Yes I realised after I’d posted. Was going to amend but didn’t.
A Swell Idea From ASDA To Deter Shoplifters!
I am not a messy person but...
Gransnet forums
News & politics
Telegraph article "How Sir Keir Starmer's Labour would run a government
(50 Posts)A "long" article in yesterday's Telegraph talked about a party in control of where it's going and, as much as it ever can be, in control of its extremes. The writer gives a fascinating contrast to the Conservative party.
It talked of a sidelined Rishi Sunak at a party held by Michael Bloomberg. A party where Rachel Reeves "was undoubtedly the main attraction". It did, of course, compare this to the Corbyn days.
It then described "Sir Kier Starmer ... tearing the PM's 36-day economic record to shreds" at PMQs the next day. Remember, this is a Telegraph article.
It ran through the sacking of the short-lived Chancellor suggesting it was done by the PM to "save her own skin". It asked how long she would last - days or weeks? It pointed out that Labour is now between 20 and 30 points ahead in the Polls.
Reporting on Keir Starmer's conference call telling his staff they were moving into 'election mode' the article commented on the sacking of his chief of staff and increasing the role of his campaigns chief as, they say, "in the mode of Alistair Campbell." They suggested that "Deep in Labour HQ" lies the party's next manifesto, which they describe as "radical". The plans for the move to the new offices have, according to the Telegraph, been stepped up.
The paper puts the process of getting to this point down to "Good strategy and execution", although it notes the changes are not yet over and "many difficult questions remain". As expected, there are the questions of how they would manage an economy "ravaged by debt and inadequate productivity and growth".
They comment on a shared trait Starmer has with Tony Blair - "he hasn't always been a Labour politician" and describe his university days - Leeds and Oxford and his career in law.
From what was estimated would take four to eight-years, he has now at a point where he has a mixture of people on his team, which includes people "who have seen everything before and people for whom it is the first time".
If you can read the article, there are paragraphs of description here about what they are doing now. It is a fascinating, if understandably biased, account. I came across names I hadn't heard before and can now look out for. My post barely covers a tiny bit of the detail so I recommend it if you are able to read it.
“UK GOVERNMENT LIFTS MORATORIUM ON HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN ENGLAND
September 22, 2022
Cuadrilla Resources Limited (“Cuadrilla”) welcomes today’s Government written ministerial statement (WMS) that the moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, introduced in November 2019 has been lifted.”
This of course will be reversed under Labour.
I'm going to have to rush my breakfast, aren't I? ?
? but don’t get indigestion volver!
I can’t do links but Labour gave a speech in Washington yesterday and outlined how it is going to re-boot our commitment within the first 100 days in office.
I’ll try and find it again and get back.
Urmstongran
“UK GOVERNMENT LIFTS MORATORIUM ON HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN ENGLAND
September 22, 2022
Cuadrilla Resources Limited (“Cuadrilla”) welcomes today’s Government written ministerial statement (WMS) that the moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, introduced in November 2019 has been lifted.”
This of course will be reversed under Labour.
TBH
It ain’t going to happen whoever is in power. Communities are absolutely dead set against it.
This, from the Telegraph article:
“Just four months after being elected an MP in September 2015, Sir Keir was appointed a minister to Corbyn’s front bench – beginning five years of uneasy coalition between the two.
As Labour’s Brexit spokesman he fronted the leadership’s fudge on the European Union, pledging to negotiate a new deal with the EU and put it back to the country in a second referendum that would also include an option to Remain.
He would later admit that the party’s stance on Brexit was one of the main reasons for its dire performance in the 2019 election – handing Boris Johnson the keys to Downing Street and an 80-seat majority.”
There you go.
Urmstongran
It’s a well written article. Happily more typical of recent DT journalism since the substantial subscription price increase. It certainly informed me about current thinking in the Labour Party.
But 2 things I can’t get past with Starmer. He campaigned vigorously to get Corbyn into power and he was determined to squash Brexit even though it was the will of the majority who bothered to vote.
