The Chronicles of Rishi

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I'll quote another member of this forum in response to that.

We're in an energy crisis, there nothing wrong with pivoting on Shale Gas.

I think Sunak understands the logic:
- The UK's too populated for fracking so some towns and villages would be negatively impacted.
- Any gas would be sold to the highest bidder globally and there would not be enough to impact global prices.
- It would take several years for gas to be extracted so would come on stream when the immediate crisis is over.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Doing as he's told by Agent Schwab.

While I don’t necessarily buy into the view that personalises much of this against Schwab - he’s just a front man - Sunak is certainly constrained by prevailing economic orthodoxy.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Until the Tories bring in a properly Conservative prime minister, I'm not voting for them again.

Now that i'm a pensioner no triple lock means i vote for someone else

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think Sunak understands the logic:
- The UK's too populated for fracking so some towns and villages would be negatively impacted.

Have you seen a fracking site? they are very compact. Have you ever flown over the UK in a plane? it's very unpopulated. That's just weasel words to not do it.

- Any gas would be sold to the highest bidder globally and there would not be enough to impact global prices.

And he has the power to change that.

- It would take several years for gas to be extracted so would come on stream when the immediate crisis is over.

That mentality is what has got us into this very situation. How about making sure the UK is energy independent for the next crisis?

[1andrew1]

I don't want to go too much off-topic on this but to respond to your points.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Have you seen a fracking site? they are very compact. Have you ever flown over the UK in a plane? it's very unpopulated. That's just weasel words to not do it.

That's not been the experience to date in this country. Fracking favours large, less populated countries like the US.

Originally Posted by Pierre

And he has the power to change that.

I think he will see himself as a Conservative and not a market interventionist lefty.

Originally Posted by Pierre

That mentality is what has got us into this very situation. How about making sure the UK is energy independent for the next crisis?

It's called reality, but we need energy sovereignty by not trying the same thing again and again that doesn't work.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

All of those grounds are things a judge would have to review before deciding whether to grant an injunction. The bill empowers the Home Secretary to ask, not to act.

Presumably there’s some addendum to Godwin’s Law aimed at people who have totally devalued the word ‘fascism’ by using it against anyone minded to believe the police should have the power to ensure public safety rather than simply carrying a bottle of Loctite De-Bonder on their belt loops.

Glad you are content with the continuing erosion of our civil liberties. The "ability of the police to have the power to ensure public safety" is a continuum of positions. You seem to be happy to move this position to the right of where we have historically been in this country.

Originally Posted by ianch99

Glad you are content with the continuing erosion of our civil liberties. The "ability of the police to have the power to ensure public safety" is a continuum of positions. You seem to be happy to move this position to the right of where we have historically been in this country.

I’m not sure which civil liberties you’re lamenting here? Perhaps you could be more specific. What is it you personally are worried you will no longer be able to do should this become law?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by jfman

While I don’t necessarily buy into the view that personalises much of this against Schwab - he’s just a front man

Schwab is on video boasting how he has planted WEF people into most Western governments.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

I’m not sure which civil liberties you’re lamenting here? Perhaps you could be more specific. What is it you personally are worried you will no longer be able to do should this become law?

I was quite specific in my post above. Anyway, here's a brief video of the Liberty director explaining the threat to MPs: https://twitter.com/i/status/1535271620738269186

---------- Post added at 16:26 ---------- Previous post was at 16:17 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Snipped as I know how the system works.

Regardless of how many words you choose to describe it it’s neither a mandate from the party membership (who indeed chose someone else when he was on the ballot) nor from the electorate itself.

If anything the Truss debacle undermines our democratic credentials rather than reinforces it. By your measure she had a mandate to deliver until she didn’t. Removing the right of a party membership to elect it’s leader is profoundly undemocratic. In turn when it picks a PM it evokes more images of Putin’s Russia than home of the self-styled mother of all Parliaments.

What is interesting is that, following Chris's logic on "we elect a Party, not a PM", if the markets had not been so spooked as they were, Liz Truss's jihadi libertarian crusade could have been allowed to play out for long enough to seriously damage the structural integrity of the economy. Under the rules, she was still a Tory PM and so allowed to depart from the 2019 manifesto and trash the place. Proof that the rules need changing. IMO, we no longer vote for a Party as much we vote for a specific person leading that party. Look at the Thatcher, Blair and Johnson elections ...

I think that if a PM is changed, we should mandate a GE.

Originally Posted by ianch99

I was quite specific in my post above. Anyway, here's a brief video of the Liberty director explaining the threat to MPs:

... in which she is not specific at all, but is concerned about a 'paradigm shift' in what is considered criminal behaviour. Likewise, you were earlier not specific at all (unless you're referring to a post earlier than the one I previously replied to?)

Spurrier's submission is hardly bringing anything novel to the discussion in any case. New acts of parliament often bring activities that previously were not criminal into the purview of criminal law. That's sort of the whole point. People find new and inventive ways of imposing themselves on others; eventually the put-upon majority decides enough is enough and begins to demand action. Sooner or later, politicians hear the clamour, realise it's a popular issue, and act on it.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

... in which she is not specific at all, but is concerned about a 'paradigm shift' in what is considered criminal behaviour. Likewise, you were earlier not specific at all (unless you're referring to a post earlier than the one I previously replied to?)

Spurrier's submission is hardly bringing anything novel to the discussion in any case. New acts of parliament often bring activities that previously were not criminal into the purview of criminal law. That's sort of the whole point. People find new and inventive ways of imposing themselves on others; eventually the put-upon majority decides enough is enough and begins to demand action. Sooner or later, politicians hear the clamour, realise it's a popular issue, and act on it.

Germany 1933 undertones all through that second paragraph.

Originally Posted by jfman

Germany 1933 undertones all through that second paragraph.

Please see my earlier comments re: debasement of references to fascism by mindless overuse.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Please see my earlier comments re: debasement of references to fascism by mindless overuse.

I think it’s an entirely appropriate use to be fair.

To paraphrase you essentially say a majority can elect away the rights of minorities should they feel suitably aggrieved without reference to any protections of fundamental rights (for example that to protest, or that to strike). Both among the first to go as fascism rises, usually with a democratic mandate.

Originally Posted by jfman

I think it’s an entirely appropriate use to be fair.

To paraphrase you essentially say a majority can elect away the rights of minorities should they feel suitably aggrieved without reference to any protections of fundamental rights (for example that to protest, or that to strike). Both among the first to go as fascism rises, usually with a democratic mandate.

That’s not a paraphrase of anything I’ve actually posted here. It’s just a list of dog whistle issues that get a certain section of the British left all riled up.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

That’s not a paraphrase of anything I’ve actually posted here. It’s just a list of dog whistle issues that get a certain section of the British left all riled up.

I can see no other logical interpretation of this part:

People find new and inventive ways of imposing themselves on others; eventually the put-upon majority decides enough is enough and begins to demand action. Sooner or later, politicians hear the clamour, realise it's a popular issue, and act on it.

Essentially your suggestion is to invent crimes for previously legal activities based upon populism. Without limits, that’s absolutely fascism in action.

Although I did make a mistake in my previous post because I almost implied if this Government did so it had democratic mandate for it.