UK Politics Thread III: Thready McThreadface (+ Jo Cox)

[Lamadia]

Shale gas can reduce massively bill costs, making the energy industry in Britain more flushed with homegrown supply, makes us ever-less reliant on Russia (obviously, not entirely,) and can generate big jobs in small communities. Yorkshire should be happy.

There's a massive image problem, and rightfully so. No-one believes the pro-fracking community, because all they do is promise it'll all be fine and solve all our problems ever. They're worse than the Vote Leave campaign.
They fail to demonstrate this. They don't even try.

In some of the American fracking operations, studies after operation deduced that yeah, it was basically safe and not environmentally damaging (one groundwater contamination incident was due to the well being improperly fitted, which still doesn't inspire confidence, but the point is, it's not inherent).
Yet the companies don't seem at all willing to engage. Or point this out. Or really do their own public studies to try and assuage public fears.

They either outright don't care, or are just full of themselves.
Remember what happened last time we had companies like that in the UK? NIREX put nuclear waste management back at least thirty years.

I use this term a lot; overrated. And the problems are overrated, as you say, studies have shown that 'fracking' is not anywhere as near as dangerous as it is claimed. Certainly, a bit of good publicity wouldn't go-amiss. I recall an episode on the Simpsons (a show by Fox), the town they live in was turned into a fracking community. It had a rather wonderful publicity campaign!

[Imperializt Russia]

makes us ever-less reliant on Russia (obviously, not entirely,)

While I'm broadly pro-fracking, the only energy source we rely on Russia for is coal, which we are trying to reduce our usage of anyway. Fracking isn't needed to for energy security of this sort.

We also import gas from Russian companies.
Not Russian gas, it's worth pointing out, but we import it from Russia.

[Imperializt Russia]

There's a massive image problem, and rightfully so. No-one believes the pro-fracking community, because all they do is promise it'll all be fine and solve all our problems ever. They're worse than the Vote Leave campaign.
They fail to demonstrate this. They don't even try.

In some of the American fracking operations, studies after operation deduced that yeah, it was basically safe and not environmentally damaging (one groundwater contamination incident was due to the well being improperly fitted, which still doesn't inspire confidence, but the point is, it's not inherent).
Yet the companies don't seem at all willing to engage. Or point this out. Or really do their own public studies to try and assuage public fears.

They either outright don't care, or are just full of themselves.
Remember what happened last time we had companies like that in the UK? NIREX put nuclear waste management back at least thirty years.

I use this term a lot; overrated. And the problems are overrated, as you say, studies have shown that 'fracking' is not anywhere as near as dangerous as it is claimed. Certainly, a bit of good publicity wouldn't go-amiss. I recall an episode on the Simpsons (a show by Fox), the town they live in was turned into a fracking community. It had a rather wonderful publicity campaign!

I'm sorry, did you miss my last line?

Community (stakeholder) engagement is vital in the modern era. We have seen how catastrophic it is to operations and company image to ignore it.
It is not "overrated". Like I said, failure to properly engage communities is what killed NIREX and set back the nuclear waste question in this country by decades.

[Valaran]

While I'm broadly pro-fracking, the only energy source we rely on Russia for is coal, which we are trying to reduce our usage of anyway. Fracking isn't needed to for energy security of this sort.

We also import gas from Russian companies.
Not Russian gas, it's worth pointing out, but we import it from Russia.

I'm not entirely sure that its a massive amount. One the one hand, there's this. On the other hand, there is this. But even if we take the British Gas' stats, most of the Russian Gas ends up in nations east of Germany (including in Germany itself) rather than western Europe. And even if we take an average (assume that a third of our European suppled gas is from Russia, since it supplies a third of European gas generally, which I don't believe is the case for the reasons listed above) that only comes up to 15% of our consumption. Important sure, but not crucially so.

Indirectly, this would still make us vulnerable to Russia turning off the taps (which is something of an extreme situation anyhow), but on a direct basis, not much comes from Russia.

E: Here's an older image divvying up reliance on Russian gas by Nation. Out of date, but it does sort of get the relative point across.

[Imperializt Russia]

No, because as I said, most of it isn't Russian.
Gazprom, which apparently has a sizeable presence in the UK, sells us mostly Norwegian gas because it's cheaper to transport.

[Lamadia]

I use this term a lot; overrated. And the problems are overrated, as you say, studies have shown that 'fracking' is not anywhere as near as dangerous as it is claimed. Certainly, a bit of good publicity wouldn't go-amiss. I recall an episode on the Simpsons (a show by Fox), the town they live in was turned into a fracking community. It had a rather wonderful publicity campaign!

I'm sorry, did you miss my last line?