Their stated green policy is to bring net zero forward several years and ensure fracking can never be used. (Ed Miliband take a bow you muppet). So expect severe power cuts and massive amounts of striking as they hand power to the militant unions (again).
Can they be worse than the current shower?
Difficult, but probably.
Keir has, imo, roots that are far more socialist than Corbyns so, as a politician there was no other party that he could be in regardless of it’s leader. I didn’t like Corbyn but when it came to Election Day I still voted for him because I hated everything that Johnson stood for both morally and politically. As for brexit, Keir campaigned with us for a peoples vote because we all thought that people were beginning to see that all the vote leave promises were lies. When that didn’t happen he decided ( quite rightly in my opinion) that we had to make the best of it and rebuild and strengthen our relationship with Europe. Without a peoples vote ( and as a man of law) there is no alternative but to honour the referendum result and try to make it work. Even Truss, according to Rory Stewart, wasn’t pro EU but campaigned for remain because she could see the disruption that brexit would cause for many years ( I bet she also wanted to get into Camerons good books as well but that’s just my personal opinion).
We won't agree to disagree on this Urmstongran because I'm right on this one. Not opinion, real life.
The first thing we have to be aware of is that the output from fracking is fossil fuel. We can no longer rely on fossil fuel. Whatever the supporters of fossil fuel industry tell you, it will kill us.
Next; the geology of the UK is such that fracking sites will not be economic, we wouldn't get enough fuel out to have any effect on gas prices. This is before taking into account the volumes of polluted water that the industry produces, and that it causes earthquakes.
The clusterf**k of a government we currently have is using this as a way of deluding the gullible and scientifically-illiterate into thinking that this will help us become more self-reliant for fuel. It won't.
I think we have strayed way off the original topic of the OP so I might start a new thread. But it's clear to me that Labour won't start issuing fracking licences again because it would be a stupid idea.
Well I’m more inclined to listen to the expertise of the engineers at Cuadrilla volver.
This last month:
“Cuadrilla is currently exploring the Bowland shale rock in Lancashire for natural gas. The gas trapped within this rock is no different to the natural gas which we all use every day in our homes, businesses and communities.
The mineralogy of the Lancashire Bowland shale has been analysed in detail using X-ray diffraction of shale core samples and cuttings taken from the Preese Hall well. This analysis has confirmed that both the Upper and Lower Bowland shales are very well suited to hydraulic fracturing as they are formed from a highly siliceous matrix with consistently low overall clay content and not reactive clays.
Using input data from the Lancashire Bowland exploration wells that Cuadrilla has drilled to date, including the Preese Hall well, which was hydraulically fractured and flow tested in 2011, Anderson Thompson modelled potential gas recoveries from a 2.5km horizontal well. The results of this modelling forecast that, over a 30 year period, a most likely volume of 6.5 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of gas would be produced from a 2.5km horizontal Bowland shale well.“
Well I’m more inclined to listen to the expertise of the engineers at Cuadrilla volver.
Are you? That could be a mistake. ?
6.5 billion cubic feet in 30 years? Thats a big number, isn't it? Well, actually, no, it's not. The volume currently produced by the North Sea is about 100 million cubic meters a day. So 65 billion cubic feet is equivalent to about 20 days worth of what we have today.
It's not worth it.
Cuadrilla carried out fracking near here and there were earthquakes that we felt. If they try to start up again then the campaign and protests will restart.
I’m afraid I don’t believe a word Cuadrilla say Urmstongran.
So 65 billion cubic feet
6.5 billion, sorry, not 65 billion.
Billions -v- millions though volver.
And ‘earhquakes’ were tiny tremors as has been proven. Miliband reduced the threshold to fit his narrative.
Anyway, sorry to exit. I’m busy & not had my shower yet. Himself is patient but it’s not unlimited if I stay on here! We have things to do this morning.
