 | Forum
Reply | General Election Thread
at 18:44 19 Jun 2024
Agree with this 100%. It's absolutely criminal that we are not utilising the enormous potential of wave energy. Some time ago on here posted about the proposed Severn estuary scheme that would have provided a massive amount of energy for the UK (something like 25% of all our energy needs off the top of my head). That this scheme was shelved in favour of a proposed nuclear power station is insane and stinks of vested interests.
For me it is vital that the UK secures control of its own energy supplies and the problem with the current net zero policies is that they mean - like in Germany, where their 'green' energy drive has really fcked them - a reliance on energy from elsewhere, often, ludicrously, from fossil fuels. And that is totally counterproductive, whatever your views on climate change.
Also look at what I posted in regard to New Zealand's green energy push that they've had to abandon. There has to be a case for utilising fossil fuel resources wisely and cleanly until truly 'clean' energy is fully operational. And the shortest and fastest route to that is not solar or wind, it's tidal. |
| Forum
Reply | Serbia 🇷🇸 v England 🏴 Match Thread
at 08:22 18 Jun 2024
I thought France looked pretty impressive first half last night, but like England, they faded in the second and were often out-fought and out-thought by Austria, who were unlucky... particularly when that blatant corner wasn't given and France went on to get that OG from the next phase of play.
I suppose you could level similar accusations at Didier Deschamps as Southgate - they certainly do in France, where they say he plays too safe and defensively... the only difference being that Deschamps has taken France to three finals, winning the world cup in the process.
And then you have the fact that the 'great' Belgian side (they always seem to blow it in finals) lost to Slovakia.
What can we conclude from all this? Not much really. This is international football; it doesn't mirror club football, there are other factors, and, well.... who knows? I think England will improve, without a doubt. Be interesting to see our starting line-up in the next game. |
| Forum
Reply | Serbia 🇷🇸 v England 🏴 Match Thread
at 21:54 16 Jun 2024
Foden doesn't work for England. I'd much rather see Palmer start. TAA likewise, very poor. Kane with a Dykes-like performance in terms of anticipation, and the defensive header his most significant contribution.
Rice very good though and what a player Bellingham is. I mean we all know it, but still, wow.
Southgate's selection made that far more difficult than it needed to be. |
| Forum
Reply | Poland v Holland
at 19:05 16 Jun 2024
Pien Muelensteen also v good in Denmark Slovenia match just now. Also kept it simple and minimal, alongside the voluble but likeable Ally McCoist.
Commentators guilty of excess drivel include Jonathan Pearce "incidentally the assistant groundsman's great-great-grandfather once made breakfast for Franz Beckenbauer's PE Teacher" type of thing.
Then there are the hyperbole kings, who also like to 'paint a picture' like Guy Mowbray or Darren the drone Fletcher.
I wish they had a crowd noise only option. |
| Forum
Reply | Serbia 🇷🇸 v England 🏴 Match Thread
at 18:56 16 Jun 2024
3-0 England.
Think Southgate's fcked up his defensive picks, but we still have massive firepower, way too much for the Serbs. [Post edited 16 Jun 18:56]
|
| Forum
Reply | General Election Thread
at 11:43 16 Jun 2024
Yes David, I have to concede that I have not presented my case sufficiently well, or with enough detail, to give you even the slightest cause to reconsider what is - apparently and to all intents and purposes - a very clear-cut case for the main factor in climate change being the rise in CO2 emissions.
I have to admit that I simply can't recall right now (and I put this down to age!) one of the key planks of my argument in relation to the many cycles that our planet goes through, that relates to the earth's tilting over very long cycles (in relation to a human time scales), but has a profound effect on solar radiation; and combined with the other factors I've mentioned, along with sunspot activity, solar flares and solar cycles, shows that the earth has gone through multiple cooling and heating events, of which we know something, because we have evidence of this in the recent glacial and interglacial periods. And in many of these events, there have been more rapid changes in global temperature than we're seeing now.
