UK Politics

3104 readers

291 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tom

GreatAlbatross

flamingos

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

“Are we the baddies?” (conservativehome.com)

submitted 5 months ago by shish_mish@lemmy.world to c/uk_politics

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Takes a while before he gets to his actual suggestions, which are as stupid as you'd expect:

We know what a coherent right-wing agenda would look like: Net Zero immigration, energy sanity, a massive programme of planning reform, and housebuilding. We also know how to get there: identify, train, and promote talented people, primarily from the private sector, and smash the barriers to governing.

'Net zero immigration' - dystopian, unworkable, self-destructive
'Energy sanity' - meaningless, nobody thinks of themselves as proposing energy insanity, do they? I assume what he means is 'Keep exploiting fossil fuels even though revenues are falling, prices are rising, there are obvious alternatives and climate change is accelerating', which doesn't strike me as 'sane'. In any case, Labour's plans are sane: accelerate the transition to the cheapest, cleanest forms of energy and keep using fossil fuels to keep the lights on while we're managing the transition
'massive programme of planning reform, and housebuilding' - exactly what the Tories have failed to deliver and what Labour are proposing, which he assumes they'll fail at for no discernible reason

And his plans for how to get there are just as asinine:

'identify, train, and promote talented people' - again, meaningless. Who could oppose this?
'primarily from the private sector' - why? Because. Sunak is 'from the private sector'. So was Boris Johnson. How's that worked out? And notice the weaselly 'primarily', too. Is that most? Some? All?
'smash the barriers to governing' - again, just meaningless waffle, something the Tories have continuously promised and found themselves unable to deliver. Brexit was meant to do this. It didn't. Is this because, perhaps, the main 'barriers to governing' are that the Tories are totally detached from reality?

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

‘Net zero immigration’ - dystopian, unworkable, self-destructive

And repurposing the term "net zero" to drain it of meaning.

[–] echodot 1 points 5 months ago

I don't even understand how net zero immigration would even work. If you are of the mindset and you wish to deport someone you deport them right away, you don't wait until someone else comes in.

[–] julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

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.