That said fracking (or not) is only one aspect of what Labour’s plans are. I shall be interested to read further comments later.
Billions -v- millions though volver.
I know. I did the conversion. In my head incidentally. I'm not an idiot.
And ‘earhquakes’ were tiny tremors as has been proven
Only someone not living near a fracking site would say that.
Urmstongran
It’s a well written article. Happily more typical of recent DT journalism since the substantial subscription price increase. It certainly informed me about current thinking in the Labour Party.
But 2 things I can’t get past with Starmer. He campaigned vigorously to get Corbyn into power and he was determined to squash Brexit even though it was the will of the majority who bothered to vote.
Their stated green policy is to bring net zero forward several years and ensure fracking can never be used. (Ed Miliband take a bow you muppet). So expect severe power cuts and massive amounts of striking as they hand power to the militant unions (again).
Can they be worse than the current shower?
Difficult, but probably.
The article is not about the past Urmstongran. It is about what Keir Starmer is expected to do if he is in government. Thoughts about what happened with Corbyn are irrelevant to this thread and there are many other threads it can, and is, discussed on. If you bring fracking up as to whether it is a vote winner, I think we have plenty of evidence that it is not.
You have retreated to the same old opinions. I am sorry about that. I hoped a more factual article would stimulate a discussion around what the article said and I'm disappointed to hear a return to the same circular arguments that didn't even get a mention in all the points I so laboriously typed up.
Whitewavemark2
I can’t do links but Labour gave a speech in Washington yesterday and outlined how it is going to re-boot our commitment within the first 100 days in office.
I’ll try and find it again and get back.
That sounds good. I hate to say I hadn't even heard about it. This is when a forum works so well.
This is one area I really like and think needs doing.
Firstly, they talk about (and offer a link to a more detailed article) shifting the burden onto the better-off who earn money from investments and property that is not taxed as income.
Erm ... the article mentioned fracking DA.
I thought it relevant. Sorry if you’re disappointed in my response.
It also mentioned Starmer’s stance to Brexit (I cut & pasted them from said article) so I fail to understand why my comments irritated you.
Yes, with regards taxation, Labour want to put a tax on landlord’s incomes.
Urmstongran
Erm ... the article mentioned fracking DA.
I thought it relevant. Sorry if you’re disappointed in my response.
It also mentioned Starmer’s stance to Brexit (I cut & pasted them from said article) so I fail to understand why my comments irritated you.
I apologise if that is how you saw what I posted. Yes, fracking was relevant to the article.
However, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". You started that post looking back at Starmer's trying his best to get his party into power at a time when Corbyn was the elected leader. Really? It's not as if we haven't seen Conservatives put the worst Prime Minister in history into power following the previous worst PM in history. You also added a silly bit of name-calling regarding Ed Miliband. It was no wonder I didn't read it seriously but just thought, "here we go again".
I should have been more careful in my reading and, as I said I apologise for not doing so.
DaisyAnne
Urmstongran
Erm ... the article mentioned fracking DA.
I thought it relevant. Sorry if you’re disappointed in my response.
It also mentioned Starmer’s stance to Brexit (I cut & pasted them from said article) so I fail to understand why my comments irritated you.I apologise if that is how you saw what I posted. Yes, fracking was relevant to the article.
However, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". You started that post looking back at Starmer's trying his best to get his party into power at a time when Corbyn was the elected leader. Really? It's not as if we haven't seen Conservatives put the worst Prime Minister in history into power following the previous worst PM in history. You also added a silly bit of name-calling regarding Ed Miliband. It was no wonder I didn't read it seriously but just thought, "here we go again".
I should have been more careful in my reading and, as I said I apologise for not doing so.
Agree. The rightwingers on here are looking sillier and sillier - so out of touch with the current zeitgeist.
For me, the crux of the matter is integrity and respect for democracy. No-one can agree with every policy of every party, but we are entitled to expect integrity - we have not had this in government for many years.
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »