Breaking: Cummings hits back at government in his blog. Denies responsibility for the leak. Says Johnson used party donor money to refurbish number ten and says this is foolish, possibly illegal. Concludes that the PM and his office has fallen so far beneath the standards and integrity the public expects.
The PM stopped speaking to me about this matter in 2020 as I told him I thought his plans to have donors secretly pay for the renovation were unethical, foolish, possibly illegal and almost certainly broke the rules on proper disclosure of political donations if conducted in the way he intended. I refused to help him organise these payments.
It is sad to see the PM and his office fall so far below the standards of competence and integrity the country deserves.
The Prime Minister’s DOC has also made accusations regarding me and leaks concerning the PM’s renovation of his flat. The PM stopped speaking to me about this matter in 2020 as I told him I thought his plans to have donors secretly pay for the renovation were unethical, foolish, possibly illegal and almost certainly broke the rules on proper disclosure of political donations if conducted in the way he intended. I refused to help him organise these payments. My knowledge about them is therefore limited. I would be happy to tell the Cabinet Secretary or Electoral Commission what I know concerning this matter.
Why would anyone have ever had Cummings as an adviser? Whether or not he had some useful ideas and the drive to achieve them, he thinks so much of himself that he would always be a ticking time bomb, and not inclined to let himself be sidelined without consequence.
Breaking: Cummings hits back at government in his blog. Denies responsibility for the leak. Says Johnson used party donor money to refurbish number ten and says this is foolish, possibly illegal. Concludes that the PM and his office has fallen so far beneath the standards and integrity the public expects.
Some, by contrast, may feel the PM has shown exactly the integrity they expected.
The take away, smashing up a building isn't a criminal offense if you claim you were doing so to save the planet.
I think this is a rubbish decision by the jury, but on a point of principle I do think jury nullification is an option that they need to have as a backstop for more deserving cases.
It's also undeniably a bit amusing that one defendant already pled guilty and then watched his comrades get away with it despite having no defence at all.
Not sure I understand the judge's remark that it is an unusual case. It only seems unusual in the jury's decision, albeit it's not unheard of historically.
I understand Greta Thunberg is calling herself a 'bunny hugger' after Boris's comments yesterday
These activists just do not understand that to tackle climate change they need to reach the ordinary voter who supports climate change, but when you tell them they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers, then there is little chance of their support
I commented this morning on this and thought Rachel Burden of 5 live was so on the ball with her comments
'Rachel Burden was interviewing a 'green activist' who largely welcomed HMG involvement in the debate but criticised Boris 'bunny hugging' moment
However, Rachel's response was that he was not talking to activists like her, but to those less interested in climate change and that he was making the point it was not about 'bunny huggers' but a real opportunity for investment and jobs for the future
Rachel and Boris seem to understand the red wall voters, far more than the metropolitan elite and climate enthusiasts
I think you misunderstand - many Green are New Puritans.
To them a world where the ordinary people will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars (and remain very expensive), eat less meat and completely renovate their homes at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers - that is what they *want*
Indeed, and the Conservatives will lose votes (including mine) if Alok Sharma and Kwasi Kwarteng start virtue-signalling about veganism.
They simply don't understand - I will do virtually anything for climate change but ditching meat is simply not something I will ever be prepared to do and nor will millions of others.
They need sustainable technological solutions to mixed and traditional forms of agriculture that people can get behind, or they'll be told to piss off.
I understand Greta Thunberg is calling herself a 'bunny hugger' after Boris's comments yesterday
These activists just do not understand that to tackle climate change they need to reach the ordinary voter who supports climate change, but when you tell them they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers, then there is little chance of their support
I commented this morning on this and thought Rachel Burden of 5 live was so on the ball with her comments
'Rachel Burden was interviewing a 'green activist' who largely welcomed HMG involvement in the debate but criticised Boris 'bunny hugging' moment
However, Rachel's response was that he was not talking to activists like her, but to those less interested in climate change and that he was making the point it was not about 'bunny huggers' but a real opportunity for investment and jobs for the future
Rachel and Boris seem to understand the red wall voters, far more than the metropolitan elite and climate enthusiasts
I think you misunderstand - many Green are New Puritans.
To them a world where the ordinary people will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars (and remain very expensive), eat less meat and completely renovate their homes at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers - that is what they *want*
Indeed, and the Conservatives will lose votes (including mine) if Alok Sharma and Kwasi Kwarteng start virtue-signalling about veganism.
They simply don't understand - I will do virtually anything for climate change but ditching meat is simply not something I will ever be prepared to do and nor will millions of others.
They need sustainable technological solutions to mixed and traditional forms of agriculture that people can get behind, or they'll be told to piss off.
I cannot believe anyone is getting excited about this Cummings intervention. It will have no impact on anything. Johnson has so lowered the bar in terms of probity, honesty and integrity that there is almost nothing he can do that is not priced in. The only way this will get any legs is if Tory MPs start to demand answers. Reader: they won't.
Thoughts and prayers for the Boris Johnson fanbois and fangirls who so comprehensively defended Dominic Cummings after his sojourn to Bernard Castle saying he was a top bloke, beyond reproach.
Breaking: Cummings hits back at government in his blog. Denies responsibility for the leak. Says Johnson used party donor money to refurbish number ten and says this is foolish, possibly illegal. Concludes that the PM and his office has fallen so far beneath the standards and integrity the public expects.
Some, by contrast, may feel the PM has shown exactly the integrity they expected.
Didn't someone say earlier Boris had apparently now paid for it himself? Raising the classic question of why the heck he didn't just do that in the first place, which I struggle to see a satisfactory answer to - either it was all above board in which case why pay for it now, or it was not and his paying it back doesn't explain why he tried to get someone else to pay in the first place?
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
No it is not all what is going to be necessary (the electric car bit is) - and if it is necessary then it won't happen. Do you think the Chinese are going to choose not to fly just because we tell people they're killing pandas if they fly?
The solution, the only solution that will work is clean technologies.
Saying don't use power will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is some clean and affordable power, use this instead of coal" people will listen to.
Saying don't fly will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is a newly designed clean and affordable plane, use this instead of jet fuel" people will listen to.
Saying "don't eat meat" will not work. People won't listen to you. Full stop, I see no alternative to this one, the line is drawn here. Maybe find a way to offset against it because meat is happening.
Artificial meat will be a mainstream, cheap product inside a decade.
Will believe it when I see it frankly. Meat is not just about taste but texture as well. From all reports I have seen from people that have tried what is currently there it fails at both
This would be a damaging claim if Boris Johnson didn't have a reputation for "dishonesty, lying and unethical behaviour" before he became PM. It's priced in unless there's genuinely some innocent victim here, and I don't see one.
Thoughts and prayers for the Boris Johnson fanbois and fangirls who so comprehensively defendedDominic Cummings after his sojourn to Bernard Castle saying he was a top bloke, beyond reproach.
Especially Suella Braverman.
Remember all those supposed idiots and fools Trump fired, who he had previously praised to the heavens? Good times.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
No it is not all what is going to be necessary (the electric car bit is) - and if it is necessary then it won't happen. Do you think the Chinese are going to choose not to fly just because we tell people they're killing pandas if they fly?
The solution, the only solution that will work is clean technologies.
Saying don't use power will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is some clean and affordable power, use this instead of coal" people will listen to.
Saying don't fly will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is a newly designed clean and affordable plane, use this instead of jet fuel" people will listen to.
Saying "don't eat meat" will not work. People won't listen to you. Full stop, I see no alternative to this one, the line is drawn here. Maybe find a way to offset against it because meat is happening.
Artificial meat will be a mainstream, cheap product inside a decade.
An interesting thought. Can artificial meat taste like roast rib of beef? Or will it taste more like a Quorn veggie sausage?
There was one brand of veggie beef pie that tasted so much like the real thing I couldn't eat it.
