[Siderite]

I was admittedly talking about oil, but that is true. There are of course reasons we should ween ourselves off such, but I am not going to get into that roundabout again.

Suffice to say, I have mostly disagreed with you on this ’roundabout’, less so on renewables, before you start crowing.

[Siderite]

I think we’re in danger of monopolising the issue. I am not denying things like the immobility to nuclear for a role, but it’s multifaceted, so to say this is solely because of energy direction is too simplistic.

Also, those who have flaws in their work won’t be without controversy. You can’t just dismiss criticism because it comes from many sources.

Contrarianism does not equal greater credibility. I have seen this claim come often from many, including on here (alcazar a prime culprit). The idea that those who are on the side of a majority position or mainstream position are somehow being gullible sheep. As if you’re being a radical free thinker for being different, it means you’re thinking outside the box. It doesn’t. Blindly rejecting more mainstream opinion for some fringe view is as illogical and gullible as blindly trusting anything someone says.

I am not stating you are doing this here, but it’s worth bearing in mind when praising people because they go against a more common position. It doesn’t automatically put you in some enlightened position or make critics wrong.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Labour has had a problem with a certain brand of anti-Semitism, often disguised as anti-Zionism, for some time now. The sort of thing which has led Roger Waters to declare that British and American Jews are responsible for Israel’s actions. Obviously this has nothing to do with Labour, but it’s the sort of thing which was too readily dismissed before in Labour.

[Siderite]

It should be noted that said authors are not without issue:

A closer examination of the fantastical numbers in Bjorn Lomborg’s new book

However, I am not interested in conspiracies about elites trying to silence dissent, from defenders who can’t tolerate criticism, and see such as silencing.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Siderite wrote:

This board got closed down because of alcazar and Big J.

This was in response to a Bucks post. I am surprised that post got removed. I don’t recall anything untoward in it.

[Siderite]

This board got closed down because of alcazar and Big J.

[Siderite]

Going well:

EXC: Some of Liz Truss’s cabinet say her economic reforms are over before they’ve begun because she’s lost the confidence of the Tory Party https://t.co/akQugzUCw9

— Kitty Donaldson (@kitty_donaldson) October 3, 2022

Must be the undercover Marxists in the Tories, like Michael Gove, Esther McVey and Grant Shapps, being saboteurs!

[Siderite]

Oh, and discovery of new fields is on the decline, so we can’t rely on new reserves, with more easily and cheaply extracted oil, forever either.

[Siderite]

64 wrote:

hundreds of years? they took thousands to create . We will run out,better to try now and not be at the whim of greedy markets,it wouldn’t be so bad had the Tories not flogged our national assets of mind you

We will never run out of oil, as such, because we can’t currently easily extract every drop of oil from an oil reserve. Technology allows us to extract more from a reservoir, but as we have to use more challenging technologies to bring up yield, the costlier it will be and eventually it will be far less costly to use alternatives. The idea that we can rely on oil for hundreds of years is still one to to be sceptical of, but it’s not because every drop of oil will have been depleted.

[Siderite]

I have no idea as to the racist comment Bucks is referring to.

It really should not need to be said, but I have abhorred the left wing racism for a while. The sort of thing which got Rupa Huq suspended, the anti-Semitism which plagued the party for years, and I am still unsure if it has been fully rooted out by Starmer. I didn’t vote Labour in 2019, largely because of it.

So, yes, please call me a hypocrite if responding to me, and say that it’s convenient, Bucks. It would show you as being tribal in nature, because I can show that I call out racism from all sides.

I am sorry if this is blowing my own trumpet, but given you cast doubt on anyone remotely to the left of you as having principles, and I fear you might try and slander me, I think it is needed to be said for my own pre-emptive defence.

[Siderite]

There may be hundreds of years of oil reserves in existence, but there isn’t currently hundreds of years worth that is currently exploitable. Yes, efficiency in extraction may improve, but not to the level of the total percentage of reserve.

Now to await to be told that I don’t know what I am talking about, because I haven’t followed Bucks’s line exactly. Somehow we’re all sheep for disagreeing with him and valuing experts, yet question him and he comes down on you with fury, because he expects to be taken as an expert.

[Siderite]

I should add that my point was to prove 64 wrong aboutsuch tags being one sided. I wasn’t saying it was good.

Yet, because I am to the left of Reagan I must be sinister. Yawn.

[Siderite]

On topic, Kwarteng was praising recent ‘successes’ delivered by a Conservative government, while accusing recent governments of slow decline, during his conference speech.

I just can’t get behind this snivelling two-facedness. When the previous governments were in power many Tories would defend against criticism, attack the integrity of anyone criticising, yet when they renew themselves they’re deriding what was once supported, and what was once morally suspect to even question.

[Siderite]

I try to be reasoned, and out comes the usual suspects drivel. Yawn.

[Siderite]

Thick Lizzy regularly trends.

[Siderite]

Yawn

[Siderite]

One problem. 14 words is literally a fascist statement, so can be accurately labelled as far-right. It’s not because of over-labelling of fascism, in this instance.