You also have to factor in other massive influences on the climate such as volcanic activity, tectonic activity and what I call the planet's homeostatic reaction to this, all of which combine to create a far more complex picture in relation to climate change than the one that we are being presented with now, and which is of course the key factor you're talking about, CO2 emissions.
However, admittedly, this is difficult to grasp, certainly without more context than I can provide without a whole raft of further interlinking factors. And in terms of mainstream thinking I'm sure my case appears arcane. But.... is it?
We know that the climate is in a constant state of flux. The particular climate that we think of as 'ideal' for us is in fact something very, very temporary in terms of planetary timescales. And all of the climate science that I've seen seems to focus on a very short period of time and also seems to presuppose that the climate "should" be a certain way.
There is no doubt that human activity probably has some influence on current conditions. And that taken on its own, CO2 can act as a lever in a complex chain of inter-relating factors that could mean there is a possibly a heating factor.
So, to the main issue, which is why I think the concept of 'net zero' is frankly absurd, and unachievable, because of so many factors, for example:
A) One major volcanic eruption can increase CO2 many times more than the current levels. As can tectonic activity.
B) You would need an unbelievable global consensus to even start to lower emissions from countries like China and India, let alone the rest of the world, and there is absolutely no convincing argument for transitioning to non-CO2 emitting energy sources over the timescales being demanded without draconian curbs on energy use in the developed world that would plunge us into a new social and industrial dark age.
And then there's the fact that there's absolutely no guarantee that all of this would make the slightest difference.
I think that 'net zero' is both misguided (when there are far more important and meaningful things we should be doing to protect the environment), and at the same time, being used as an excuse for other agendas; and this is where you come in and think - oh, he's just a mad conspiracy theorist - there are no hidden agendas - everyone from the oligarch level down is purely altruistic and philanthropic when it comes to pushing net zero and all the curbs on social behaviour that come with it.
But let's leave that there, because I don't think I'm ever going to convince you, or anyone else who accepts the prevailing models as a done and dusted case.
In a way it's a shame (understatement?) that I even grasped this particular nettle, because I think the other points I was making in regard to what's happened to the Green party are extremely relevant and very concerning. And this is where I don't understand your position and why I think (perhaps unfairly and without much justification other than how I interpret your posts in this thread) you are blinkered. I am talking about, for example, what is happening in terms of actual reality being warped by the agendas of trans-activism to the point that you have the NHS now talking about 'people who menstruate' or 'chest feeding' because they don't want to upset an extremely vocal, and to my mind aggressive, minority who would have us believe that a man can breastfeed a child, or even more ludicrously, become pregnant. Or, apparently, that a woman can have a penis. And under the aegis of this madness, there is the very dangerous idea of 'self-identification' that gives anyone, no matter the legitimacy of their belief or level of their sanity, or sexual agenda or fetish, the ability to say they are now a different gender and should therefore have unlimited access to the previously sacrosanct spaces of women and girls (for example), or that they can legitimately compete fairly with women or girls.....
And this warping of, in my opinion, unarguable truth, has had an even more wide-reaching and pernicious effect, which is cancel culture and the frightening curb on the freedom to express yourself and to express legitimate concerns; one example of countless examples would be women being sacked (there are loads of cases) for saying they don't want to give men who identify as women access to their toilets or changing rooms... and so on and so on. I spoke to woman only last night who is an NHS manager who said she despaired at what is happening. Look at the case of Maya Forstater, which you're possibly aware of, and then extrapolate that through our culture... this is a battle for the ability to speak truth, versus an Orwellian form of social control. I think it's bloody scary and I think parties like the Green party, who have expelled women for stating biological truths or for expressing concerns about self-identification, are a big part of the problem. I think they have jumped on this cause because it's a political bandwagon that they think will increase their popularity. And honestly, that's the tip of the (melting or increasing? depends on which data you look at) iceberg.