I cannot believe anyone is getting excited about this Cummings intervention. It will have no impact on anything. Johnson has so lowered the bar in terms of probity, honesty and integrity that there is almost nothing he can do that is not priced in. The only way this will get any legs is if Tory MPs start to demand answers. Reader: they won't.
I think it is more as Mr Nabavi says, funny, rather than it will actually have an impact.
I think there's a very significant element in the "Green" movement who will be very disappointed when we reach Net Zero to have nothing further to berate us for.
No doubt they'll find some other reason instead of carbon that we need to abolish capitalism, stop consumption and basically go back centuries for instead of carbon.
Because its not really about the environment for some people.
I cannot believe anyone is getting excited about this Cummings intervention. It will have no impact on anything. Johnson has so lowered the bar in terms of probity, honesty and integrity that there is almost nothing he can do that is not priced in. The only way this will get any legs is if Tory MPs start to demand answers. Reader: they won't.
If ditching BoZo is the best way to head off the landslide of sleaze engulfing the party, Sir Graham Brady might be a busy boy
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
No it is not all what is going to be necessary (the electric car bit is) - and if it is necessary then it won't happen. Do you think the Chinese are going to choose not to fly just because we tell people they're killing pandas if they fly?
The solution, the only solution that will work is clean technologies.
Saying don't use power will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is some clean and affordable power, use this instead of coal" people will listen to.
Saying don't fly will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is a newly designed clean and affordable plane, use this instead of jet fuel" people will listen to.
Saying "don't eat meat" will not work. People won't listen to you. Full stop, I see no alternative to this one, the line is drawn here. Maybe find a way to offset against it because meat is happening.
Artificial meat will be a mainstream, cheap product inside a decade.
An interesting thought. Can artificial meat taste like roast rib of beef? Or will it taste more like a Quorn veggie sausage?
There was one brand of veggie beef pie that tasted so much like the real thing I couldn't eat it.
Good evening, everyone.
An interesting take. There's many a tasty vegetarian meal, but I'd have assumed people eating a 'veggie beef pie' would want it to taste as much as possible like the real thing, otherwise they could just go for a veggie pie.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
No it is not all what is going to be necessary (the electric car bit is) - and if it is necessary then it won't happen. Do you think the Chinese are going to choose not to fly just because we tell people they're killing pandas if they fly?
The solution, the only solution that will work is clean technologies.
Saying don't use power will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is some clean and affordable power, use this instead of coal" people will listen to.
Saying don't fly will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is a newly designed clean and affordable plane, use this instead of jet fuel" people will listen to.
Saying "don't eat meat" will not work. People won't listen to you. Full stop, I see no alternative to this one, the line is drawn here. Maybe find a way to offset against it because meat is happening.
It also spikes my bullshit meter.
The global human population is c.10 times higher than it was in 1750 (pre industrial era) and we probably eat 3 times as much meat per head as we did then - so a x30 factor increase. But, our technology and quality of livestock is also far far better so we get more bang for buck.
Tells me eating meat twice a week at the very least should be sustainable indefinitely, and possibly more than that.
This would be a damaging claim if Boris Johnson didn't have a reputation for "dishonesty, lying and unethical behaviour" before he became PM. It's priced in unless there's genuinely some innocent victim here, and I don't see one.
I cannot believe anyone is getting excited about this Cummings intervention. It will have no impact on anything. Johnson has so lowered the bar in terms of probity, honesty and integrity that there is almost nothing he can do that is not priced in. The only way this will get any legs is if Tory MPs start to demand answers. Reader: they won't.
If ditching BoZo is the best way to head off the landslide of sleaze engulfing the party, Sir Graham Brady might be a busy boy
The Tories are too invested in Johnson now. And he is liked by their voting demographic. He is going nowhere on the back of this. His future is tied to the strength of the post-pandemic recovery, nothing else. Though perhaps sleaze will be the excuse to oust him if that does not go well.
I understand Greta Thunberg is calling herself a 'bunny hugger' after Boris's comments yesterday
These activists just do not understand that to tackle climate change they need to reach the ordinary voter who supports climate change, but when you tell them they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers, then there is little chance of their support
I commented this morning on this and thought Rachel Burden of 5 live was so on the ball with her comments
'Rachel Burden was interviewing a 'green activist' who largely welcomed HMG involvement in the debate but criticised Boris 'bunny hugging' moment
However, Rachel's response was that he was not talking to activists like her, but to those less interested in climate change and that he was making the point it was not about 'bunny huggers' but a real opportunity for investment and jobs for the future
Rachel and Boris seem to understand the red wall voters, far more than the metropolitan elite and climate enthusiasts
Not just red wall voters. The UK cutting its emissions alone isn't going to go very far, you need to carry the Americans, Chinese, Indians etc with you too.
If you want to carry the voters of Detroit with you, you're going to go further talking about investment and jobs than you are bunnies.
The bunny huggers are already onside. The likes of Greta and David Attenborough don't need to be convinced that we need to take action. Its the others you're supposed to be convincing.
I think there's a reason someone so immature and silly as Greta is the one who takes umbrage at it, rather than someone as mature and sensible as David Attenborough.
Greta is also wrong on many issues. She upbraids Governments, including ours, for doing "nothing" when in fact they're doing an awful lot.
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
No it is not all what is going to be necessary (the electric car bit is) - and if it is necessary then it won't happen. Do you think the Chinese are going to choose not to fly just because we tell people they're killing pandas if they fly?
The solution, the only solution that will work is clean technologies.
Saying don't use power will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is some clean and affordable power, use this instead of coal" people will listen to.
Saying don't fly will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is a newly designed clean and affordable plane, use this instead of jet fuel" people will listen to.
Saying "don't eat meat" will not work. People won't listen to you. Full stop, I see no alternative to this one, the line is drawn here. Maybe find a way to offset against it because meat is happening.
Artificial meat will be a mainstream, cheap product inside a decade.
An interesting thought. Can artificial meat taste like roast rib of beef? Or will it taste more like a Quorn veggie sausage?
There was one brand of veggie beef pie that tasted so much like the real thing I couldn't eat it.
Good evening, everyone.
I've tried some of this food and it's mainly diabolical.
I had a "cauliflower steak" for dinner which is, let's face it, just a slice of cauliflower dressed up.
I woke up starving at 3am and had a massive bowl of crunchy nut cornflakes with gold top milk and toast.
I cannot believe anyone is getting excited about this Cummings intervention. It will have no impact on anything. Johnson has so lowered the bar in terms of probity, honesty and integrity that there is almost nothing he can do that is not priced in. The only way this will get any legs is if Tory MPs start to demand answers. Reader: they won't.
If ditching BoZo is the best way to head off the landslide of sleaze engulfing the party, Sir Graham Brady might be a busy boy
Why would you pick a petty vindictive fight with someone who a) has a PHD in petty vindictive fights; b) has absolutely nothing to lose and c) has a load of shit on you? https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1385628585759756294
I cannot believe anyone is getting excited about this Cummings intervention. It will have no impact on anything. Johnson has Blair so lowered the bar in terms of probity, honesty and integrity that there is almost nothing he any PM can do that is not priced in. The only way this will get any legs is if Tory MPs voters start to demand answers. Reader: they won't.
I understand Greta Thunberg is calling herself a 'bunny hugger' after Boris's comments yesterday
These activists just do not understand that to tackle climate change they need to reach the ordinary voter who supports climate change, but when you tell them they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers, then there is little chance of their support
I commented this morning on this and thought Rachel Burden of 5 live was so on the ball with her comments
'Rachel Burden was interviewing a 'green activist' who largely welcomed HMG involvement in the debate but criticised Boris 'bunny hugging' moment
However, Rachel's response was that he was not talking to activists like her, but to those less interested in climate change and that he was making the point it was not about 'bunny huggers' but a real opportunity for investment and jobs for the future
Rachel and Boris seem to understand the red wall voters, far more than the metropolitan elite and climate enthusiasts
Not just red wall voters. The UK cutting its emissions alone isn't going to go very far, you need to carry the Americans, Chinese, Indians etc with you too.
