![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://feddit.uk/pictrs/image/402440a2-c9ee-4373-8c98-d55bda8ee4fa.png)
I wish I didn’t. Manosphere bilge.
I wish I didn’t. Manosphere bilge.
In fairness. “net zero” has a precise but pimited meaning. If anything using “net zero” as shorthand for “zero net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide” is deficient in the first place. It’s snappy and (reasonably) clear but very easy to twist or repurpose or reframe.
I don’t see it. And who gives a shit what the logo is? Is this all journalism has to offer?Bacon sandwich-gate tier piss taking…
AV was a different kettle of fish. Garbage turnout and masses of undecideds in polling. I don’t think anyone ever thought it was nailed on even if technically AV was ahead in some polls. Point stands though.
He’s using those words to defend not giving benefits to the parents of a third child though. It’s just double speak: “it’s not about handouts is about a social safety net”. By playing into the framing of social safety nets as handouts he just defends the status quo. Definitely no evidence he really gets it.
Why reference a fable at all if you’re going to totally ignore it’s message?
The tories have been the same arrogant, entitled breed the whole time. Labour have still lost to them repeatedly so it seems weird to chalk it up to luck this time.
Best I’ve seen so far is the independent and, while they add some sensible context, even they are quoting sunak as if he’s speaking in good faith.
It pisses me off that this getting coverage when it contains no actual new information and is so obviously a conservative communications strategy.
Rishi is not accepting the rejection of his ideas at all. He’s conjuring the spectre of hung parliament as a rallying cry to disaffected tory voters. Maria Caulfield quote about the differences between local and govt elections really hammers this home and every media outfit is blithely repeating it all like they’re tory sock puppets.
In context, “overtones” is a pretty decent autocorrect for Overton here.
Yeah way too literal to be emtertaining. I guess if your reaction to the mayoral campaign is disaffected “both sides” BS (though no well informed person holds that view) then it would work shrugs. I’m sure as shit not reading the article because if their headline writing is that lazy I doubt there’s anything of value beyond it.
OK, so you don’t actually disagree with either the community opposition or any potential judicial opinion blocking the measures (provided the basis is in applicable law). Your initial comment reads a little differently.
OK dude. But hilarious sarcasm aside, if you don’t think these actions should be opposed do you think any manifesto item of an elected official should be given a pass?
If saving actual lives isn’t enough for you to oppose a “democratic” agenda I wonder where you would draw the line.
I’ve always thought this would be the best option for essential services. Then it’s there as a service provider of last resort in case a private provider fails. And if the private sector can indeed provide the service more efficiently even after paying it’s shareholders, great, have at it in competition with the state offering. We even have this in places (see NS&I).
No no. He started with a balanced budget that then blew up. He did cut the deficit before resigning but it was still large.
To be fair, far too much credit and blame is assigned to govornments for a number that is massively driven by externalities.
The people who heard Gove say they’d “had enough of experts” and thought: “yup that’s me, I hate people who know what they’re talking about”.
It’s obviously condescending to say that it was stupid. But what’s the more generous read of it? A spiteful protest vote against social progress? There could conceivably be coherent arguments for independence, but certainly there weren’t any anywhere near the leave campaign.
And most often high costs mean higher ROI. The wind farm doesn’t get continued funding precisely because it produces electricity when supply is high and hence prices are low. Electricity is not worth the same at all times; you can sell your coal fired watts when the wind speeds are low and the unit price jumps up. Instead of trying to solve the hard problem of storing electricity to fill the intermittency gap, capitalism takes the easy way out of burning fossil fuels unless you force it not to by regulating.
I mean it’s fine if they need the money. Don’t want only rich people being MPs.
Her statement is so tone deaf though. MPs are well paid and get pretty reasonable “loss of office” payments for their transition out if they contest and lose a election.
As if the couple of hundred tory MPs (most of whom are well off anyway) are anywhere near to the top of the victim list!
But they will only pay for yours if you do “enough” to pay for the previous generation in terms of qualifying years. The whole thing has been moulded into a weird reflection of the entitlement of baby boomers. Classic example of how our pseudo-democratic processes are terrible for long term planning.
“derisking” is just making explicit the agency problems that came to light in the financial crisis. If private money isn’t being rewarded for bearing some of the risk, what is it for? Such a stupid idea.