There is so much more to say that concerns me, but I fear I am going on far, far too long and I apologise to you and everyone else for my proselytising.
(Edit - spelling mistakes). [Post edited 16 Jun 11:59]
|
| Forum
Reply | General Election Thread
at 16:39 15 Jun 2024
Okay, let's start with your final statement:
"PS I couldn't read your link as I don't have and wouldn't want a Telegraph account"
I posted the whole article anyway. But personally speaking, I don't take that attitude towards information; as far as I'm concerned, information is information, and I'm confident that I am capable of discerning bias. I also wouldn't limit my reading to media that reflects my opinions: indeed, I follow as diverse a range of views as possible (you can check my twitter feed), regularly reading, sources you probably would approve of, such as The Canary, Occupy London, George Monbiot, Yanis Varoufakis and Ash Sarkar. As well as the Guardian and the BBC.
Okay next:
"You repeatedly say I am oblivious to things, blinkered, need to wise up, etc. You must be so wise and omniscient to have such knowledge about me that it seems impertinent to carry this on but I will, and without resulting to scorn."
Well frankly David, your responses have led me to that conclusion, including those in this post.
"Do you know anything about, say, Tory Cllr Anthony Stevens - and that's without googling it?"
You're talking about the Cllr who was arrested for a so-called 'hate crime' for sharing a video that was originally tweeted by Britain First. I'm guessing you think this represents some kind of equivalence for you not knowing anything about how the Green party has been infiltrated by Islamists? I'm not sure how it does.
The fact that the actual video showed a police officer snatching a bible from a preacher who was accused of being 'Islamophobic' (the preacher was awarded damages for wrongful arrest) is perhaps irrelevant to you? Because it seems, from this and your comment about the Telegraph above, that the medium is more important to you than the message.
"Have you never heard of the many women working in transgender support services?"
What has that got to do with anything I've said? Does that bland truism mean that the huge swathe of women from all walks of life who feel threatened by transgender activism are wrong?? As the father to a daughter, godfather to a young woman, and close friends to many women, I am both aware of how they feel about what's going on and their anger and disbelief as to how women's rights are being subjugated to these political cause célèbres. Try following JK Rowling on twitter - without prejudice - and just discover for yourself how threatened women feel by the trans-activist movement, and how vehement the trans-activists are.
"Or come across the research showing over 80% say they are “not prejudiced at all” towards transgender people?"
What research? Where's your source? Is that meant to represent an argument?
"Can you tell me on what scientific research you base your assertions about climate change?"
Yes, I am basing my knowledge of climate change in paricular on my wide reading on the glacial and interglacial periods, including the 'Younger Dryas' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas which shows far more rapid changes in climate than those that are happening today, and as yet, remain unexplained, even though sources such as NASA have attempted to, but strangely haven't satisfactorily linked to influences such as Milankovitch cycles https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cyc which nevertheless show that the factors inviolved in climate change are far more complex than just greenhouse gases... Gleissberg cycles, the still very arguable influence of solar radiation, the shift in the magnetic field, and much more that in my research has a far more profound effect than CO2 rises - and that also, if scientists cannot explain why the earth's climate heated and then cooled far faster 12,000 years ago than now, (when there was no human influence), why is there such certainty about today's beliefs? History has taught us that science has often been wrong, even when there are mass consensuses, and I remain sceptical. I don't care that people will have a scornful reaction to that. I think scepticism is a reasonable position.
At the same time whilst I fully accept that climate change is happening, I do not think 'Net Zero' is the answer, and furthermore, I think it has been co-opted to suit all sorts of agendas that have nothing to do with protecting our planet. If you find yourself in alliance with arch-globalists, does that lead you to question your beliefs as much as you question mine?
I could provide all sorts of links to the background of my long and wide research into this subject, but would you read them all? It would be far better for us to meet in person in one of your trips to my neck of the woods and I can explain myself better.