If you want to carry the voters of Detroit with you, you're going to go further talking about investment and jobs than you are bunnies.
The bunny huggers are already onside. The likes of Greta and David Attenborough don't need to be convinced that we need to take action. Its the others you're supposed to be convincing.
I think there's a reason someone so immature and silly as Greta is the one who takes umbrage at it, rather than someone as mature and sensible as David Attenborough.
Greta is also wrong on many issues. She upbraids Governments, including ours, for doing "nothing" when in fact they're doing an awful lot.
You need people to push issues hard, it really does help to make things happen. Fair enough if you want to argue, even if implausibly on occasion, that not enough has happened. But at a certain point denying that things are happening at all when they are can be counter productive. Why would many ordinary people, who are concerned about climate issues, do or support proposals if the past actions apparently didn't mean anything?
I cannot believe anyone is getting excited about this Cummings intervention. It will have no impact on anything. Johnson has so lowered the bar in terms of probity, honesty and integrity that there is almost nothing he can do that is not priced in. The only way this will get any legs is if Tory MPs start to demand answers. Reader: they won't.
I think it is more as Mr Nabavi says, funny, rather than it will actually have an impact.
In a different context, one might say a Westminster Bubble story.
Bloody funny, but in terms of reaching the "let down by Boris" tipping point, Cummings and Mercer make it two down, several million to go.
I cannot believe anyone is getting excited about this Cummings intervention. It will have no impact on anything. Johnson has so lowered the bar in terms of probity, honesty and integrity that there is almost nothing he can do that is not priced in. The only way this will get any legs is if Tory MPs start to demand answers. Reader: they won't.
If ditching BoZo is the best way to head off the landslide of sleaze engulfing the party, Sir Graham Brady might be a busy boy
The Tories are too invested in Johnson now. And he is liked by their voting demographic. He is going nowhere on the back of this. His future is tied to the strength of the post-pandemic recovery, nothing else. Though perhaps sleaze will be the excuse to oust him if that does not go well.
To be honest those now seeing Cummings as a threat to Boris is hope over expectation
Cummings comprehensively trashed his own name in the public's perception
“they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers”
That is what is going to be necessary, though. Moving from the century of oil & gas to a zero-carbon century is going to require serious sacrifices.
May as well be honest about it. People see through the political framing bullshit, and then get angry.
No it is not all what is going to be necessary (the electric car bit is) - and if it is necessary then it won't happen. Do you think the Chinese are going to choose not to fly just because we tell people they're killing pandas if they fly?
The solution, the only solution that will work is clean technologies.
Saying don't use power will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is some clean and affordable power, use this instead of coal" people will listen to.
Saying don't fly will not work. People won't listen to you. Saying "here is a newly designed clean and affordable plane, use this instead of jet fuel" people will listen to.
Saying "don't eat meat" will not work. People won't listen to you. Full stop, I see no alternative to this one, the line is drawn here. Maybe find a way to offset against it because meat is happening.
Artificial meat will be a mainstream, cheap product inside a decade.
Will believe it when I see it frankly. Meat is not just about taste but texture as well. From all reports I have seen from people that have tried what is currently there it fails at both
I wouldn't necessarily object to lab-grown meat. In theory, it should be more or less like the real thing - because it will be the real thing.
However, I'd still expect there to be a market for organic, real meat too.
This is an interesting line from Rachel Reeves. Labour clearly think they've found the smoking gun. Or smoking wallpaper...
Rachel Reeves: "Given we know it only takes a text from one of the Prime Minister’s chums to get a tax break, what might a discreet donation for a luxury refurbishment might get you?"
I understand Greta Thunberg is calling herself a 'bunny hugger' after Boris's comments yesterday
These activists just do not understand that to tackle climate change they need to reach the ordinary voter who supports climate change, but when you tell them they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers, then there is little chance of their support
I commented this morning on this and thought Rachel Burden of 5 live was so on the ball with her comments
'Rachel Burden was interviewing a 'green activist' who largely welcomed HMG involvement in the debate but criticised Boris 'bunny hugging' moment
However, Rachel's response was that he was not talking to activists like her, but to those less interested in climate change and that he was making the point it was not about 'bunny huggers' but a real opportunity for investment and jobs for the future
Rachel and Boris seem to understand the red wall voters, far more than the metropolitan elite and climate enthusiasts
Not just red wall voters. The UK cutting its emissions alone isn't going to go very far, you need to carry the Americans, Chinese, Indians etc with you too.
If you want to carry the voters of Detroit with you, you're going to go further talking about investment and jobs than you are bunnies.
The bunny huggers are already onside. The likes of Greta and David Attenborough don't need to be convinced that we need to take action. Its the others you're supposed to be convincing.
I think there's a reason someone so immature and silly as Greta is the one who takes umbrage at it, rather than someone as mature and sensible as David Attenborough.
Greta is also wrong on many issues. She upbraids Governments, including ours, for doing "nothing" when in fact they're doing an awful lot.
And she fails to understand, or care, that Governments are made up of representatives of the people, and can't act unilaterally against the wishes of the people. If the electorate refuses to allow their tax money to be spent on solving a specific problem, then activists need to persuade the people, not the elected representatives.
In other words, it's pretty clear she grew up in an EU country.
I understand Greta Thunberg is calling herself a 'bunny hugger' after Boris's comments yesterday
These activists just do not understand that to tackle climate change they need to reach the ordinary voter who supports climate change, but when you tell them they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers, then there is little chance of their support
I commented this morning on this and thought Rachel Burden of 5 live was so on the ball with her comments
'Rachel Burden was interviewing a 'green activist' who largely welcomed HMG involvement in the debate but criticised Boris 'bunny hugging' moment
However, Rachel's response was that he was not talking to activists like her, but to those less interested in climate change and that he was making the point it was not about 'bunny huggers' but a real opportunity for investment and jobs for the future
Rachel and Boris seem to understand the red wall voters, far more than the metropolitan elite and climate enthusiasts
Not just red wall voters. The UK cutting its emissions alone isn't going to go very far, you need to carry the Americans, Chinese, Indians etc with you too.
If you want to carry the voters of Detroit with you, you're going to go further talking about investment and jobs than you are bunnies.
The bunny huggers are already onside. The likes of Greta and David Attenborough don't need to be convinced that we need to take action. Its the others you're supposed to be convincing.
I think there's a reason someone so immature and silly as Greta is the one who takes umbrage at it, rather than someone as mature and sensible as David Attenborough.
Greta is also wrong on many issues. She upbraids Governments, including ours, for doing "nothing" when in fact they're doing an awful lot.
You need people to push issues hard, it really does help to make things happen. Fair enough if you want to argue, even if implausibly on occasion, that not enough has happened. But at a certain point denying that things are happening at all when they are can be counter productive. Why would many ordinary people, who are concerned about climate issues, do or support proposals if the past actions apparently didn't mean anything?
The trouble is that the Climate Change Act (80% reduction by 2050) was passed in 2008, well before Greta came on the scene, and the net zero law in June 2019, which was only 10 months after she first appeared on the scene. And work for it was well underway even before then.
I think it's an innocent pure Joan of Arc figurehead sort of thing going on: she appeals to those who are already pretty radical about it.
