Options
Meet the Top Tory who wants asylum seekers to F-Off – politicalbetting.com
Meet the Top Tory who wants asylum seekers to F-Off – politicalbetting.com
Lee Anderson who only became an MP at GE2019 has risen fast up the ranks and is now deputy chairman of the Tory party. A former coal-miner he was previously a Labour Councillor.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Unlike Lee Anderson in Ashfield in the next GE.
Of course it's never their fault, always someone else's
Mr Drakeford has blamed the budgetary constraints on "record levels of inflation" and the "mismanagement of the UK economy and public finances by successive UK governments".
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/welsh-government-facing-toughest-financial-situation-since-devolution/ar-AA1eZS86?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=268175b700ad42118f3308d85038909f&ei=14
Big state at its worst.
Irony is, although I do use mine to commute to the office, the majority of people who had them here just have them on the cheap and do not use them for work but for social cycling.
We should really be taxing people less and letting them make their own decisions, not carving out weird little niches that are in effect propping up certain industries.
Shrinking the pie, but keeping dirty technologies, does not help the environment, does not solve CO2 and other emissions, does not address climate change. It does nothing positive.
Having economic growth, with clean technologies, is better for the planet, better for the environment, and raises living standards.
They are not perfect individuals, far from it, but Elon Musk with the assistance he has given to push the switch to electric vehicles and Bill Gates with his Foundation have done more for the planet than anyone in Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil or any other hairshirt zealot ever has.
As you well know he was, in a stupid way, reacting to those who did not want to go on the Bibby Stockholm barge and was making the point that if this accommodation wasn’t to their satisfaction then they should f-off back to France.
Whether you think the barge is suitable accommodation or not, personally if I was in fear for my life and needed asylum I know I would be grateful for it, you are trying to twist what he said to appear to be him generally telling asylum seekers to F off which would be a pretty damning thing to accuse him off if true.
There is a difference with how his comments are reported, the truth and a distortion such as you are making for political capital.
A relative calculated that, in the end, a high end Tesla cost less via this route than a Mini.
They certainly are not massively subsidised like a cycle to "work" bike is.
Apparently the UK is being punished for Brexit and that’s why the ECHR is being difficult .
More threats to leave the ECHR , what an absolute cesspit this government have become .
All fine one would think. The company car insurance covered the damage to it and it was all repaired. A year later I left the company and no longer had a company car so bought my own. Discovered when it came to take out my insurance that the damage to the company car had destroyed my 15 years of no claims bonus and therefore massively increasing the cost of my insurance. Swore never to have a company car again.
Some people say the barge is fine and they are being treated well: Sun runs todays front page splash complaining of luxury conditions.
Elon and his rocketry work - which he is specifically doing because he doesn't want to stop extractivist economics on Earth and wishes to have a dystopian style escape to the stars for rich people only - emits a ridiculous amount of CO2. I'm not against space exploration, far from it, but we could do with sorting out our terrestrial issues first and then doing space travel, not doing space travel so we don't have to sort out our problems here.
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/elon-musk-rocket-emitted-358-tonnes-of-co2
We will never know the full impacts of billionaires - not all of their investments are public; but even looking at the not particularly useful global footprint metric - the global average is 4.7ish tonnes of CO2; Bill Gates is closer to 7500 tonnes. And the impact of his investment in "offsetting" is unprovable, because it is waiting for future technology to arrive and then invest in - offsetting doesn't work
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/carbon-offsetting#:~:text=Carbon offsetting doesn't work in most cases.&text=A recent example of this,Verra did not reduce emissions.
It is a highly effective nudge though, a major reason why I got my bike in the first place.
As soon as you tax something, you prevent mutually beneficial transactions from happening - I was willing to buy what you were selling for up to £20, you were willing to sell for at least £19 but, because the taxman wants £2, the deal that would have benefited us both can't happen (and the taxman gets nothing either).
Subsidies have the opposite problem - if I'm willing to buy for£19 and you to sell for at least £20, the deal is not mutually beneficial and should not happen, but if a £2 subsidy is provided then it will. The free marketeer is upset and money has been wasted on facilitating a trade benefiting nobody.