"I would be happy to provide the same for my assertions. And, can you provide the facts that support your statement that "it's just another means to tax, control us, limit our freedom of movement"?"
Yes, as above, I refer to the co-opting of the climate movement by global NGOs such as the WEF. If you want to know more, then read WEF chairman Klaus Schwab's 'Great Reset' and then think about the push towards 15-minute cities and the idea paraphrased as "you will own nothing and you will be happy". Google Noah Yuval Harari's involvement with the WEF and his speech about AI and how human lives are valueless.
There is a much bigger picture to all this, which, I would characterise as the rise of materialism that was spawned by the likes of such disparate bedfellows as Nietzsche and Marx, furthered by Marxist philosophy, the exponential levering of technology that gives humans unprecedented power and equivalent arrogance, and much more... that has led us to the current world situation which seems to me to be the most degraded and arrogant phase in human history, with little true knowledge or respect for the unfathomable mysteries of existence...
I repeat, I am fully onboard with common sense environmentalism - indeed, I would classify myself as an environmentalist, but I am not blindsided by political agendas that have subverted environmental causes for far more nefarious ends. IMO.
Interestingly, since I started posting my thoughts today, someone has desperately been trying to hack into my LFW account (18 times in fact). Clearly someone out there is so triggered by what I'm saying, they'd like to mess with my account. Perhaps it's the same person who consistently attacked me on RFI. |
| Forum
Reply | General Election Thread
at 16:30 15 Jun 2024
Thanks for completely misunderstanding me, P. More than happy to meet up in person to explain my stance. I assure you, I still am the same sound, (relatively) intelligent bloke that you knew!
And do you really think that I would go down crazy conspiracy rabbit holes like some blind idiot? Do you really think I have no idea what I'm doing?
And it's telling you have also labelled me a transphobe, when what I am in fact doing is standing up for women's rights over a dangerous minority male-driven movement. I have nothing whatsoever against people who want to act or dress like a different gender. But I do take issue when they want access to women and girls spaces and sports. Does your stance make you misogynist? Maybe it does. |
| Forum
Reply | General Election Thread
at 13:30 15 Jun 2024
Missed out this from above quoted article:
" The threat to New Zealand’s energy security comes despite the fact that geologists have discovered billions of cubic metres of natural gas in the seabeds around the country.
Sean Rush, a leading New Zealand barrister specialising in petroleum licensing law and climate litigation, called the oil and gas ban “economic vandalism at its worst in exchange for virtue signalling at its finest”.
Rush warned Labour off a copycat policy, saying: “There will be no benefits to UK energy security by banning new exploration drilling. You will simply disown an industry in which the UK has been world-leading.”
Jones said last week: “Natural gas is critical to keeping our lights on and our economy running, especially during peak electricity demand and when generation dips because of more intermittent sources like wind, solar and hydro.”
Such warnings are echoed by energy experts in the UK, where over 75pc of total energy consumed still comes from oil and gas.
Half comes from UK waters – but it too will drop off a cliff if Labour implements a ban on new drilling, warns the industry.
Offshore Energies UK (OEUK), a trade body, says there are about 280 active oil and gas fields in UK waters – of which 180 are due to shut down by 2030.
Without new ones to replace them, UK gas production is predicted to more than halve by the end of the decade.
Jenny Stanning, director of external affairs at OEUK, says exploration is essential to simply slowing the decline in output.
“The New Zealand experience shows how important it is for countries to carefully manage energy transition and energy security. We will need oil and gas for decades to come so it makes sense to back our own industry rather than ramping up imports from abroad.” |
| Forum
Reply | General Election Thread
at 13:18 15 Jun 2024
The fact you "know little of the Green councillor" is very telling. The middle class Greens seem to have their head in the sand around all sorts of elements of what the modern Green party stands for. I have posted a link to the video above. Do you think he's geniunely standing for Green issues? Try to remove your blinkers and have a think about what is going on here.
