[Oboogie]

I mean, not doing a deal = good. Not doing a deal because you’re trying to make out you’re *more* hardline than the hardline headbanger party who take on your headbanger rejects (and thus risking losing any moderate types you may still be clinging on to) = bewildering.

The Tories have a Nazi, do Reform have a Nazi? I think Badenoch might have just won the "Who's most hardline" willy waving contest.

34 former pupils of Dulwich College would suggest they do.

True but has Farage ever been a member of an overtly Nazi organisation?
Has he gone on the record saying Hitler was right that the white race is under attack from Judeo Bolshevism?
Has he ever given Nazi salutes from the dock?
I think there's a difference.

[Abernathy]

Well, I’d suggest that the difference might be that Farage learned early on that too overt an expression of his racist, anti-semitic, and far-right adjacent views could be detrimental to the success of his grifting operation, in a way that Bonehill-Paine never did, and his claims to have been reformed and “de-radicalised” notwithstanding, probably still hasn’t.

[Oboogie]

Well, I’d suggest that while Farage learned early on that too overt an expression of his racist, anti-semitic, and far-right adjacent views could be detrimental to the success of his grifting operation, in a way that Bonehill-Paine never did, and his claims to have been reformed and “de-radicalised” notwithstanding, probably still hasn’t.

Well yes, but we have an underlying problem of trying to know what is actually in someone else's head.
On the one hand we have Farage who we've been told was a Nazi at school but who has never admitted it and has never been a member of a Nazi organisation.
On the other we have Bonehill who told us he was a Nazi, organised a Nazi rally to "reclaim Golders Green for the white race" attempted to found a Nazi movement, was convicted for persecuting Jews and Muslims in the name of defending the white race from "JudeoBolshevism".
Now he says he's reformed (pardon the pun).

Which aspects of either man's CV we choose to believe were sincere beliefs and which were calculated grifts is up to us, they're both bullshitters and I don't trust either of them, but the evidence against Bonehill (multiple recent convictions) is far more compelling.

[Abernathy]

Agreed.

[Yug]

SpEkInG her BrAnEs on the environment

Ditching net zero would save households £540 a year, Badenoch claims

Tory leader endorses study that finds scrapping some new wind farms would save UK £320bn by 2050


Ditching Labour’s net zero targets could save the typical British household £540 a year, Kemi Badenoch has claimed.

A new study endorsed by the Tory leader found that scrapping construction of Scottish wind farms and connected transmission systems would save £320bn between 2030 and 2050,with the financial benefits flowing back to families.

Instead, the report, published by think tank Onward on Wednesday, said Britain should build a new generation of gas-fired and nuclear power stations across England where demand is greatest....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... 40-a-year/

More gas-fired power stations. Just what the world needs right now. Plus an unhealthy dose of short-termism. This might save us 500-odd quid a year now, but how much is it going to cost us twenty years down the line when the seasons are hotter and drier, extremes of weather are more extreme, and sea-levels are noticeably rising?

How anyone can take this cretin seriously is quite beyond me.

[Boiler]

Because they're cretins themselves?

[Tubby Isaacs]

SpEkInG her BrAnEs on the environment

Ditching net zero would save households £540 a year, Badenoch claims

Tory leader endorses study that finds scrapping some new wind farms would save UK £320bn by 2050


Ditching Labour’s net zero targets could save the typical British household £540 a year, Kemi Badenoch has claimed.

A new study endorsed by the Tory leader found that scrapping construction of Scottish wind farms and connected transmission systems would save £320bn between 2030 and 2050,with the financial benefits flowing back to families.

Instead, the report, published by think tank Onward on Wednesday, said Britain should build a new generation of gas-fired and nuclear power stations across England where demand is greatest....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... 40-a-year/

More gas-fired power stations. Just what the world needs right now. Plus an unhealthy dose of short-termism. This might save us 500-odd quid a year now, but how much is it going to cost us twenty years down the line when the seasons are hotter and drier, extremes of weather are more extreme, and sea-levels are noticeably rising?

How anyone can take this cretin seriously is quite beyond me.

The think tank Onward, famously experts on the subject.

We aren't spending £320bn on new "Scottish wind farms" and their grid connections, are we? And while nuclear is important as baseload, it isn't cheap. She's proposing to have much, much more of it. Lots of the new renewables are sited in convenient places close to the grid (which means you have to use good farmland sometimes).

Any reason why so much of onshore wind is in Scotland? Did some political party ban onshore wind in England from 2010-2024?

[Tubby Isaacs]

And why announce this now, when the news is all about... very high gas prices caused by a soulmate of Kemi's starting a war with Iran? The timing couldn't be much worse.

[Andy McDandy]

Instant gratification vs deferred but greater benefits.

All too many will plump for the former.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I don't think they will. To paraphrase a random person on the internet the other day, it was hard to persuade people that the EU wasn't a joke after people had mostly been told it was for decades. For decades, people have been mostly told that climate change was bad, so the smart money probably shouldn't be on Kemi and Tice.