A tax break is not a subsidy - indeed it gets closer to the ideal situation for the free market believer. That doesn't mean all tax breaks are good as the pragmatic free marketeer understands that you do need to fund education and defence. But you're just wrong to call it a subsidy.
You're a hypocrite who doesn't give a damn about the environment. If clean technologies come about through R&D (and they have been at a seriously impressive rate for decades now) then there is no environmental reason whatsoever for anyone to reduce their consumption.
If clean technologies can't come about, then we're f***ed either way.
The only valid solution is technological. And that means the role the state has to play is in encouraging that and ensuring there is a profit motive to be clean.
We all know the philosophical scenario of the doctor with 6 patients: 5 are going to die and one will live, but he could harvest the organs from the 1 to save the 5. This is deemed by most people to not be okay, because the person needs to consent to such a thing, bodily autonomy is important, etc. etc.
But bank accounts and investments are not organs. So is it immoral to make 1 man have an average household income to save the lives of 5 other people? Not killed, not impoverished, just average? What about 500 people? Or 5 million?
Musk spent $44billion to buy twitter - because he is an idiot. No two ways about it; he didn't want to buy it, it was a publicity stunt, he is driving twitter into the ground. Is it an inalienable right to be able to leverage world transforming money? (3 times the amount of military aid the US had given to Ukraine at the time of purchase). I don't think so.
I don't think any of us knows the overall cost:benefit calculus for the cycle to work scheme. There clearly are benefits in terms of reduced congestion and longterm health outcomes. They may be large or they may be small and they're complicated by not knowing what would happen without the tax break.
But it's at least possible that the gains for the state in subsidising people to buy bikes outweigh the costs. But a reflexive state shrinking is just as liable to get things wrong as an unthiking expansion of the state.
Of course, this argument over reduced consumption vs technological innovation as solutions to climate change is silly. We need both and both are happening.
That's why investments in technology, R&D are required. And companies will invest if they get a reward from that investment. Which requires a profit motive. Which means people make money - something that you seem to be against.
But just because current technology isn't enough doesn't mean future technology won't be enough. It will, and billions are going annually into much-needed R&D to get us there.
We can reach net zero, over time, with investment. Something you are against, because you don't give a damn about the environment.
This is the impasse - when Bolsanaro first came on the scene every paper was crowing about how good this would be for Brazils economy, how growth would increase and how he would free the market up. And he did that. By allowing the greatest deforestation of the Amazon in 15 years. All for growth. The same seems to be the desire of our government - north sea oil extraction for that sweet GDP. But where is that going? Has that benefited the world? Will it? When we talk about making the world materially worse - money and growth are real things that are important. When we talk about what that money could otherwise have done - well money isn't real anyway.
If money is just a representation of the possibilities of labour - the ability to leverage resources - then it matters how that is spent. If money means anything else, then yes - it's pointless to discuss it.
Consumption is higher than its ever been, and ought to be higher still in the future. That is a good thing.
No doubt the Lib Dems will use this in the blue wall as they have F all else to say at the moment.
Why must consumption be ever rising?
Supposing it doesn't or isn't enough or not quick enough?
Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party Lee Anderson tells GB News the government has failed on immigration:
“We are in government and we have failed on this, there is no doubt about it. we have said we are going to fix it, it is a failure.”
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1689238030316396544
Living standards should be higher in the future, but if we can achieve that with less consumption, as is probable, then that’s a good thing.
My position: We don't know if that tech is possible in the time frame needed, so why not use the tech we have and reduce global consumption to get to the same place. We can always do the R&D for new stuff when we know we are safe.
Apparently my position is the zealous magical thinking position, and your position is the reasonable one.
Breaking the terms of the Good Friday Agreement .
Co-operation on security matters with the EU ends .
It also puts into jeopardy the Trade and Co-Operation Agreement .
The UK would be in the company of Russia and Belarus , is this really what people want especially at this time .
