are Tories, what do you expect? They are all like that"

Nah. It's just plain wrong.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 6:58 am

ia801310 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 11:25 pm
He told the truth about the left's racism

"Earlier, I made an ironic reference to a term used by some on the left about black people who are deemed traitors to the cause through joining the Tory Party"

"some on the left" is the key there.

"Coconut", "Oreo", "Banana" etc are epithets that imagine everyone in a group should act or think in the same way.

Just like saying this epithet has been used by some on the left, so all on the left are racist.

Or, if you like, some on the right may talk about "Piccininnis", "watermelon smiles" and women looking like letterboxes and so all on the right are racists.

Racism is serious, it's there in all walks of life and no one group has an exclusive on it, it's not confined to white people or leftists or rightists and imo it shouldn't be used as a facile political point scoring game.

I've been embroiled in the "coconut" debate before here, having used the term myself. And I'll state the position again. "Coconut" is not a racist term in its normal, contextual use. The term is used towards a person accused of betraying his race or culture and, consequently, if anything, is accusing the subject to a degree of racism. Its origination is from coloured people anyway: and let's not get into the wider debate on this specific term as to whether coloured people can be racists or whether the use of a term differs if from a white person (as in this case**) or a coloured one.

** What I would say is that a white person hijacking coloured peoples' slang terms etc just comes across as looking like a complete ass.

Liz Truss announces energy price guarantee



So HMG will push forward with fracking, even though her own newly appointed Chancellor doesn't think it will help...

I'm sure that your use of the term "coloured" is innocent. But it is a bit of an outre phrase in polite company these days.

/Wokepolice

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 10:07 am I've been embroiled in the "coconut" debate before here, having used the term myself. And I'll state the position again. "Coconut" is not a racist term in its normal, contextual use. The term is used towards a person accused of betraying his race or culture

So it literally claims black people have immutable cultural characteristics connected to their race and must behave a certain way otherwise they are irredeemably not black and lesser (it's a pejorative). As you point out. It exactly fits the definition of racist then.

But we've already been over this, and you could be trolling.

Adding more supply to a market lowers prices. And if we produce more of said supply we can make money off of it, which pays for goods and services. Fracking is no silver bullet but it is better than reliance on Qatar

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 9:04 am

ia801310 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 8:38 am

I think it is a far more insidious and sinister problem on the left as the right are far more "open" with their racism. Hassan Mamdani Sums it up well. "This is what what the left does when your the wrong kind of gay/Asian/Black person. When we dare to reject their narrative and think for ourselves."

That tweet just does the same thing, it lumps the Left together as one homogenised mass which all thinks the same. The Left comes from Methodism and Marxism and many other origins, they are not all the same.

I don't know anyone personally who would use the term coconut in that context.

I also reject the idea that racism or greed and self-interest are somehow mitigated if it comes from a conservative, "Oh they are Tories, what do you expect? They are all like that"

Nah. It's just plain wrong.

What's the evidence for Macwhirter being a 'leftie'? As far as I am aware he's a respected Scottish political commentator and journalist and, other than supporting Scottish Independence, has no particular affiliations with either the left or right. Prior to this particular tweet he had tweeted that the Truss cabinet made the Scottish government look ‘hideously white’, and as he has said he has "repeatedly applauded the Conservatives for having the most diverse cabinet in British history"; hardly the actions you'd expect of a died in the wool leftie.

Seems to me the only reason he's being labelled a 'leftie' in this case is because his three-word tweet included the term 'coconut', which is more usually associated with left-leaning racists than right wing racists, and its a convenient peg for the Tories to use to condemn the entire left as racist.

Racists are racists being right wing or supposedly left wing is immaterial.
When the feck did Liberals btw become part of the left?
Its and observation that I findsomewhat vexatious.
We are not septics ffs

C69 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:38 am
When the feck did Liberals btw become part of the left?

Amen Brother.

One could also argue that all the stale, male and pale types were either used up in decreasing levels of competence and substance in the Cameron and May Cabinets, then were purged by Johnson, then what was left formed the contents of Johnson's bin fire Cabinet, and have been exiled to the back benches for insufficient loyalty or ability to offer friendship with benefits to our Glorious New Leader, this is what she has left. This is as much a comment on the attitude of previous Prine Ministers as it is a Brave New World of racial and gender harmony.

And it's not like many of the Cabinet are exactly brimming with the spirit of equality or human kindness, one might comment on the voting records of Rees-Mogg, Coffey and Braverman on LGBTQ+ issues, for example.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:27 am Adding more supply to a market lowers prices. And if we produce more of said supply we can make money off of it, which pays for goods and services. Fracking is no silver bullet but it is better than reliance on Qatar

How much supply is going to have to be added to significantly lower the European gas price? In other words is the UK even capable of doing that? Because gas isn't used in the same quantities all year supply can also be added by building more storage, at the moment the UK is filling up European gas storage facilities during the summer and will buy it back in winter. There's no incentive for the private sector to build massive gas storage so that it can be filled up when gas is cheap and used (at that cheaper price) when it's expensive. Shell definitely wouldn't want that.

Not sure using the argument that adding supply lowers prices, then works that well with more money being made (you mean taxes?) from the UK's increased supply. In your model more supply is being sold, but it's cheaper than before.

Does the UK rely on Qatar for oil or gas? I thought the UK was mostly already self sufficient with imports mostly from Norway and the USA.

This problem seems entirely UK government created. Built gas power plants (quick and cheap), all the cheaply available gas in the UK and elsewhere is running out, which means more expensive energy either UK produced or imported if gas remains the main component in the UK energy mix and the ownership model/low state investment all remains the same. Which is what the Truss plan promises, just with more UK government debt to patch up the failed system.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:20 am

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 10:07 am I've been embroiled in the "coconut" debate before here, having used the term myself. And I'll state the position again. "Coconut" is not a racist term in its normal, contextual use. The term is used towards a person accused of betraying his race or culture

So it literally claims black people have immutable cultural characteristics connected to their race and must behave a certain way otherwise they are irredeemably not black and lesser (it's a pejorative). As you point out. It exactly fits the definition of racist then.

But we've already been over this, and you could be trolling.

The Tory party is a racist party (as well as classist but that's a separate issue here). Unless you disagree with that statement (in which case further discussion is pointless) then, as I've said before, if you join the Tories, you are subscribing to perpetuating those same racist values and policies. Coconut is a pejorative term used by blacks (primarily) for fellow blacks who have betrayed their cultural identity. In this context, the term is justified. Sure, there are shades of grey and calling someone a coconut because he didn't like reggae would probably be one.

You have used the old political trick of trying to cast absolutist frameworks over a debate in order to justify your stance. This has nothing to do with immutability nor "must behaves". There are general characteristics that make black people black ethnically, racially or culturally. It's not necessary for any of those to apply to 100% or even 90% of them for that to be so.

Rather like JMK, this is another instance of a white person taking the superior position of telling non whites what is and isn't racist to them. You are free to express an opinion but you don't get to dictate the terms to any of them.

Ms Truss’s leadership campaign donations have just dropped. Biggest contribution being £100k from the wife of a former BP executive.

Others include the wife of a private healthcare advisor, who found it in her heart to give £50k on two successive days, the CEO of a company that provides borehole equipment to, amongst others, fracking companies, Lance Forman's company and perennial donors the Bamfords.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:55 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:27 am Adding more supply to a market lowers prices. And if we produce more of said supply we can make money off of it, which pays for goods and services. Fracking is no silver bullet but it is better than reliance on Qatar

How much supply is going to have to be added to significantly lower the European gas price? In other words is the UK even capable of doing that? Because gas isn't used in the same quantities all year supply can also be added by building more storage, at the moment the UK is filling up European gas storage facilities during the summer and will buy it back in winter. There's no incentive for the private sector to build massive gas storage so that it can be filled up when gas is cheap and used (at that cheaper price) when it's expensive. Shell definitely wouldn't want that.

Not sure using the argument that adding supply lowers prices, then works that well with more money being made (you mean taxes?) from the UK's increased supply. In your model more supply is being sold, but it's cheaper than before.

Does the UK rely on Qatar for oil or gas? I thought the UK was mostly already self sufficient with imports mostly from Norway and the USA.

This problem seems entirely UK government created. Built gas power plants (quick and cheap), all the cheaply available gas in the UK and elsewhere is running out, which means more expensive energy either UK produced or imported if gas remains the main component in the UK energy mix and the ownership model/low state investment all remains the same. Which is what the Truss plan promises, just with more UK government debt to patch up the failed system.

More supply lowers prices. How much would noticeably lower them? I don't know, not an expert. What is clear is that by having more British based energy we:
1) Can have greater control of our own supply in the event protectionism descends
2) Can make money off of selling it that can be reinvested in our own economy rather than transferred to Norway/Qatar etc.

As I say, it's not a silver bullet but the central economics of energy production are pretty simple. Either you produce your own or you buy it off of others and make yourself comparatively poorer as a result.

Anyway, the Queen's "under medical supervision" at Balmoral, so batten down the hatches.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:55 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:27 am Adding more supply to a market lowers prices. And if we produce more of said supply we can make money off of it, which pays for goods and services. Fracking is no silver bullet but it is better than reliance on Qatar

How much supply is going to have to be added to significantly lower the European gas price? In other words is the UK even capable of doing that? Because gas isn't used in the same quantities all year supply can also be added by building more storage, at the moment the UK is filling up European gas storage facilities during the summer and will buy it back in winter. There's no incentive for the private sector to build massive gas storage so that it can be filled up when gas is cheap and used (at that cheaper price) when it's expensive. Shell definitely wouldn't want that.

Not sure using the argument that adding supply lowers prices, then works that well with more money being made (you mean taxes?) from the UK's increased supply. In your model more supply is being sold, but it's cheaper than before.

Does the UK rely on Qatar for oil or gas? I thought the UK was mostly already self sufficient with imports mostly from Norway and the USA.

This problem seems entirely UK government created. Built gas power plants (quick and cheap), all the cheaply available gas in the UK and elsewhere is running out, which means more expensive energy either UK produced or imported if gas remains the main component in the UK energy mix and the ownership model/low state investment all remains the same. Which is what the Truss plan promises, just with more UK government debt to patch up the failed system.

Not aware of any plans to buy back gas from Europe in the winter. UK has delivery contracts in place to meet UK demand, the only reason they are shipping LNG to Europe is because Europe has insufficient LNG terminals to import shipped product.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 12:11 pm There are general characteristics that make black people black ethnically, racially or culturally.

What was that about absolutist frameworks? You're conflating something which is immutable (racial characteristics), with something which is by definition changeable (culture). Which is what the coconut pejorative does too. There is no general cultural characteristic of black people, Africa alone has 1.2bn people and they don't all live within one culture. I haven't met many black British people that speak Zulu and worship their ancestors.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 12:11 pm Rather like JMK, this is another instance of a white person taking the superior position of telling non whites what is and isn't racist to them. You are free to express an opinion but you don't get to dictate the terms to any of them.

The "stay in your separate lane" logic of apartheid. Guess what Afrikaners were told by other Afrikaners when they dared to challenge anything back in the day, they were told they weren't Afrikaners and were really English or traitors. I'm sure they were very glad almost no one said to them "nah, you're okay be whoever you want to be".

shaggy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 12:25 pm

_Os_ wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:55 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:27 am Adding more supply to a market lowers prices. And if we produce more of said supply we can make money off of it, which pays for goods and services. Fracking is no silver bullet but it is better than reliance on Qatar

How much supply is going to have to be added to significantly lower the European gas price? In other words is the UK even capable of doing that? Because gas isn't used in the same quantities all year supply can also be added by building more storage, at the moment the UK is filling up European gas storage facilities during the summer and will buy it back in winter. There's no incentive for the private sector to build massive gas storage so that it can be filled up when gas is cheap and used (at that cheaper price) when it's expensive. Shell definitely wouldn't want that.

Not sure using the argument that adding supply lowers prices, then works that well with more money being made (you mean taxes?) from the UK's increased supply. In your model more supply is being sold, but it's cheaper than before.

Does the UK rely on Qatar for oil or gas? I thought the UK was mostly already self sufficient with imports mostly from Norway and the USA.

This problem seems entirely UK government created. Built gas power plants (quick and cheap), all the cheaply available gas in the UK and elsewhere is running out, which means more expensive energy either UK produced or imported if gas remains the main component in the UK energy mix and the ownership model/low state investment all remains the same. Which is what the Truss plan promises, just with more UK government debt to patch up the failed system.

Not aware of any plans to buy back gas from Europe in the winter. UK has delivery contracts in place to meet UK demand, the only reason they are shipping LNG to Europe is because Europe has insufficient LNG terminals to import shipped product.

Recent Torygraph article claims we have to buy back, unless this is just "big, bad greedy EU " made up story
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... ed-europe/

Britain will be forced to buy back gas exported to Europe to keep the lights on this winter after supplying about 15pc of supplies stored on the Continent.

The UK's lack of storage means that gas which was shipped to terminals this side of the Channel and then piped abroad will have to be pumped back into the country as temperatures fall.

Unprecedented volumes of the fuel have been sent to the European Union via the UK in recent months, as countries race to fill up their storage sites after Russia strangled supplies.

With little storage of its own, Britain typically buys gas back from the Continent during winter.

This year, it will leave the country exposed to higher prices and market havoc if Russia goes further.

Peter Thompson, a gas market expert at the consultancy Baringa, said: “Effectively the UK’s market stores gas in continental Europe storage, and then it's pulled back out in the winter.

“That's normally what happens. But I think there is a question entering this winter - there’s no business as usual position.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 12:18 pm More supply lowers prices. How much would noticeably lower them? I don't know, not an expert. What is clear is that by having more British based energy we:
1) Can have greater control of our own supply in the event protectionism descends
2) Can make money off of selling it that can be reinvested in our own economy rather than transferred to Norway/Qatar etc.

As I say, it's not a silver bullet but the central economics of energy production are pretty simple. Either you produce your own or you buy it off of others and make yourself comparatively poorer as a result.

My gut feeling is just drilling more, with no state input (even if it's just storage infrastructure), isn't going to do much to the price. Not at all an expert either (I think this is Shaggy's area though?), I'm mostly going on the constant claims the easy stuff has been extracted from Scotland and there's only x years left.

Your point 1 is true. Your point 2 is much more contingent on what the UK government decides (ownership models, taxes etc), using the revenue to fund tax cuts then letting the market decide on the UK's future development is the preferred option in the UK and it means underdevelopment, arguably in the whole UK relative to peer nations over the last 40 years, much less to argue about on regional disparities within the UK.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 12:33 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 12:11 pm There are general characteristics that make black people black ethnically, racially or culturally.

What was that about absolutist frameworks? You're conflating something which is immutable (racial characteristics), with something which is by definition changeable (culture). Which is what the coconut pejorative does too. There is no general cultural characteristic of black people, Africa alone has 1.2bn people and they don't all live within one culture. I haven't met many black British people that speak Zulu and worship their ancestors.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 12:11 pm Rather like JMK, this is another instance of a white person taking the superior position of telling non whites what is and isn't racist to them. You are free to express an opinion but you don't get to dictate the terms to any of them.

The "stay in your separate lane" logic of apartheid. Guess what Afrikaners were told by other Afrikaners when they dared to challenge anything back in the day, they were told they weren't Afrikaners and were really English or traitors. I'm sure they were very glad almost no one said to them "nah, you're okay be whoever you want to be".

You are wrong on both counts.

1) I'll repeat what I said before on this kinda subject. One of my (more militant, granted) Ghanaian friends Jennifer always used to say something like "White people invented racism. White people perpetuated racism (still do actually). White people don't now get the f**k to tell me what is and isn't racist too."

I can categorically tell you that probably all my black friends and relatives (pretty sure I have more than you and so a much larger sample size) , militant or not, will agree with the use of the term coconut for the black cabinet ministers in the earlier post. I'll put aside the Asian ones because coconut is not part of Asians' lexicon. So, who do you think is right? You or them?

2) You still don't get it. What apartheid was doing was using power and politics to create separation of wealth and power delineated by a combo of race, culture (primarily these 2) and class. The Tories are up to exactly the same game. It is the Tories who are pushing "stay in your separate lane" and anyone signing up to that manifesto is doing exactly the same. No amount of twisted logic, tautology or one sided intellectual idealism put forth by you is going to flip the debate to your side. Your gaping flaw is in the assertion in this line:
"Guess what Afrikaners were told by other Afrikaners when they dared to challenge anything back in the day.............."
because there, there were Afrikaaners seeking to change from within (though a minuscule number compared with what most safas would like us to believe today much in the same way that in France, everyone's ancestors were in the Resistance) WHEREAS these c**ts aren't attempting to change anything. Absolutely the reverse. They are trying to enforce the status quo whilst benefiting from it themselves. These are not change activists in the manner of your Afrikaaner martyr example at all. They are much more akin to the Jewish camp "guards" who aided the Nazis in their activities against their own people. And yeah, I know I just invoked Godwin's Law.