Community (stakeholder) engagement is vital in the modern era. We have seen how catastrophic it is to operations and company image to ignore it.
It is not "overrated". Like I said, failure to properly engage communities is what killed NIREX and set back the nuclear waste question in this country by decades.

I didn't say that community collaboration was overrated, I said the problems of fracking were. Look at the post- I don't see how you could have muddled that up? It was 100% clear.

[Valaran]

No, because as I said, most of it isn't Russian.
Gazprom, which apparently has a sizeable presence in the UK, sells us mostly Norwegian gas because it's cheaper to transport.

I assumed by that you meant it came from Russian controlled states, not that norwegian gas was owned by Russian companies.

Simply having Gazprom's operate there isn't such a big deal. Even as an indirect arm of the Russian state, its not nearly as threatening as the pipelines sourcing the stuff being within Russia (Eastern Europe's problem).

[Eastfield Lodge]

I'm sorry, did you miss my last line?

Community (stakeholder) engagement is vital in the modern era. We have seen how catastrophic it is to operations and company image to ignore it.
It is not "overrated". Like I said, failure to properly engage communities is what killed NIREX and set back the nuclear waste question in this country by decades.

I didn't say that community collaboration was overrated, I said the problems of fracking were. Look at the post- I don't see how you could have muddled that up? It was 100% clear.

And IR was saying that community engagement is the key factor in its possible uptake in the UK, implying that the overhyped problems are hindering that.

[Lamadia]

I didn't say that community collaboration was overrated, I said the problems of fracking were. Look at the post- I don't see how you could have muddled that up? It was 100% clear.

And IR was saying that community engagement is the key factor in its possible uptake in the UK, implying that the overhyped problems are hindering that.

He is suggesting that I stated that public engagement is overrated. I did not.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm sorry, did you miss my last line?

Community (stakeholder) engagement is vital in the modern era. We have seen how catastrophic it is to operations and company image to ignore it.
It is not "overrated". Like I said, failure to properly engage communities is what killed NIREX and set back the nuclear waste question in this country by decades.

I didn't say that community collaboration was overrated, I said the problems of fracking were. Look at the post- I don't see how you could have muddled that up? It was 100% clear.

Even the problems of fracking aren't overrated. Claiming that they are would rather imply you don't care much for stakeholder involvement.

if you get to say "we shouldn't frack in London because London", we get to say "God's own county".

[Parti Ouvrier]

Money on wind farms isn't "wasted". Just throwing that out there. There are better arguments against them, and even then, not against them entirely, just against the number we should have.

Fracking won't bring us energy independence, because if we make a serious go of it, OPEC will tank the oil price again and make it unprofitable. Again.

Shale gas can reduce massively bill costs, making the energy industry in Britain more flushed with homegrown supply, makes us ever-less reliant on Russia (obviously, not entirely,) and can generate big jobs in small communities. Yorkshire should be happy.

Supposedly, I remain unconvinced by that propaganda.

[Lamadia]

Shale gas can reduce massively bill costs, making the energy industry in Britain more flushed with homegrown supply, makes us ever-less reliant on Russia (obviously, not entirely,) and can generate big jobs in small communities. Yorkshire should be happy.

Supposedly, I remain unconvinced by that propaganda.

Communist, are you? From your Signature, I can see you support leaving NATO & scrapping our nuclear deterrent.
Np, it isn't propaganda, rather cold-hard fact. The oil industry, the shale gas industry, are both massive, some of the biggest in the world. Communities will be made wealthy by these plans, jobs created, alongside new roads, new infrastructure, new workers will fuel new businesses, it will reduce energy prices... Look it up- it worked very well in the United States, and will here. It is about time we started to enter the modern age as far as our energy economy is concerned.

[Imperializt Russia]

Supposedly, I remain unconvinced by that propaganda.

Communist, are you? From your Signature, I can see you support leaving NATO & scrapping our nuclear deterrent.
Np, it isn't propaganda, rather cold-hard fact. The oil industry, the shale gas industry, are both massive, some of the biggest in the world. Communities will be made wealthy by these plans, jobs created, alongside new roads, new infrastructure, new workers will fuel new businesses, it will reduce energy prices... Look it up- it worked very well in the United States, and will here. It is about time we started to enter the modern age as far as our energy economy is concerned.

Enter the modern age by going back to 1962. Okay.

Shale is absolutely not new. It is not "the modern age". It's just something we don't do in the UK.

And like I said - it worked well for the US, until OPEC tanked the oil price because they saw the dependence slipping.

[Salandriagado]

We already do have that right.

Not with lethal force (ie, with a firearm) except in response to lethal force (whereupon the legality of using a firearm is very grey).