Regarding the "right of self-identification for trans and non-binary people" - you equally seem oblivious that this is actually threatening the very thing you say the Greens stand for in your very next sentence: "They also believe in standing up against misogyny and violence against women and girls."
The fact that you are apparently unable to see, or are unaware, of how so much of the trans movement is actually misogynistic (it's being driven by men, regardless of how they 'identify') and comes freighted with a huge amount of violence towards women. If you actually followed this, or even talked to women who feel threatened on so many levels by the trans movement, I doubt you'd be so blase about it. But since I assume you do care about women's rights, I suggest you look into this - again - if possible - without prejudice.
There is a very wide demographic of women (from hard-left lesbians to middle-class Daily Mail mums) who are all in agreement about the threat to women's rights, the encroachment of men (self-identifying men) into women and girls spaces, and far worse, including violence, threats and rape. With respect, I suggest you wise up on this issue.
Regarding climate change, I am not surprised you have rolled out the old 99% of scientists agree cliche and your reaction to anything that might divert from what I consider your blinkered cultism to be 'conspiratorial' as opposed to what it actually is, which is sceptical. But here's the interesting thing: I am absolutely for cleaning up the environment, for removing plastics at every level, for the end of toxic waste, for better farming practices and for so many other things you also believe in. But what I am not for is a completely pie in the sky idea that you can do anything significant by reducing the amount of CO2 that we produce. There NO proof this will do anything, because it is not provable. Our planet is not some kind of mechanical thing that you can fix by tweaking the carburettor, it is far, far more complex than that and all that the Net Zero policy really promises to do is to threaten our energy security (more on that below) and cost ordinary people a hell of a lot.
And then there's the issue that, again, you seem oblivious to how this has been entirely co-opted by the 'powers that would be' (who still love to travel to Davos in their private jets where they entertain Greta and the rest), because, well as I said... it's just another means to tax, control us, limit our freedom of movement.... and more... but as I say, you appear to oblivious to this. Because, well... 99% (it's nowhere near that consensus in reality, btw). And also just to add, climate change is entirely natural (there is no 'right or wrong climate, it just changes over time and has done forever, and there have been far more extreme changes, even in the recent past - look at what happened in the recent ice ages) and then it seems that you (and the whole CO2 lobby) are discounting the fact that the planet exists in its own homeostasis. It is supreme human arrogance to assume we can tweak it with net zero.
I would just like to go on to say how potentially dangerous I think the Green and Labour party energy policies are in terms of energy security, by looking at what's happened in New Zealand, where I shall quote from a recent article:
"Sir Keir Starmer is standing by a pledge to ban new drilling in the North Sea, despite New Zealand abandoning a similar policy amid blackout fears.
Labour’s manifesto, due out on Thursday, will feature a pledge to block all new licensing for oil and gas as one of its key energy policies.
The party “will not be issuing licences to explore new [oil and gas] fields as we accelerate to clean power”, a Labour spokesman confirmed on Tuesday.
It follows last weekend’s announcement that New Zealand’s government was lifting a ban on new oil and gas exploration.
The ban was announced by former prime minister Jacinda Ardern in 2018. “The world has moved on from fossil fuels,” Ardern proclaimed at the time.
New Zealand’s trailblazing policy, which was the first of its kind, became a key inspiration for the Labour Party’s own plan.
However, some in the party are now questioning the commitment after New Zealand resources minister Shane Jones last weekend denounced its own ban as a disaster – and revoked it.
It followed three years of rising energy prices that have left 110,000 households unable to warm their homes, 19pc of households struggling with bills and 40,000 of them having their power cut off due to unpaid bills, according to Consumer NZ.
Since April the situation has further deteriorated: Transpower, the equivalent of our National Grid, warned that the nation was at high risk of blackouts.
New Zealand’s shift to renewables meant it no longer had the generating power to keep the lights on during the cold spells that mark the Antipodean winter, said Transpower, as it begged consumers to cut their electricity consumption."
