• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Silly McSilly Face said:
I think everyone wants to phase out fossil. So that's not as radical as is made out. The only gradient you get from left to right is the pace of phase out and how much risk you are willing to carry re: energy costs and network stability in the transition. Also whether you're willing to continue actively exploring fossil while it is being phased out (i.e. the right such as Reform are in favour of new drilling and mining to max supply and economic growth and keep energy costs lower while the transition occurs).

I also think eco populism or extremism can have unintended consequences e.g.

UK: "we've closed down all our mining operations, aren't we green?"
Bolivia: "we've got more demand for exports of fossil materials to the UK, quick, chop down more of the amazon to get those mining operations expanded!"
Click to expand...
There's a big reframing of it to be done. Showing clean energy to be about national security and permanently ending bills. No input is needed for wind and solar. Just harvesting our weather with small costs to maintain the infrastructure. Its a 1 off mission to solve energy forever, and it could be done within a decade

Most right and centre politicians are massively in the pockets of the oil lobby - its all about profit and greed

Imports would definitely need to be grouped in with domestically produced fossil fuels, to prevent the scenario you highlight. But we need real legally-binding targets like reducing the national consumption of fossil fuels 10% year-on-year
 
Gutter Boy said:
There's a big reframing of it to be done. Showing clean energy to be about national security and permanently ending bills. No input is needed for wind and solar. Just harvesting our weather with small costs to maintain the infrastructure. Its a 1 off mission to solve energy forever, and it could be done within a decade

Most right and centre politicians are massively in the pockets of the oil lobby - its all about profit and greed

Imports would definitely need to be grouped in with domestically produced fossil fuels, to prevent the scenario you highlight. But we need real legally-binding targets like reducing the national consumption of fossil fuels 10% year-on-year
Click to expand...
I think we have refuced consumption of fossil fuels quite considerably. In terms of clean energy being about national security we could do with ending the reliance on Chinese technology, materials and companies for green energy. Doesn't help that they're the only country able to produce mass-market affordable EVs for a reasonable profit margin either....
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
She certainly needs better advisors. If you're that bothered about tax then buying an £800k second home yourself not via a limited company or trust is amateur-hour!
Click to expand...

It's all a bit strange. It sound like the divorcing couple have managed to keep the Manchester home, set up a lifelong trust for the lifelong disabled child and she has managed to afford the down payment on an £800k home, assumedly with a mortgage. This is on top of her having a grace-and-favour flat in London based on her role in the government.

I get the feeling she thinks her final destination is East Sussex and therefore decided she wasn't liable to act like any other second home situation like buy-to-let. Therefore she broke the rules and did the self pity city thing on herself. I'm glad she got caught.
 
I think second homes are pretty abominable and should be heavily disincentivised and penalised through taxation. But i would always give people a year's grace to sort their affairs out in the case of either a relationship breakdown and inheritance.
 
Muttley said:
It's all a bit strange. It sound like the divorcing couple have managed to keep the Manchester home, set up a lifelong trust for the lifelong disabled child and she has managed to afford the down payment on an £800k home, assumedly with a mortgage. This is on top of her having a grace-and-favour flat in London based on her role in the government.

I get the feeling she thinks her final destination is East Sussex and therefore decided she wasn't liable to act like any other second home situation like buy-to-let. Therefore she broke the rules and did the self pity city thing on herself. I'm glad she got caught.
Click to expand...
Definitely think her final destination is going to be a safer seat in the south. Her current seat is currently predicted to fall to Reform in 2029 and I think we'll see a similar game of musical chairs with other senior Labour figures over the next few years if they can't arrest the polling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back