I understand Greta Thunberg is calling herself a 'bunny hugger' after Boris's comments yesterday
These activists just do not understand that to tackle climate change they need to reach the ordinary voter who supports climate change, but when you tell them they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers, then there is little chance of their support
I commented this morning on this and thought Rachel Burden of 5 live was so on the ball with her comments
'Rachel Burden was interviewing a 'green activist' who largely welcomed HMG involvement in the debate but criticised Boris 'bunny hugging' moment
However, Rachel's response was that he was not talking to activists like her, but to those less interested in climate change and that he was making the point it was not about 'bunny huggers' but a real opportunity for investment and jobs for the future
Rachel and Boris seem to understand the red wall voters, far more than the metropolitan elite and climate enthusiasts
You’re usually so prissy about childish name calling, I can hardly credit that you’re giving BJ a free pass on this. Not like you at al.
I understand Greta Thunberg is calling herself a 'bunny hugger' after Boris's comments yesterday
These activists just do not understand that to tackle climate change they need to reach the ordinary voter who supports climate change, but when you tell them they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers, then there is little chance of their support
I commented this morning on this and thought Rachel Burden of 5 live was so on the ball with her comments
'Rachel Burden was interviewing a 'green activist' who largely welcomed HMG involvement in the debate but criticised Boris 'bunny hugging' moment
However, Rachel's response was that he was not talking to activists like her, but to those less interested in climate change and that he was making the point it was not about 'bunny huggers' but a real opportunity for investment and jobs for the future
Rachel and Boris seem to understand the red wall voters, far more than the metropolitan elite and climate enthusiasts
Not just red wall voters. The UK cutting its emissions alone isn't going to go very far, you need to carry the Americans, Chinese, Indians etc with you too.
If you want to carry the voters of Detroit with you, you're going to go further talking about investment and jobs than you are bunnies.
The bunny huggers are already onside. The likes of Greta and David Attenborough don't need to be convinced that we need to take action. Its the others you're supposed to be convincing.
I think there's a reason someone so immature and silly as Greta is the one who takes umbrage at it, rather than someone as mature and sensible as David Attenborough.
Greta is also wrong on many issues. She upbraids Governments, including ours, for doing "nothing" when in fact they're doing an awful lot.
You need people to push issues hard, it really does help to make things happen. Fair enough if you want to argue, even if implausibly on occasion, that not enough has happened. But at a certain point denying that things are happening at all when they are can be counter productive. Why would many ordinary people, who are concerned about climate issues, do or support proposals if the past actions apparently didn't mean anything?
The trouble is that the Climate Change Act (80% reduction by 2050) was passed in 2008, well before Greta came on the scene, and the net zero law in June 2019, which was only 10 months after she first appeared on the scene. And work for it was well underway even before then.
I think it's an innocent pure Joan of Arc figurehead sort of thing going on: she appeals to those who are already pretty radical about it.
They never seem to be pretty radical about Chinese carbon emissions.
Just as those in the 1980s never seemed concerned about the Soviet Union draining the Aral Sea.
Many public health figures believe that the Covid strategy at the time was undermined by the government's vehement defence of Cummings and insistence he stayed in a job. Less than a year later No 10 and Cummings are apparently trying to destroy each other. https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1385640527450804228
I understand Greta Thunberg is calling herself a 'bunny hugger' after Boris's comments yesterday
These activists just do not understand that to tackle climate change they need to reach the ordinary voter who supports climate change, but when you tell them they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers, then there is little chance of their support
I commented this morning on this and thought Rachel Burden of 5 live was so on the ball with her comments
'Rachel Burden was interviewing a 'green activist' who largely welcomed HMG involvement in the debate but criticised Boris 'bunny hugging' moment
However, Rachel's response was that he was not talking to activists like her, but to those less interested in climate change and that he was making the point it was not about 'bunny huggers' but a real opportunity for investment and jobs for the future
Rachel and Boris seem to understand the red wall voters, far more than the metropolitan elite and climate enthusiasts
Not just red wall voters. The UK cutting its emissions alone isn't going to go very far, you need to carry the Americans, Chinese, Indians etc with you too.
If you want to carry the voters of Detroit with you, you're going to go further talking about investment and jobs than you are bunnies.
The bunny huggers are already onside. The likes of Greta and David Attenborough don't need to be convinced that we need to take action. Its the others you're supposed to be convincing.
I think there's a reason someone so immature and silly as Greta is the one who takes umbrage at it, rather than someone as mature and sensible as David Attenborough.
Greta is also wrong on many issues. She upbraids Governments, including ours, for doing "nothing" when in fact they're doing an awful lot.
You need people to push issues hard, it really does help to make things happen. Fair enough if you want to argue, even if implausibly on occasion, that not enough has happened. But at a certain point denying that things are happening at all when they are can be counter productive. Why would many ordinary people, who are concerned about climate issues, do or support proposals if the past actions apparently didn't mean anything?
The trouble is that the Climate Change Act (80% reduction by 2050) was passed in 2008, well before Greta came on the scene, and the net zero law in June 2019, which was only 10 months after she first appeared on the scene. And work for it was well underway even before then.
I think it's an innocent pure Joan of Arc figurehead sort of thing going on: she appeals to those who are already pretty radical about it.
It's also true that even immediate actions can take a bit of time to show effect, so people may be wanting a more instant effect from their passionate campaigning.
On Greta, see seems articulate enough to me and for whatever reason has struck a chord with plenty of people, but I also think that people in general have a fascination with youthful preaching/advocacy. Child campaigners (and yes she is an adult now but has been about for a few years), for better and worse, can get a lot of attention simply as a spectacle in addition to any actual merited worth.
I understand Greta Thunberg is calling herself a 'bunny hugger' after Boris's comments yesterday
These activists just do not understand that to tackle climate change they need to reach the ordinary voter who supports climate change, but when you tell them they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers, then there is little chance of their support
I commented this morning on this and thought Rachel Burden of 5 live was so on the ball with her comments
'Rachel Burden was interviewing a 'green activist' who largely welcomed HMG involvement in the debate but criticised Boris 'bunny hugging' moment
However, Rachel's response was that he was not talking to activists like her, but to those less interested in climate change and that he was making the point it was not about 'bunny huggers' but a real opportunity for investment and jobs for the future
Rachel and Boris seem to understand the red wall voters, far more than the metropolitan elite and climate enthusiasts
You’re usually so prissy about childish name calling, I can hardly credit that you’re giving BJ a free pass on this. Not like you at al.
I understand Greta Thunberg is calling herself a 'bunny hugger' after Boris's comments yesterday
These activists just do not understand that to tackle climate change they need to reach the ordinary voter who supports climate change, but when you tell them they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers, then there is little chance of their support
I commented this morning on this and thought Rachel Burden of 5 live was so on the ball with her comments
'Rachel Burden was interviewing a 'green activist' who largely welcomed HMG involvement in the debate but criticised Boris 'bunny hugging' moment
However, Rachel's response was that he was not talking to activists like her, but to those less interested in climate change and that he was making the point it was not about 'bunny huggers' but a real opportunity for investment and jobs for the future
Rachel and Boris seem to understand the red wall voters, far more than the metropolitan elite and climate enthusiasts
Not just red wall voters. The UK cutting its emissions alone isn't going to go very far, you need to carry the Americans, Chinese, Indians etc with you too.
If you want to carry the voters of Detroit with you, you're going to go further talking about investment and jobs than you are bunnies.
The bunny huggers are already onside. The likes of Greta and David Attenborough don't need to be convinced that we need to take action. Its the others you're supposed to be convincing.
I think there's a reason someone so immature and silly as Greta is the one who takes umbrage at it, rather than someone as mature and sensible as David Attenborough.
Greta is also wrong on many issues. She upbraids Governments, including ours, for doing "nothing" when in fact they're doing an awful lot.
You need people to push issues hard, it really does help to make things happen. Fair enough if you want to argue, even if implausibly on occasion, that not enough has happened. But at a certain point denying that things are happening at all when they are can be counter productive. Why would many ordinary people, who are concerned about climate issues, do or support proposals if the past actions apparently didn't mean anything?
