[Siderite]

I am cringing a bit at the tone there, Heath. I disagree with JI a lot on faith based issues, but I have waned from my new atheist youth. If religion gives someone comfort, so be it.

There is an interesting point in there, though. If someone has a minority view, they should be welcome to put forward their ideas without hassle. Which means that campaigns to rejoin the Customs Union, Single Market or even the EU should be permissible, no matter the complains of the ‘will of the people’ brigade, and regardless of their merit.

The irony of Truss saying we need growth, and attacking dissidents as opposed to it, is that growth has flatlined since 2016 and it takes some cheek to blame it on those who opposed the trigger for that.

[Siderite]

I don’t believe in others do it, so let’s turn a blind eye. It was bad enough with Labour and Mandelson, who was crooked. This lot take the mick, and no amount of what about Labour justifies it.

[Siderite]

You should know by now, Deerey, that the IFS or anyone arguing along similar lines can just be dismissed because they’re left wing/’experts’ we should be cynical of/part of the anti-growth coalition. ;-)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Northumbiron

[Siderite]

One problem. There is no evidence Truss’s plan will even generate growth. However, I await to be demonised as a ‘usual suspect’ or whatever, because I dare to disagree with Bucks.

If you’re pinning your hopes on this, prepare to be disappointed, because it’s a tough ask to change now. The public don’t like it, because they’re not idiots, and can see what the consequences mean for them.

Like I said, from an electoral prospective, there is a reason why Labour are laughing their heads off and Tories should consider why before dismissing and pointing to hypothetical poll boosts from a point where Truss is even less popular than Corbyn.

[Siderite]

The anti-growth coalition is a cheap and nasty way of trying to misrepresent opponents and framing her own plan as being foolproof for growth. There has been a worrying trend in politics, globally, of demonising critique and making out anyone criticising is doing so in bad faith.

[Siderite]

Bucksiron wrote:

I don’t know why you think anything’s aimed at you, Siderite.

All sorts of funding of all sorts of organisations is “opaque” as you put it. You’ll find exactly the same behind numerous organisations across the whole political spectrum, including the left. Of course the media will spin this, which is fair enough but it’s hardly Watergate.

I took your comment to be a response to mine. I don’t think anyone is claiming it’s the Watergate, but we have a right to transparency. These Tufton St think tanks rank poorly in transparency indices, compared with others, left or right.

[Siderite]

Read the bit in brackets. I was clarifying that I may have misunderstood.

[Siderite]

So, you are arguing that their funding isn’t opaque and we should know what or who funds them, then? News to me. This is what I mean by lack of openness or transparency.

Maybe, instead of arrogantly blustering over others, you could take a step back and not patronise others and dismiss them as idiots not on your level, eh? ;-)

It’s this which gives me impressions of ego and arrogance, and it has little to do with people bullying you, because I have tried to be civil above. To no avail. Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Siderite]

Yet again Bucks resorts to tedious provoking to a post containing no insults aimed at him. Yet he’s always the victim.

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

Well it would be if it were true. Siderite, I assume you were around at that time under the poster name ‘Bloodyrubbishiron’ (unless I’m mistaken?).

;-)

[Siderite]

I, for one, have never said the first sentence and I was disagreeing with someone who made the claim that Sunak wasn’t favoured because of race/ethnicity. I don’t know why you picked up on that, I thought you’d agree on that point. Unless I am misinterpreting your direction with that (I am doing so, because you are quoting me, the only one person to say race – I may be being sensitive, but I am used to being misrepresented by you now).

That second quote is a stated opinion, not one argued out, but one valid and not ridiculous just because you disagree.

[Siderite]

Thank-you for finally giving me something to go on. I don’t know the full context, but it definitely sounds dodgy enough for my liking.

[Siderite]

There’s nothing wrong with think tanks as such, the problem comes from transparency, which these things often lack. There is nothing wrong with calling for openness for a functioning democracy. This is what a lot of the criticism has focussed on, and is being dismissed here.

[Siderite]

I don’t think it’s fair to say race had anything to do with the decision of Truss over Sunak. Kemi Badenoch was the most popular of all Tory candidates among members.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Siderite]

“As being left is generally associated with caring”

The Kulaks may disagree. :-)

[Siderite]

I never said he wasn’t very left…

*Emphasis on the pretty, in a British way.

[Siderite]

I wouldn’t go that far, but he’s pretty left.

I will note that comment if you ever complain that leftists dismiss a source because they’re right wing, as has been done previously.

[Siderite]

I have zero idea as to what the comment was which you are referring to; no-one can, because you have brought no evidence. It goes without saying that anti-Semitism is appalling, but I (and others) cannot call it out or show themselves to be hypocrites without anything to go on.

The only joke is that you have resorted to snide comments aimed at my comment because I have asked what this was and I am not going off assertions. This is what I meant by me interpreting you as being unable to take criticism, and seeing yourself as above everyone else. Any kind of disagreement is automatically rejected, because we don’t inherently agree with you.

You expect me to take you at your own word, and if not you dismiss and resort to such snide behaviour. I have not insulted you with that comment, I have not abused you, yet you have acted in a manner which is to treat me as duplicitous and not asking in good faith. Yet you would complain if I reacted.

I can very well believe someone on the left made an anti-Semitic comment, but I can’t condemn anything if I have no sodding clue as to what it was. Racism is a serious charge and shouldn’t be taken lightly.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

There should be questions asked about who funds these groups and how much influence they operate. It doesn’t matter what flavour the government is, transparency is key. Those saying it’s just sniping from the left are appearing tribal and unwilling to accept critique.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Trust is also hard to regain, and watching her recently, do you seriously think she can improve her image? There was good reason Tories were happy with Corbyn as Labour leader from the off, Tories should do the same with Truss. If they want to kid themselves into thinking it looks good with Truss, I am more than happy, from a non-Tory perspective.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Heath

[Siderite]

I think it would help your case if you bring in specific details. From the outside, lack of awareness of what you’re referring to is a valid position to hold, and isn’t ‘convenient’.

[Siderite]

Bucksiron wrote:

Your demeanour doesn’t bother me in the slightest, Siderite. You’re perfectly entitled to your views and I respect your right to have them, regardless of how negative or positive they might be towards me or anyone else. I would simply ask you to understand that as someone whose political views are different to the vast majority on this board I’ve taken a lot of abuse. Some might think I deserve it, which is up to them, but either way it explains why I take the position that I do.

Tbh I can see how others may have aggravated you same as the other way round. Everything is polarised right now. I have an idea I might share tomorrow to improve things, though it will probably achieve little, so stay tuned if you want to laugh at how naff it is.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Just Iron, Deereyme66

[Siderite]

I wasn’t saying 50 years is a definitive figure. I was pointing out that the issue over oil is less to do with volume of reserves in total, mote total economically extractable.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Bucksiron

[Siderite]

“Also Siderite, I don’t think that I’m an ‘expert’ at all.”

It really doesn’t come across like that to me. I am sceptical, which is why I am sceptical of you, yet I get berated. If you don’t want me to think like this then address the concerns, or just accept I am a person who might not view you positively in some regards, fairly or not. I try to be reasonable, but personal opinions won’t be changed without demonstration. Which means less dismissiveness and smug pronouncements for me. If you don’t think you need to change, fine (it is just my opinion), but you can’t police how I view your demeanour.

[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.

[Author]

Posts