Because of the Article 50 case they cannot leave the ECHR without parliamentary approval . That set a precedent that rights of UK citizens can not be removed using Henry Vlll powers .
The problems in respect of migrants/refugees and others are to do with how the country is coping with the numbers and solutions to reduce (as many people want) etc, not the specifics of whether a 'barge' is nice or nasty enough, depending on preference (though people should always have adequate conditions).
https://data.worldbank.org/topic/poverty
Otherwise, good comment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R24lMWo0r-I
They are close to solving this, and it is the future. Autonomous e-cars. Goodbye private human-driven cars
We can certainly reduce consumption in a lot of areas, but overall it seems likely to and good that it will increase for humanity as a whole.
Sunak may well be an unlucky PM.
Should this persist, and oil keeps increasing too, then his attempt to take the credit for falling inflation will rebound when it stops falling.
We can of course change that. There are populations in the world who would love the sort of access to effective family planning that we take for granted in the UK. Let’s provide it. We should be providing it anyway as a central part of helping development.
It both reduces Western inflation and starves Putin of foreign currency. Win-win.
Whilst it's clear that Anderson has that role, the harder question is whether he is any good at it. Or if it's another bit of uncomprehending cosplay.
This is in part a reaction for cultural reasons, but is also a reaction from capital. The labour market is tightening now, and already unions are showing their muscles. Capital is seeing population stagnation or even reduction in some areas and is aware that would start to put more power in the hands of workers. So you get the nativists and capitalists hand in hand on policy once again.
Methane can then be produced by the Sabatier process - which is part of the plan for Mars (for a number of organisations, not just SpaceX).
Yes, initially the methane on Earth is from natural gas, but an off shoot of creating automated plants to make it on Mars will be that the technology goes though the scaling/mass production process and becomes much cheaper.
There are 5 Tory deputy chairmen. All of the types who've come on my radar while doing that job have been, shall we say, skilled obtainers of donations. Serious question: does Lee Anderson have responsibilities in that area?
I’m pro immigration I don’t care where people come from as long as they’re law abiding citizens . That’s my view .
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf
Every technology for net zero exists. Multiple technologies, for multiple solutions to the same problems, actually.
The issue is not "inventing" stuff, it is getting it to TRL9
EDIT: What Tesla did was to take the concept of a high performance electric car from TRL-6/7 to TRL-9
(Actually, for all I know he already has one).
Look at some FCC and FAA filings for Kuiper and Starlink.
I work in manufacturing and projects. We work on stage gates for projects once green lit so that is especially interesting to me in my anoraky sense as alot of it precedes what we get involved in.
https://cat.org.uk/info-resources/zero-carbon-britain/research-reports/zero-carbon-britain-making-it-happen/
https://www.gbnews.com/shows/lee-andersons-real-world/
Ten minutes later it's being made in a factory.
It's at the heart of all those Elon Musk did everything/nothing debates.
When he is flailing in the polls and another 1000 Tory councillors have lost, who then will support him?
I think getting to net zero will be quite easy for the UK, and the rest of the world will follow quickly, just based on the current technology we have available. Transport is the area where we have made least progress so far, and that is all looking rather rosy.
Even if the rest of the world does not follow, it's probably a net positive anyway given all the other benefits of going for renewable energy.
We should not plan based on new technologies suddenly coming available, but when they do we should embrace them and accelerate the process even further given the escalating costs of further warming.
The policy has been in place for some years now and it seems pretty clear that a tax break won't be enough to encourage people to cycle if that means cycling on the same roads as cars.
This is one area where Boris Johnson got it, and very few other politicians do (though I think the King of the North does too). Create more segregated cycle lanes that are easy to use and go to where people want to go.
He is meant to appeal to the base. He does that far better than most here understand.
Creating a fuss about this issue is like the 350m. It causes wets to support the outcry, and the public to think 'hmmm actually I'm not sure I like the boats arriving either'.
Several people (who are in a position to know) have said/hinted that he is in a 'Requiem' style situation.