As I figure it probably should be.

Actually, no. That's not precisely, what "reasonable force" means: "reasonable force" essentially means that literally anything that you do instinctively in the heat of the moment in self defence or the defence of others is fine (very much including "shotgun to the face"), providing you stop as soon as there is no longer a direct plausible threat. Essentially: shoot a guy that's jumps around a corner and grabs you: probably legit. Scare them off, then punch him in the back as he's running away: definitely not legit. See here for details. In particular:

"If there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action. If a Jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken."

A victory for sanity; http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... five-years.
Councillors in Yorkshire have approved plans for fracking. Fracking is a massive industry- Britain is wasting billions on wind farms and so on. However important renewable energy is, the amount of money, the independence, shale gas can provide, could assure this country's energy industry for decades to come. We need more of this.

No, we really don't. Oil is a fucking disaster, and increasing oil use (as opposed to say, building some new nuclear reactors) is a monumentally bad idea.

Supposedly, I remain unconvinced by that propaganda.

Communist, are you? From your Signature, I can see you support leaving NATO & scrapping our nuclear deterrent.
Np, it isn't propaganda, rather cold-hard fact. The oil industry, the shale gas industry, are both massive, some of the biggest in the world. Communities will be made wealthy by these plans, jobs created, alongside new roads, new infrastructure, new workers will fuel new businesses, it will reduce energy prices... Look it up- it worked very well in the United States, and will here. It is about time we started to enter the modern age as far as our energy economy is concerned.

Again: oil, along with other fossil fuels, are something that we need to be phasing out as fast as physically possible.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Supposedly, I remain unconvinced by that propaganda.

Communist, are you? From your Signature, I can see you support leaving NATO & scrapping our nuclear deterrent.
Np, it isn't propaganda, rather cold-hard fact. The oil industry, the shale gas industry, are both massive, some of the biggest in the world. Communities will be made wealthy by these plans, jobs created, alongside new roads, new infrastructure, new workers will fuel new businesses, it will reduce energy prices... Look it up- it worked very well in the United States, and will here. It is about time we started to enter the modern age as far as our energy economy is concerned.

Jobs will be created, then streamlined for efficiency, communities will not benefit, the corporations will profit and profit some more, more new roads? New infrastructure? What would that be and why? New workers, sure. Reduced energy prices. I won't hold my breath. And it may have worked well in the US (although in debt at the moment, those words again - will need to streamline, get more efficiency gains), the US is also a lot bigger, thus shale gas drilling less intrusive, even then it's not always welcomed by communities. And there is more to the modern age than narrowly focusing on shale gas.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Communist, are you? From your Signature, I can see you support leaving NATO & scrapping our nuclear deterrent.
Np, it isn't propaganda, rather cold-hard fact. The oil industry, the shale gas industry, are both massive, some of the biggest in the world. Communities will be made wealthy by these plans, jobs created, alongside new roads, new infrastructure, new workers will fuel new businesses, it will reduce energy prices... Look it up- it worked very well in the United States, and will here. It is about time we started to enter the modern age as far as our energy economy is concerned.

Enter the modern age by going back to 1962. Okay.

Shale is absolutely not new. It is not "the modern age". It's just something we don't do in the UK.

And like I said - it worked well for the US, until OPEC tanked the oil price because they saw the dependence slipping.

True, although, to be fair, the industry will probably become more efficient to mitigate low oil prices, but then that will mean job losses, thus cancelling out the 'new workers' and new businesses being created. Besides which, its safety and green credentials are contested.

[Imperializt Russia]

Pretty sure the "green credentials" of fracking are inherently nil.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Pretty sure the "green credentials" of fracking are inherently nil.

Agreed, and unlike Lamadia, it would take more than a moronic Simpsons episode to convince me otherwise.

[Lamadia]

Communist, are you? From your Signature, I can see you support leaving NATO & scrapping our nuclear deterrent.
Np, it isn't propaganda, rather cold-hard fact. The oil industry, the shale gas industry, are both massive, some of the biggest in the world. Communities will be made wealthy by these plans, jobs created, alongside new roads, new infrastructure, new workers will fuel new businesses, it will reduce energy prices... Look it up- it worked very well in the United States, and will here. It is about time we started to enter the modern age as far as our energy economy is concerned.

Jobs will be created, then streamlined for efficiency, communities will not benefit, the corporations will profit and profit some more, more new roads? New infrastructure? What would that be and why? New workers, sure. Reduced energy prices. I won't hold my breath. And it may have worked well in the US (although in debt at the moment, those words again - will need to streamline, get more efficiency gains), the US is also a lot bigger, thus shale gas drilling less intrusive, even then it's not always welcomed by communities. And there is more to the modern age than narrowly focusing on shale gas.

