UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

all arguments about economic efficiency fail against the ultimate hurdle of "basing your national or global economy based off of dead animals or crushed rocks and hoping you don't run out which you will" is a bad idea and you really need to stop doing it

stop it

does anyone legitimately believe this was ever actually going to work

That's an economic efficiency argument (just a very bad one).

[Souseiseki]

all arguments about economic efficiency fail against the ultimate hurdle of "basing your national or global economy based off of dead animals or crushed rocks and hoping you don't run out which you will" is a bad idea and you really need to stop doing it

stop it

does anyone legitimately believe this was ever actually going to work

That's an economic efficiency argument (just a very bad one).

i suppose you could argue that

i don't see how it's a bad one though

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

That's an economic efficiency argument (just a very bad one).

i suppose you could argue that

i don't see how it's a bad one though

It's a bad argument because fossil fuels just aren't scarce on the time scale power plants need to be replaced anyway. We will not run out of coal in the next fifty years. We might run out in five hundred years. But we will need to have replaced the whole power grid ten times by then anyway.

[Trumptonium]

Question for Trump;
If anyone worth a fuck moves away because of terrible pollution and smog clouds making living in britain shit, how much does that "cost"?
Or do you deny even that is a thing?

I don't advocate pollutive energy, I was quite pleased when Rudd announced the closure of all coal power stations (but it was a bad idea - there was no preparation and there will be a shortage, in other words, the target date will not remotely be met by about 10 years. There's simply no replacement infrastructure to keep up with the demand following the shut-off, unless they plan to ration our energy like in DPRK).

I much prefer nuclear power, though. It's cheap to maintain and the investment pays itself off over the intended long period of usage. Pollution is minimal while energy production is most efficient per pound of investment, aka we're getting the most for our money. A consumer in France - a nation running almost entirely nuclear - pays half the price for their energy as a consumer in Germany. In fact an average Frenchman pays just 14 months worth of bills for the whole year of a Pole, and that says a lot given the latter's dramatically lower costs of living. I admit that having a state-run non-monopolised player in the industry might help, though.

Don't buy into all that other EnviroBS though. Electric cars everywhere is a reality only in the dreams of the hippiest of people. I certainly will never use one.

[Hydesland]

There are other strategic benefits to having large energy reserves that we don't have to import from elsewhere that could indirectly enrich us.

Maybe but also not what you were saying. Saudi is not famous for its amazing independence from imports. It is famous for being rich for doing nothing.

*I* didn't say anything Saudi, I posted an article and commented that it's good we can make use of our windy shores - there is no point getting so hung up about the Saudi comparison in the article.

It's a bad argument because fossil fuels just aren't scarce on the time scale power plants need to be replaced anyway. We will not run out of coal in the next fifty years. We might run out in five hundred years. But we will need to have replaced the whole power grid ten times by then anyway.

There is no efficiency argument for doing anything other than immediately phasing out coal as long as you accept rudimentary climate science.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

It's a bad argument because fossil fuels just aren't scarce on the time scale power plants need to be replaced anyway. We will not run out of coal in the next fifty years. We might run out in five hundred years. But we will need to have replaced the whole power grid ten times by then anyway.

There is no efficiency argument for doing anything other than immediately phasing out coal as long as you accept rudimentary climate science.

If you accept complex and frankly extremely sketchy computer simulations, it's probably worth replacing coal with fission. We also pretty much replaced coal with gas already anyway on pure cost grounds. But then I never brought up coal specifically.

[MERIZoC]

When will Corbyn stop cozying up to tyrants?

[Hydesland]

When will Corbyn stop cozying up to tyrants?

He'll stop as long as they're ostensibly allied to the west.

[Imperializt Russia]

1. The rest:

I didn't say anything about incentives. Shareholders are people who worked at other things to make money and then gave some of that money to buy things like power stations. If you "fired" them they would take their power station with them. Which is one reason companies aren't generally structured to allow absurd things like that to happen.