The trouble is that the Climate Change Act (80% reduction by 2050) was passed in 2008, well before Greta came on the scene, and the net zero law in June 2019, which was only 10 months after she first appeared on the scene. And work for it was well underway even before then.
I think it's an innocent pure Joan of Arc figurehead sort of thing going on: she appeals to those who are already pretty radical about it.
If she's Joan of Arc then she's going to defeat us in a war?
I understand Greta Thunberg is calling herself a 'bunny hugger' after Boris's comments yesterday
These activists just do not understand that to tackle climate change they need to reach the ordinary voter who supports climate change, but when you tell them they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers, then there is little chance of their support
I commented this morning on this and thought Rachel Burden of 5 live was so on the ball with her comments
'Rachel Burden was interviewing a 'green activist' who largely welcomed HMG involvement in the debate but criticised Boris 'bunny hugging' moment
However, Rachel's response was that he was not talking to activists like her, but to those less interested in climate change and that he was making the point it was not about 'bunny huggers' but a real opportunity for investment and jobs for the future
Rachel and Boris seem to understand the red wall voters, far more than the metropolitan elite and climate enthusiasts
Not just red wall voters. The UK cutting its emissions alone isn't going to go very far, you need to carry the Americans, Chinese, Indians etc with you too.
If you want to carry the voters of Detroit with you, you're going to go further talking about investment and jobs than you are bunnies.
The bunny huggers are already onside. The likes of Greta and David Attenborough don't need to be convinced that we need to take action. Its the others you're supposed to be convincing.
I think there's a reason someone so immature and silly as Greta is the one who takes umbrage at it, rather than someone as mature and sensible as David Attenborough.
Greta is also wrong on many issues. She upbraids Governments, including ours, for doing "nothing" when in fact they're doing an awful lot.
You need people to push issues hard, it really does help to make things happen. Fair enough if you want to argue, even if implausibly on occasion, that not enough has happened. But at a certain point denying that things are happening at all when they are can be counter productive. Why would many ordinary people, who are concerned about climate issues, do or support proposals if the past actions apparently didn't mean anything?
The trouble is that the Climate Change Act (80% reduction by 2050) was passed in 2008, well before Greta came on the scene, and the net zero law in June 2019, which was only 10 months after she first appeared on the scene. And work for it was well underway even before then.
I think it's an innocent pure Joan of Arc figurehead sort of thing going on: she appeals to those who are already pretty radical about it.
It's also true that even immediate actions can take a bit of time to show effect, so people may be wanting a more instant effect from their passionate campaigning.
On Greta, see seems articulate enough to me and for whatever reason has struck a chord with plenty of people, but I also think that people in general have a fascination with youthful preaching/advocacy. Child campaigners (and yes she is an adult now but has been about for a few years), for better and worse, can get a lot of attention simply as a spectacle in addition to any actual merited worth.
The question is whether she wins over any of the unconverted/ fencesitters.
Thoughts and prayers for the Boris Johnson fanbois and fangirls who so comprehensively defended Dominic Cummings after his sojourn to Bernard Castle saying he was a top bloke, beyond reproach.
Especially Suella Braverman.
Will the modern equivalent of Stalinist photo editing, excising old tweets, be taking place?
Someone born in 92 who had just been for a run been vaxxed here
Wow. I remember sitting on a polling station in Leyton for that year’s election. Meanwhile you were busy being born.
No, that's someone he knows.
I think Pulpy is 82.
Sadly I also remember being at a polling station when he was one, in that case.
The passage of time is weird. The war movies I watched as a teenager seemed to come from ancient history, a time long gone. Yet me being a teenager is now even more long gone, yet it seems just recently.
NEW: Boris Johnson denies Dominic Cummings' claim that he tried to stop a government inquiry into leaks of Covid policy. Asked if he intervened to protect an official close to his partner, Carrie Symonds (as Cummings claimed, PM tells @LBC@charlotterlynch: "No of course not." https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1385642070707040258
haha, I love the line: "It is sad to see the PM and his office fall so far below the standards of competence and integrity the country deserves." This is from Dominic Cummings! That is like being accused of misogyny by Jack the Ripper
More like the Kray twins accusing each other of antisocial behaviour.
NEW: Boris Johnson denies Dominic Cummings' claim that he tried to stop a government inquiry into leaks of Covid policy. Asked if he intervened to protect an official close to his partner, Carrie Symonds (as Cummings claimed, PM tells @LBC@charlotterlynch: "No of course not." https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1385642070707040258
I've read that headline three times without really getting what's going on. It's a confusion of negatives. There may or may not be a story behind it, but it's a terrible, terrible headline.
Thoughts and prayers for the Boris Johnson fanbois and fangirls who so comprehensively defended Dominic Cummings after his sojourn to Bernard Castle saying he was a top bloke, beyond reproach.
Especially Suella Braverman.
Will the modern equivalent of Stalinist photo editing, excising old tweets, be taking place?
NEW: Boris Johnson denies Dominic Cummings' claim that he tried to stop a government inquiry into leaks of Covid policy. Asked if he intervened to protect an official close to his partner, Carrie Symonds (as Cummings claimed, PM tells @LBC@charlotterlynch: "No of course not." https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1385642070707040258
I've read that headline three times without really getting what's going on. It's a confusion of negatives. There may or may not be a story behind it, but it's a terrible, terrible headline.
Talk about leaks and inquiries doesn't cut through.
So that leaves some stories about wallpaper and a tax break for making ventilators.
Which are shrug of the shoulders stuff.
But there is a story which is raising comment in the real world.
And that is Cameron involved with sleazy money lenders trying to enrich themselves at the expense of the NHS.
I understand Greta Thunberg is calling herself a 'bunny hugger' after Boris's comments yesterday
These activists just do not understand that to tackle climate change they need to reach the ordinary voter who supports climate change, but when you tell them they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers, then there is little chance of their support
I commented this morning on this and thought Rachel Burden of 5 live was so on the ball with her comments
'Rachel Burden was interviewing a 'green activist' who largely welcomed HMG involvement in the debate but criticised Boris 'bunny hugging' moment
However, Rachel's response was that he was not talking to activists like her, but to those less interested in climate change and that he was making the point it was not about 'bunny huggers' but a real opportunity for investment and jobs for the future
Rachel and Boris seem to understand the red wall voters, far more than the metropolitan elite and climate enthusiasts
Not just red wall voters. The UK cutting its emissions alone isn't going to go very far, you need to carry the Americans, Chinese, Indians etc with you too.
If you want to carry the voters of Detroit with you, you're going to go further talking about investment and jobs than you are bunnies.
The bunny huggers are already onside. The likes of Greta and David Attenborough don't need to be convinced that we need to take action. Its the others you're supposed to be convincing.
I think there's a reason someone so immature and silly as Greta is the one who takes umbrage at it, rather than someone as mature and sensible as David Attenborough.
Greta is also wrong on many issues. She upbraids Governments, including ours, for doing "nothing" when in fact they're doing an awful lot.
You need people to push issues hard, it really does help to make things happen. Fair enough if you want to argue, even if implausibly on occasion, that not enough has happened. But at a certain point denying that things are happening at all when they are can be counter productive. Why would many ordinary people, who are concerned about climate issues, do or support proposals if the past actions apparently didn't mean anything?
The trouble is that the Climate Change Act (80% reduction by 2050) was passed in 2008, well before Greta came on the scene, and the net zero law in June 2019, which was only 10 months after she first appeared on the scene. And work for it was well underway even before then.
I think it's an innocent pure Joan of Arc figurehead sort of thing going on: she appeals to those who are already pretty radical about it.
It's also true that even immediate actions can take a bit of time to show effect, so people may be wanting a more instant effect from their passionate campaigning.