New roads? New roads appeared in Texas when the oil was being drilled there- in Yorkshire, I doubt there is sufficient road infrastructure to handle such heavy traffic implicated with fracking, and thus there would be new roads. Not just rhetoric- common sense.
And yes, definitely a communist. The idea that only corporations profit, which they do, is nonsense. There is more to capitalism than just corporations- there are individuals, the workers, the community, who thrive in such circumstances.

[Imperializt Russia]

I assume the community involvement thing fucked up again, because the local response wouldn't have been 40-3800 against if they thought they would actually benefit from the scheme.

New roads get build when A, a very large volume is required and B, little to no infrastructure previously exists. Hence why China builds all those lovely roads in Africa that don't go anywhere except from the mine to the port.
Some road infrastructure exists in Yorkshire, it's not actually still stuck in 1842, and the traffic volumes will be much larger than now, but not vastly so.

Building new road infrastructure would mean no other road infrastructure could get directly to the site for, what, a year? They probably won't bother.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Jobs will be created, then streamlined for efficiency, communities will not benefit, the corporations will profit and profit some more, more new roads? New infrastructure? What would that be and why? New workers, sure. Reduced energy prices. I won't hold my breath. And it may have worked well in the US (although in debt at the moment, those words again - will need to streamline, get more efficiency gains), the US is also a lot bigger, thus shale gas drilling less intrusive, even then it's not always welcomed by communities. And there is more to the modern age than narrowly focusing on shale gas.

New roads? New roads appeared in Texas when the oil was being drilled there- in Yorkshire, I doubt there is sufficient road infrastructure to handle such heavy traffic implicated with fracking, and thus there would be new roads. Not just rhetoric- common sense.

More roads, so we're agreed it's not a green solution.

And yes, definitely a communist. The idea that only corporations profit, which they do, is nonsense. There is more to capitalism than just corporations- there are individuals, the workers, the community, who thrive in such circumstances.

You talk about individuals, etc in the abstract. If everyone is benefiting and there is no such thing as class antagonisms, how do you explain strikes? how do you explain bureaucratic tory red tape being placed (yet more bureaucratic red tape through the trade union bill, as if there wasn't enough red tape on unions), on unions?

[Parti Ouvrier]

I assume the community involvement thing fucked up again, because the local response wouldn't have been 40-3800 against if they thought they would actually benefit from the scheme.

New roads get build when A, a very large volume is required and B, little to no infrastructure previously exists. Hence why China builds all those lovely roads in Africa that don't go anywhere except from the mine to the port.
Some road infrastructure exists in Yorkshire, it's not actually still stuck in 1842, and the traffic volumes will be much larger than now, but not vastly so.

Building new road infrastructure would mean no other road infrastructure could get directly to the site for, what, a year? They probably won't bother.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some roads that lead nowhere here in Britain.

[Salandriagado]

Jobs will be created, then streamlined for efficiency, communities will not benefit, the corporations will profit and profit some more, more new roads? New infrastructure? What would that be and why? New workers, sure. Reduced energy prices. I won't hold my breath. And it may have worked well in the US (although in debt at the moment, those words again - will need to streamline, get more efficiency gains), the US is also a lot bigger, thus shale gas drilling less intrusive, even then it's not always welcomed by communities. And there is more to the modern age than narrowly focusing on shale gas.

New roads? New roads appeared in Texas when the oil was being drilled there- in Yorkshire, I doubt there is sufficient road infrastructure to handle such heavy traffic implicated with fracking, and thus there would be new roads. Not just rhetoric- common sense.
And yes, definitely a communist. The idea that only corporations profit, which they do, is nonsense. There is more to capitalism than just corporations- there are individuals, the workers, the community, who thrive in such circumstances.

You seem to be under the impression that building new roads and adding traffic on them is in any way a benefit.

I assume the community involvement thing fucked up again, because the local response wouldn't have been 40-3800 against if they thought they would actually benefit from the scheme.

New roads get build when A, a very large volume is required and B, little to no infrastructure previously exists. Hence why China builds all those lovely roads in Africa that don't go anywhere except from the mine to the port.
Some road infrastructure exists in Yorkshire, it's not actually still stuck in 1842, and the traffic volumes will be much larger than now, but not vastly so.

Building new road infrastructure would mean no other road infrastructure could get directly to the site for, what, a year? They probably won't bother.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some roads that lead nowhere here in Britain.

There is an entire never-used oil refinery in Scotland.

[Hydesland]

Dazza's just a normal bloke apparently: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ox ... e-36359921

[The Nihilistic view]

Railway to nowhere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erF-xFIkl_E