Full article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/12/jacinda-ardern-new-zealand-black [Post edited 15 Jun 13:24]
|
| Forum
Reply | General Election Thread
at 12:52 15 Jun 2024
What do you mean "Assuming all this is true (it isn't)..."
It is!
I've already linked to what happened when the Green party ejected women who they deem "Gender critical" and to be honest, that's the tip of the iceberg in regard to that issue within the Green party as well as much of the Labour party. Although I am not surprised to find that so many men are oblivious to this. Women's rights are so under threat that women have even formed their own political party to defend their rights.
As for the Green muslim councillor who along with his comrades chanted Allahu Akbar" upon his recent election, that is also a fact. I have tried to find a video source that you will find acceptable, but (perhaps unsurprisingly) the favoured BBC/Guardian channels don't seem to carry it, so here it is from the much-despised Daily Mail. Nevertheless, it happened:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-3182303/Video-Green-Party-councillo [Post edited 15 Jun 13:27]
|
| Forum
Reply | General Election Thread
at 11:05 15 Jun 2024
It's certainly quasi-Marxist.
Lots of things they're going to force us to do, in the fortunately unlikely event they get into power. However what concerns me most about the Greens is how they have been infiltrated by all sorts of other radical causes. That recent clip of the newly elected Islamic 'Green' councillor and his followers chanting 'Alluhah Akbar" was chilling.
And then you have their obsessive allegiance to the radical trans activist movement, which has even led to them expelling their own female members who have dared to speak out about the Green Party's support of this, over actual women's rights. Part of this saga played out in public, and is reported here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67546751
The Greens seem to have abandoned the path of reason and sensible environmentalism in favour of radical extremism. This reflects the 'hard left' side of the Labour Party, who are equally scary in their ideological zeal.
Before climate change became coopted by the 'powers that would be' (the WEF and their ilk, including most Western govts.) as a trojan horse for new ways to control the masses, I liked the Greens and supported much of their common sense environmentalism, but that has been lost now in a mishmash of things that seem closer to cultism than anything approaching common sense.
. [Post edited 15 Jun 11:06]
|
| Forum
Reply | 1944
at 09:31 15 Jun 2024
My uncle David (brother to uncle John who was in the RN and part of the D-Day landings) was also in the merchant navy on a ship that was torpedoed in the North Sea, but luckily he was rescued from the freezing water by a passing ship. He lost the hearing in his left ear as a result though.
Fascinating and sad to hear of your uncle too, Murf. The RAF saw horrendous losses, towards the end of the war the chances of surviving a mission were something like 50%. The Lancaster was an incredible craft for the time though, delivering lethal payloads that contributed to Germany's ultimate surrender.
It's also worth considering just how many German civilians died in those last years of WW2 - possibly up to 500,000 through allied bombing alone.
In the early 19th century the Prussian general and military theorist Carl Von Clausewitz said: "War is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means." We can see just how perceptive that insight was, even today, where politicians - of all stripes, including those who adopt quasi-religious dogma, have no problem in sacrificing civilians to further their ends.
We homo sapiens are a vicious animal, yet with incredible potential to be otherwise. Such is the dichotomy of being human. |
| Forum
Reply | General Election Thread
at 11:36 14 Jun 2024
It's not what Marxism is? Well in lieu of that tantalising refusal to lecture us all, I'm just going to put this out there (collated from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat), in case anyone thought Marxism was just a slightly less fluffy form of socialism:
"The phrase dictatorship of the proletariat was first used by Karl Marx in a series of articles which were later republished as The Class Struggle in France 1848–1850."
"While Karl Marx did not write much about the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat, The Communist Manifesto (1848) stated "their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."
In light of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, Marx wrote that "there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror."