On Greta, see seems articulate enough to me and for whatever reason has struck a chord with plenty of people, but I also think that people in general have a fascination with youthful preaching/advocacy. Child campaigners (and yes she is an adult now but has been about for a few years), for better and worse, can get a lot of attention simply as a spectacle in addition to any actual merited worth.
The question is whether she wins over any of the unconverted/ fencesitters.
I don't think she does.
Greta Thunberg is a trap.
Her purpose (not her own idea, obviously, but from those managing her) is to trick reactionary right wingers into responding to her. Inevitably, lots of them do so, not by attacking the points she makes - which is hard work, even when she's obviously wrong - but by attacking her as a person - which is a) incredibly easy, b) incredibly tempting, and c) if you forget that what you're doing is mocking a teenage girl with a developmental disorder, moderately fun (probably).
The last point is the key - it's not bad strategy to watch your opponents blunder into such an inviting trap, point out what bad people they obviously are, and claim their argument must therefore be wrong (the association fallacy) and hence the opposite of that must be correct.
I say it's not bad strategy, but I still hate absolutely everything about what I've just written.
Someone born in 92 who had just been for a run been vaxxed here
Wow. I remember sitting on a polling station in Leyton for that year’s election. Meanwhile you were busy being born.
No, that's someone he knows.
I think Pulpy is 82.
Sadly I also remember being at a polling station when he was one, in that case.
The passage of time is weird. The war movies I watched as a teenager seemed to come from ancient history, a time long gone. Yet me being a teenager is now even more long gone, yet it seems just recently.
Thoughts and prayers for the Boris Johnson fanbois and fangirls who so comprehensively defended Dominic Cummings after his sojourn to Bernard Castle saying he was a top bloke, beyond reproach.
Especially Suella Braverman.
Will the modern equivalent of Stalinist photo editing, excising old tweets, be taking place?
Photoshop, like elephants, is clearly Russian.
The photoshopping is competent but the degradation of the image as a whole is terrible, look how the bridge in the background vanishes. Analogue vs digital.
I understand Greta Thunberg is calling herself a 'bunny hugger' after Boris's comments yesterday
These activists just do not understand that to tackle climate change they need to reach the ordinary voter who supports climate change, but when you tell them they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers, then there is little chance of their support
I commented this morning on this and thought Rachel Burden of 5 live was so on the ball with her comments
'Rachel Burden was interviewing a 'green activist' who largely welcomed HMG involvement in the debate but criticised Boris 'bunny hugging' moment
However, Rachel's response was that he was not talking to activists like her, but to those less interested in climate change and that he was making the point it was not about 'bunny huggers' but a real opportunity for investment and jobs for the future
Rachel and Boris seem to understand the red wall voters, far more than the metropolitan elite and climate enthusiasts
Not just red wall voters. The UK cutting its emissions alone isn't going to go very far, you need to carry the Americans, Chinese, Indians etc with you too.
If you want to carry the voters of Detroit with you, you're going to go further talking about investment and jobs than you are bunnies.
The bunny huggers are already onside. The likes of Greta and David Attenborough don't need to be convinced that we need to take action. Its the others you're supposed to be convincing.
I think there's a reason someone so immature and silly as Greta is the one who takes umbrage at it, rather than someone as mature and sensible as David Attenborough.
Greta is also wrong on many issues. She upbraids Governments, including ours, for doing "nothing" when in fact they're doing an awful lot.
You need people to push issues hard, it really does help to make things happen. Fair enough if you want to argue, even if implausibly on occasion, that not enough has happened. But at a certain point denying that things are happening at all when they are can be counter productive. Why would many ordinary people, who are concerned about climate issues, do or support proposals if the past actions apparently didn't mean anything?
The trouble is that the Climate Change Act (80% reduction by 2050) was passed in 2008, well before Greta came on the scene, and the net zero law in June 2019, which was only 10 months after she first appeared on the scene. And work for it was well underway even before then.
I think it's an innocent pure Joan of Arc figurehead sort of thing going on: she appeals to those who are already pretty radical about it.
If she's Joan of Arc then she's going to defeat us in a war?
French did that. It wasn't until the 1440s (10 years after we burnt her) that they laid the smack down.
Congratulations! Good to see you’re one of more than half a million done today, give it a couple more months and everyone will have had at least one dose.
Someone born in 92 who had just been for a run been vaxxed here
Wow. I remember sitting on a polling station in Leyton for that year’s election. Meanwhile you were busy being born.
No, that's someone he knows.
I think Pulpy is 82.
Sadly I also remember being at a polling station when he was one, in that case.
The passage of time is weird. The war movies I watched as a teenager seemed to come from ancient history, a time long gone. Yet me being a teenager is now even more long gone, yet it seems just recently.
I understand Greta Thunberg is calling herself a 'bunny hugger' after Boris's comments yesterday
These activists just do not understand that to tackle climate change they need to reach the ordinary voter who supports climate change, but when you tell them they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers, then there is little chance of their support
I commented this morning on this and thought Rachel Burden of 5 live was so on the ball with her comments
'Rachel Burden was interviewing a 'green activist' who largely welcomed HMG involvement in the debate but criticised Boris 'bunny hugging' moment
However, Rachel's response was that he was not talking to activists like her, but to those less interested in climate change and that he was making the point it was not about 'bunny huggers' but a real opportunity for investment and jobs for the future
Rachel and Boris seem to understand the red wall voters, far more than the metropolitan elite and climate enthusiasts
Not just red wall voters. The UK cutting its emissions alone isn't going to go very far, you need to carry the Americans, Chinese, Indians etc with you too.
If you want to carry the voters of Detroit with you, you're going to go further talking about investment and jobs than you are bunnies.
The bunny huggers are already onside. The likes of Greta and David Attenborough don't need to be convinced that we need to take action. Its the others you're supposed to be convincing.
I think there's a reason someone so immature and silly as Greta is the one who takes umbrage at it, rather than someone as mature and sensible as David Attenborough.
Greta is also wrong on many issues. She upbraids Governments, including ours, for doing "nothing" when in fact they're doing an awful lot.
You need people to push issues hard, it really does help to make things happen. Fair enough if you want to argue, even if implausibly on occasion, that not enough has happened. But at a certain point denying that things are happening at all when they are can be counter productive. Why would many ordinary people, who are concerned about climate issues, do or support proposals if the past actions apparently didn't mean anything?
The trouble is that the Climate Change Act (80% reduction by 2050) was passed in 2008, well before Greta came on the scene, and the net zero law in June 2019, which was only 10 months after she first appeared on the scene. And work for it was well underway even before then.
I think it's an innocent pure Joan of Arc figurehead sort of thing going on: she appeals to those who are already pretty radical about it.
It's also true that even immediate actions can take a bit of time to show effect, so people may be wanting a more instant effect from their passionate campaigning.
On Greta, see seems articulate enough to me and for whatever reason has struck a chord with plenty of people, but I also think that people in general have a fascination with youthful preaching/advocacy. Child campaigners (and yes she is an adult now but has been about for a few years), for better and worse, can get a lot of attention simply as a spectacle in addition to any actual merited worth.
The question is whether she wins over any of the unconverted/ fencesitters.
I don't think she does.
Greta Thunberg is a trap.
Her purpose (not her own idea, obviously, but from those managing her) is to trick reactionary right wingers into responding to her. Inevitably, lots of them do so, not by attacking the points she makes - which is hard work, even when she's obviously wrong - but by attacking her as a person - which is a) incredibly easy, b) incredibly tempting, and c) if you forget that what you're doing is mocking a teenage girl with a developmental disorder, moderately fun (probably).
The last point is the key - it's not bad strategy to watch your opponents blunder into such an inviting trap, point out what bad people they obviously are, and claim their argument must therefore be wrong (the association fallacy) and hence the opposite of that must be correct.
I say it's not bad strategy, but I still hate absolutely everything about what I've just written.