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

It was more than ‘below the belt’, it was daily disgusting racist, misogynist and bigoted posts and continued for far too long. It brought this forum in to disrepute and encouraged others to show their true colours; colours that have no place here or in modern society. Frequently, the language and rhetoric was appalling. It can’t be allowed to happen again.

I don’t disagree with that.

[Siderite]

Politics to own the libs is so tiresome. There is good reason why leftists or anyone appalled by the far right raise concerns about rhetoric from far-right sources.

Oh, and I don’t like far-left rhetoric either, so it’s not a matter of one sidedness and I don’t think it’s just the left who can be blinded to the problems from their own side.

[Siderite]

Awaywego wrote:

Agreed Deerey but doesn’t mean that football clubs have to change their kit to suit them, they could always find another club who don’t wear white shorts or stop participating in sport altogether if they are that bothered. That’s about it for me on this topic maybe I’ll come back on it next month.

The problem with find another club approach is that if every club enacts player/employee alienating measures there are no suitable clubs left. If all players refuse to play then there’s no sport left for spectators.

Of course the pull of money and national pride, for England, will override concerns, but I don’t see why it is wrong for players to demand something which suits them. They are human and are deserving of respect. I do not see the issue in providing a simple solution to a problem like this.

[Siderite]

I can see how Deerey’s objection to LK could be seen negatively by Bucks. However, DeereyMe is right to point out that his negative opinion of LK comes from the Big J episode.

LK has put forward some good points before, and while I do disagree with a lot, it’s good to have those who put forward another angle. The Big J stuff was below the belt though, so it’s a shame that got popularity from some quarters.

[Siderite]

Personally I disagree that these tax cuts will bring the growth they desire, but there is no point going into it, because I will be misrepresented and patronised to death.

Polls can change, but only if the Tories can regain trust, which is hard to do. Sticking fingers in the ears and hoping in vain is unlikely to do it. Labour won’t be complacent, but they’re not going to go into despair because of hypothetical turn arounds based on nothing. I am sceptical Truss is good enough to turn it around. She’s weak on presenting herself as a strong leader, for one, and I don’t know how she reverses that perception.

[Siderite]

I do find some amusement in Bucks speaking of opinions based in reality, in a week when he’s disparaged any criticism as being void because of political identity or because he knows best, as if his opinions are above reproach.

I don’t mean this to be an insult, but it is becoming increasingly hard to disagree with any of his points, because if so I’d get labelled as a ‘usual suspect’ or duplicitous.

The Corbynisation of the Tories continues on the whole. All and sundry who disagree with the economic approach are left wing, including the IMF. Tories who disagree are evil left wingers*. There is no such thing as disagreement in good faith. Only their way is righteous and pure, anyone who disagrees is suspect.

*

What the U-turn demonstrates is that the traitors and quislings on the Left of the parliamentary Conservative Party are sufficiently numerous to stop the Government doing what needs to be done to save the country. It’s all over now.

— Sir Harry Flashman (@FlashForFreedom) October 3, 2022

[Siderite]

What gives women a right to ‘pontificate’ is that they are human, just as us men, so have every right to comfort and dignity. ;-)

[Siderite]

Train drivers and doctors should be lambasted for the money they earn, but complain about a tax cut for the rich and it’s the ‘politics of envy’ for many Tories.

[Siderite]

I want us to be in the first round proper, so no thanks to those three. Some lower team at home.

1 user thanked author for this post.

bartonscorpion

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

‘Oh, and the Tories love nothing more than a Labour party that thinks it’s already won the next election.’.

Nope, you’ve been corrected on that a day a two ago. It really doesn’t think it’s won anything. You can keep saying it as much as you like. It’s just one in a long line of fabrications and untruths.

Meanwhile the Labour party are loving the Tories doubling down on what has been unpopular for their electoral chances.

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

‘You’re even more naive than me if you think the BBC didn’t select the pensions person they interviewed based on their views over Brexit.’

It was a phone in programme love: ‘Any Answers’ to be precise. Thanks.

No doubt they deliberately siphoned political views before allowing a phone in. These conspiracies are tedious. Anyone who disagrees with this has to be suspect, and arguments are just dismissed.

The Tories have no responsibility for anything, despite being in power for 12 years, everything is the fault of the ‘elite,’ (which somehow doesn’t include those in power), remainers, Labour, IMF, EU etc, never them.

If someone has a position to the left of Reagan they can just be dismissed, no matter what they say. It’s the same tedious dismissiveness as the Corbynites who do the same in reverse. They are so cocksure in their rigid ideology, yet they hurl such accusations at others. Everyone else is ‘suspect,’ yet don’t dare criticise them for being ideologically blinded.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

It doesn’t matter if Labour support certain economic policies. They have no power to enact them, so the idea they can be blamed as much as the Tories for economic policy is daft reasoning.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Brown’s approach to saving the economy, after admittedly making mistakes previously with gold reserves, was praised and copied by other nations to success.

[Author]

Posts