In Marxist philosophy, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a condition in which the proletariat, or working class, holds control over state power. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the transitional phase from a capitalist and a communist economy, whereby the post-revolutionary state seizes the means of production, mandates the implementation of direct elections on behalf of and within the confines of the ruling proletarian state party, and institutes elected delegates into representative workers' councils that nationalise ownership of the means of production from private to collective ownership." |
| Forum
Reply | General Election Thread
at 10:52 14 Jun 2024
The dictatorship of the proletariat achieved through violent revolution? Yeah, great idea. That's worked really well elsewhere, after all. |
| Forum
Reply | General Election Thread
at 20:30 13 Jun 2024
I just want to point out the unsavoury and unwarranted accusation in your post:
"Force people (white people I'm guessing would be your preference) to breed more?"
I think SheffieldHoop has been fairly scrupulous in replying to all the different posters who have (apparently) taken umbrage with his point of view, but nothing that he has said warrants your (IMO) snide accusation.
What I find interesting is that the most hostile and ad hominem posts in this thread have come from those who position themselves on the 'liberal left', who are, supposedly, the inclusive and 'progressive' class.
No one has a monopoly on what is 'right' or 'wrong', no one's opinions are more valid than anyone else's and all morals are subjective.
(edit - spelling mistake) [Post edited 13 Jun 20:39]
|
| Forum
Reply | General Election Thread
at 20:35 12 Jun 2024
What I find interesting about the various remainers' posts in this thread is how blinkered they appear to be when it comes to what's happening in Europe.
You all describe Britain in the most dire terms, as if a) that was entirely due to Brexit (of course it isn't), and b) as if European countries were faring so much better (they aren't).
Are you not aware of how Germany is faring economically? According to Theodor Weimer, the head of the Deutsche Börse, Germany is now little more than a “developing country” and its stock market is a “junk shop” selling old tat. There are several key factors in Germany's economic decline, their disastrous energy policy being a key one, but whichever way you cut it, things don't look good for the former European powerhouse. And if Germany is teetering, what does that mean for the rest of Europe? Is this the economic zone you'd like Britain to be tethered to?
It's no surprise that the toxic economic cocktail of decades of inflationary policies, endless borrowing and heavy reliance on immigration have made Europe's economy even more fragile than Britain's, and it's also no surprise that this has led to a massive rise in right-wing populism. If Macron is toppled by National Rally (RN) in the forthcoming elections in France, it could be be part of a tidal wave of political change in the Eurozone, which has already seen right wing parties elected in Italy and Holland recently.
How ironic would it be if the remainers got their wish and Britain rejoined a right wing Europe, that was in the process of rejecting the very things remainers long for?
The certainty that so many have regarding Europe is beginning to look more like idealistic wishful thinking. For my money, an independent Britain is better placed to ride out the forthcoming shockwaves in the global market than one tethered to a foundering Europe. However, if Labour get in with a landslide, they could mire us in the same situation, with the same blinkered ideologies, that seem to me to be akin to a dangerous kind of groupthink.
But I don't fear a massive majority Labour government just for those reasons, I fear that it is in hock to so many radical causes, from its blinkered adherence to the ludicrous idea of 'net zero', to its bizarre championing of trans rights over women's rights, to its cosying up to Islamism in an attempt to appeal to the muslim vote.
There is no doubt the so-called Tories have been an absolute nightmare for this country, but I don't count the Brexit vote as part of that. As others have stated in this thread, that was perhaps the only truly democratic thing that's happened in this country for a long time. I think an independent Britain governed sensibly is the best scenario we could hope for, but I see little likelihood of anyone sensible coming to power in the next election. |
| Forum
Reply | The EFL officially highest attended European league after Premier League.
at 01:34 12 Jun 2024
I'm not sure why you would want to seek ways to denigrate this fact (no matter how mildly)... this is a second tier league and you're comparing it with the top leagues of other countries... and yet the figures speak for themselves. I think it's an astounding stat and it just goes to show that the love of the beautiful game is alive and well in its home country. |
| | hubble
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 2280 | | Comment Votes: | 0 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 2280 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.