You're probably right, but if someone is made the face of a political movement, they cannot entirely hide behind their youth or other issues, nor can people do so on that person's behalf. Not if they simultaneously expect that person to be listened to.
Spicy on serious 4 of the Tories: how much more can they fuck up the country?
You've got a bit more partisan and emotional recently.
Too much time on Twitter?
That is speculation of course, so one might argue that time on PB leading to partisanship and emotion may have more evidence behind it as a theory. Certainly does for me!
I understand Greta Thunberg is calling herself a 'bunny hugger' after Boris's comments yesterday
These activists just do not understand that to tackle climate change they need to reach the ordinary voter who supports climate change, but when you tell them they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers, then there is little chance of their support
I commented this morning on this and thought Rachel Burden of 5 live was so on the ball with her comments
'Rachel Burden was interviewing a 'green activist' who largely welcomed HMG involvement in the debate but criticised Boris 'bunny hugging' moment
However, Rachel's response was that he was not talking to activists like her, but to those less interested in climate change and that he was making the point it was not about 'bunny huggers' but a real opportunity for investment and jobs for the future
Rachel and Boris seem to understand the red wall voters, far more than the metropolitan elite and climate enthusiasts
Not just red wall voters. The UK cutting its emissions alone isn't going to go very far, you need to carry the Americans, Chinese, Indians etc with you too.
If you want to carry the voters of Detroit with you, you're going to go further talking about investment and jobs than you are bunnies.
The bunny huggers are already onside. The likes of Greta and David Attenborough don't need to be convinced that we need to take action. Its the others you're supposed to be convincing.
I think there's a reason someone so immature and silly as Greta is the one who takes umbrage at it, rather than someone as mature and sensible as David Attenborough.
Greta is also wrong on many issues. She upbraids Governments, including ours, for doing "nothing" when in fact they're doing an awful lot.
You need people to push issues hard, it really does help to make things happen. Fair enough if you want to argue, even if implausibly on occasion, that not enough has happened. But at a certain point denying that things are happening at all when they are can be counter productive. Why would many ordinary people, who are concerned about climate issues, do or support proposals if the past actions apparently didn't mean anything?
The trouble is that the Climate Change Act (80% reduction by 2050) was passed in 2008, well before Greta came on the scene, and the net zero law in June 2019, which was only 10 months after she first appeared on the scene. And work for it was well underway even before then.
I think it's an innocent pure Joan of Arc figurehead sort of thing going on: she appeals to those who are already pretty radical about it.
It's also true that even immediate actions can take a bit of time to show effect, so people may be wanting a more instant effect from their passionate campaigning.
On Greta, see seems articulate enough to me and for whatever reason has struck a chord with plenty of people, but I also think that people in general have a fascination with youthful preaching/advocacy. Child campaigners (and yes she is an adult now but has been about for a few years), for better and worse, can get a lot of attention simply as a spectacle in addition to any actual merited worth.
The question is whether she wins over any of the unconverted/ fencesitters.
I don't think she does.
Greta Thunberg is a trap.
Her purpose (not her own idea, obviously, but from those managing her) is to trick reactionary right wingers into responding to her. Inevitably, lots of them do so, not by attacking the points she makes - which is hard work, even when she's obviously wrong - but by attacking her as a person - which is a) incredibly easy, b) incredibly tempting, and c) if you forget that what you're doing is mocking a teenage girl with a developmental disorder, moderately fun (probably).
The last point is the key - it's not bad strategy to watch your opponents blunder into such an inviting trap, point out what bad people they obviously are, and claim their argument must therefore be wrong (the association fallacy) and hence the opposite of that must be correct.
I say it's not bad strategy, but I still hate absolutely everything about what I've just written.
You're probably right, but if someone is made the face of a political movement, they cannot entirely hide behind their youth or other issues, nor can people do so on that person's behalf. Not if they simultaneously expect that person to be listened to.
I understand Greta Thunberg is calling herself a 'bunny hugger' after Boris's comments yesterday
These activists just do not understand that to tackle climate change they need to reach the ordinary voter who supports climate change, but when you tell them they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers, then there is little chance of their support
I commented this morning on this and thought Rachel Burden of 5 live was so on the ball with her comments
'Rachel Burden was interviewing a 'green activist' who largely welcomed HMG involvement in the debate but criticised Boris 'bunny hugging' moment
However, Rachel's response was that he was not talking to activists like her, but to those less interested in climate change and that he was making the point it was not about 'bunny huggers' but a real opportunity for investment and jobs for the future
Rachel and Boris seem to understand the red wall voters, far more than the metropolitan elite and climate enthusiasts
Not just red wall voters. The UK cutting its emissions alone isn't going to go very far, you need to carry the Americans, Chinese, Indians etc with you too.
If you want to carry the voters of Detroit with you, you're going to go further talking about investment and jobs than you are bunnies.
The bunny huggers are already onside. The likes of Greta and David Attenborough don't need to be convinced that we need to take action. Its the others you're supposed to be convincing.
I think there's a reason someone so immature and silly as Greta is the one who takes umbrage at it, rather than someone as mature and sensible as David Attenborough.
Greta is also wrong on many issues. She upbraids Governments, including ours, for doing "nothing" when in fact they're doing an awful lot.
You need people to push issues hard, it really does help to make things happen. Fair enough if you want to argue, even if implausibly on occasion, that not enough has happened. But at a certain point denying that things are happening at all when they are can be counter productive. Why would many ordinary people, who are concerned about climate issues, do or support proposals if the past actions apparently didn't mean anything?
The trouble is that the Climate Change Act (80% reduction by 2050) was passed in 2008, well before Greta came on the scene, and the net zero law in June 2019, which was only 10 months after she first appeared on the scene. And work for it was well underway even before then.
I think it's an innocent pure Joan of Arc figurehead sort of thing going on: she appeals to those who are already pretty radical about it.
It's also true that even immediate actions can take a bit of time to show effect, so people may be wanting a more instant effect from their passionate campaigning.
On Greta, see seems articulate enough to me and for whatever reason has struck a chord with plenty of people, but I also think that people in general have a fascination with youthful preaching/advocacy. Child campaigners (and yes she is an adult now but has been about for a few years), for better and worse, can get a lot of attention simply as a spectacle in addition to any actual merited worth.
The question is whether she wins over any of the unconverted/ fencesitters.
I don't think she does.
Greta Thunberg is a trap.
Her purpose (not her own idea, obviously, but from those managing her) is to trick reactionary right wingers into responding to her. Inevitably, lots of them do so, not by attacking the points she makes - which is hard work, even when she's obviously wrong - but by attacking her as a person - which is a) incredibly easy, b) incredibly tempting, and c) if you forget that what you're doing is mocking a teenage girl with a developmental disorder, moderately fun (probably).
The last point is the key - it's not bad strategy to watch your opponents blunder into such an inviting trap, point out what bad people they obviously are, and claim their argument must therefore be wrong (the association fallacy) and hence the opposite of that must be correct.
I say it's not bad strategy, but I still hate absolutely everything about what I've just written.
You're probably right, but if someone is made the face of a political movement, they cannot entirely hide behind their youth or other issues, nor can people do so on that person's behalf. Not if they simultaneously expect that person to be listened to.
Yeah? Watch them.
They can do it, they just cannot credibly or reasonably do it.
I understand Greta Thunberg is calling herself a 'bunny hugger' after Boris's comments yesterday
These activists just do not understand that to tackle climate change they need to reach the ordinary voter who supports climate change, but when you tell them they will not be able to fly as much, have to buy electric cars, eat less meat and completely renovate their home at vast expense to eradicate gas boilers, then there is little chance of their support
I commented this morning on this and thought Rachel Burden of 5 live was so on the ball with her comments
'Rachel Burden was interviewing a 'green activist' who largely welcomed HMG involvement in the debate but criticised Boris 'bunny hugging' moment
However, Rachel's response was that he was not talking to activists like her, but to those less interested in climate change and that he was making the point it was not about 'bunny huggers' but a real opportunity for investment and jobs for the future
Rachel and Boris seem to understand the red wall voters, far more than the metropolitan elite and climate enthusiasts
Not just red wall voters. The UK cutting its emissions alone isn't going to go very far, you need to carry the Americans, Chinese, Indians etc with you too.
If you want to carry the voters of Detroit with you, you're going to go further talking about investment and jobs than you are bunnies.
The bunny huggers are already onside. The likes of Greta and David Attenborough don't need to be convinced that we need to take action. Its the others you're supposed to be convincing.
I think there's a reason someone so immature and silly as Greta is the one who takes umbrage at it, rather than someone as mature and sensible as David Attenborough.
Greta is also wrong on many issues. She upbraids Governments, including ours, for doing "nothing" when in fact they're doing an awful lot.
You need people to push issues hard, it really does help to make things happen. Fair enough if you want to argue, even if implausibly on occasion, that not enough has happened. But at a certain point denying that things are happening at all when they are can be counter productive. Why would many ordinary people, who are concerned about climate issues, do or support proposals if the past actions apparently didn't mean anything?
The trouble is that the Climate Change Act (80% reduction by 2050) was passed in 2008, well before Greta came on the scene, and the net zero law in June 2019, which was only 10 months after she first appeared on the scene. And work for it was well underway even before then.
I think it's an innocent pure Joan of Arc figurehead sort of thing going on: she appeals to those who are already pretty radical about it.
It's also true that even immediate actions can take a bit of time to show effect, so people may be wanting a more instant effect from their passionate campaigning.
On Greta, see seems articulate enough to me and for whatever reason has struck a chord with plenty of people, but I also think that people in general have a fascination with youthful preaching/advocacy. Child campaigners (and yes she is an adult now but has been about for a few years), for better and worse, can get a lot of attention simply as a spectacle in addition to any actual merited worth.
The question is whether she wins over any of the unconverted/ fencesitters.
I don't think she does.
Greta Thunberg is a trap.
Her purpose (not her own idea, obviously, but from those managing her) is to trick reactionary right wingers into responding to her. Inevitably, lots of them do so, not by attacking the points she makes - which is hard work, even when she's obviously wrong - but by attacking her as a person - which is a) incredibly easy, b) incredibly tempting, and c) if you forget that what you're doing is mocking a teenage girl with a developmental disorder, moderately fun (probably).
The last point is the key - it's not bad strategy to watch your opponents blunder into such an inviting trap, point out what bad people they obviously are, and claim their argument must therefore be wrong (the association fallacy) and hence the opposite of that must be correct.
I say it's not bad strategy, but I still hate absolutely everything about what I've just written.
You're probably right, but if someone is made the face of a political movement, they cannot entirely hide behind their youth or other issues, nor can people do so on that person's behalf. Not if they simultaneously expect that person to be listened to.
Well, let a thousand flowers bloom. Others can do the intellectual heavy lifting, her target market is the young, with whom she seems to be very effective
Your Friday evening chill: take three minutes out of your life to see what this guy has done with some old lemonade bottles, and incidentally enjoy the views I have walking the dog...
Comments
The PM stopped speaking to me about this matter in 2020 as I told him I thought his plans to have donors secretly pay for the renovation were unethical, foolish, possibly illegal and almost certainly broke the rules on proper disclosure of political donations if conducted in the way he intended. I refused to help him organise these payments.
It is sad to see the PM and his office fall so far below the standards of competence and integrity the country deserves.
https://twitter.com/HelenBranswell/status/1385631607151808518
They simply don't understand - I will do virtually anything for climate change but ditching meat is simply not something I will ever be prepared to do and nor will millions of others.
They need sustainable technological solutions to mixed and traditional forms of agriculture that people can get behind, or they'll be told to piss off.
Especially Suella Braverman.
This would be a damaging claim if Boris Johnson didn't have a reputation for "dishonesty, lying and unethical behaviour" before he became PM. It's priced in unless there's genuinely some innocent victim here, and I don't see one.
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1385631436145844230?s=20
Good evening, everyone.
The global human population is c.10 times higher than it was in 1750 (pre industrial era) and we probably eat 3 times as much meat per head as we did then - so a x30 factor increase. But, our technology and quality of livestock is also far far better so we get more bang for buck.
Tells me eating meat twice a week at the very least should be sustainable indefinitely, and possibly more than that.
But the UK as a whole voted for Boris to be PM so that doesn't wash.
I am not sure it has been tested whether they like a venal incompetent.
I had a "cauliflower steak" for dinner which is, let's face it, just a slice of cauliflower dressed up.
I woke up starving at 3am and had a massive bowl of crunchy nut cornflakes with gold top milk and toast.
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1385628585759756294
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1385613786598584321?s=20
..........A dog with a bone who always gets his way.
Bloody funny, but in terms of reaching the "let down by Boris" tipping point, Cummings and Mercer make it two down, several million to go.
Cummings comprehensively trashed his own name in the public's perception
However, I'd still expect there to be a market for organic, real meat too.
Rachel Reeves: "Given we know it only takes a text from one of the Prime Minister’s chums to get a tax break, what might a discreet donation for a luxury refurbishment might get you?"
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1385638677389398016
It may be just an oversight but I'm sure you would like to wish all your friends in England a Happy St. Georges Day.
https://twitter.com/thegandydancer/status/1385573811228139521?s=20
In other words, it's pretty clear she grew up in an EU country.
I think it's an innocent pure Joan of Arc figurehead sort of thing going on: she appeals to those who are already pretty radical about it.
Pleased for you though.
Not like you at al.
Just as those in the 1980s never seemed concerned about the Soviet Union draining the Aral Sea.
Plus ca change ...
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1385640527450804228
On Greta, see seems articulate enough to me and for whatever reason has struck a chord with plenty of people, but I also think that people in general have a fascination with youthful preaching/advocacy. Child campaigners (and yes she is an adult now but has been about for a few years), for better and worse, can get a lot of attention simply as a spectacle in addition to any actual merited worth.
I think Pulpy is 82.
Thatcher and Blair had similar.
Can't accuse him of terminological inexactitudes now
I don't think she does.
The passage of time is weird. The war movies I watched as a teenager seemed to come from ancient history, a time long gone. Yet me being a teenager is now even more long gone, yet it seems just recently.
https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1385642070707040258
Spicy on serious 4 of the Tories: how much more can they fuck up the country?
He's been called MANY things - but NEVER that!
So that leaves some stories about wallpaper and a tax break for making ventilators.
Which are shrug of the shoulders stuff.
But there is a story which is raising comment in the real world.
And that is Cameron involved with sleazy money lenders trying to enrich themselves at the expense of the NHS.
They will never have been fans of BoZo. Always said he was a wrong 'un...
Fan demonstrations outside the Emirates demanding the owners go
Her purpose (not her own idea, obviously, but from those managing her) is to trick reactionary right wingers into responding to her. Inevitably, lots of them do so, not by attacking the points she makes - which is hard work, even when she's obviously wrong - but by attacking her as a person - which is a) incredibly easy, b) incredibly tempting, and c) if you forget that what you're doing is mocking a teenage girl with a developmental disorder, moderately fun (probably).
The last point is the key - it's not bad strategy to watch your opponents blunder into such an inviting trap, point out what bad people they obviously are, and claim their argument must therefore be wrong (the association fallacy) and hence the opposite of that must be correct.
I say it's not bad strategy, but I still hate absolutely everything about what I've just written.
Too much time on Twitter?
Yes, really.
Interestingly the numbers are reducing much more slowly in London than elsewhere.
A consequence of the London anti-vaxxers perhaps ?
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/05/greta-thunberg-effect-public-concern-over-environment-reaches-record-high
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfmNzC7I0Zk