2. Because the owners of those companies are screwing their workers. It's like asking "If democracy is better for society, including its ruling classes, why is there a north korea?"

You can drive Vodafone out of business by just doing its job more efficiently. You can't drive North Korea out of business by being a better run country. This is the stupidest analogy I've read in months.

Odd, since it's usually the second argument in line for "why did the Soviet Union fall?" - communism bad, capitalism good, natural order of world restored 1992.

[Questers]

If we hadn't sold off almost all of our nuclear infrastructure we could just have built our own nuclear power plants. The ones we used to have were good for the time and this is an incredibly efficient way to manufacture tonnes of electricity with almost zero environmental problems. It could then be used to power electrical buses and cars.

Britain's total electricity use is about 347 tw/h. A very large nuclear power plant such as the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa NPP might produce 60 tw/h per year. The large French NPPs commissioned in the 80s produce about 38-40~. Coal and wind get fukt.

[Questers]

When will Corbyn stop cozying up to tyrants?

He'll stop as long as they're ostensibly allied to the west.

Britain isn't KSA's ally. KSA is our suzerain.

[Questers]

A Questers Communist Britain would disarm Saudi Arabia and dispossess it of its oil. Arabs don't really like it up em.

[Ostroeuropa]

A Questers Communist Britain would disarm Saudi Arabia and dispossess it of its oil. Arabs don't really like it up em.

We could stop trading, but it's not sufficient. I think a better tact to take would be to match their funding on winding up muslims about retaking their holy cities from a decadent and heretical dynasty. We would get more bang for our buck by leaflet dropping expose's on all the fucked up and sinful shit they do as royals compared to bombing runs that only seem to produce more terrorists, and are only really worth it when targetting training camps or weapons depots. Follow that up with unapologetic tit-for-tat strikes on their line of succession, taking out a number tied to the number of civilian casualties terrorist strikes caused by their funding cause.

7 londoners die?
7 Sauds die, closer to the top the better to destabilize them. (As in, members of the house of saud. Not saudi arabians.)

The goal would be to provoke a civil war in saudi arabia that would eliminate the Sauds ability to fund terrorism and be dickheads, and would also become the obvious focal point for all militant islamists. If they're going to kill for their religion, they may as well be killing the Sauds, who are doubtlessly sinful and in possession of the holy land. Revolution would also be satisfactory, as this would remove the Sauds.

the tit-for-tat strikes could be policy and trade could even continue, if they were willing after realizing what was happening. I suspect a nation adopting that strategy would quickly find that terrorists weren't being wound up to attack there quite so much, and were encouraged to focus elsewhere.

As an added benefit, openly pursuing a policy of destabilizing the Sauds and working toward their overthrow/removal would signal to oil buyers that they had best find other markets while they are able to still buy from the Sauds, as the Sauds won't be selling for much longer. A business could not afford a year of sudden cut off.

[Trumptonium]

^ Questers

Why are all Labour party supporters either ardent militarists with a giant fetish for invading Muslims or disgustingly anti-protection-of-any-sort hippies?

[Major-Tom]

^ Questers

Why are all Labour party supporters either ardent militarists with a giant fetish for invading Muslims or disgustingly anti-protection-of-any-sort hippies?

They're not lmao.

One could ask "Why are all Tories pound shop balding, fat men with an alcohol problem or ardent elitists with a giant fetish for malice?"

One could ask that, but it wouldn't be all that true a statement. Neither would yours about Labour.

[Vassenor]

^ Questers

Why are all Labour party supporters either ardent militarists with a giant fetish for invading Muslims or disgustingly anti-protection-of-any-sort hippies?

> invading Muslims

Oh here we go again.

[Eastfield Lodge]

A Questers Communist Britain would disarm Saudi Arabia and dispossess it of its oil. Arabs don't really like it up em.

We could stop trading, but it's not sufficient. I think a better tact to take would be to match their funding on winding up muslims about retaking their holy cities from a decadent and heretical dynasty. We would get more bang for our buck by leaflet dropping expose's on all the fucked up and sinful shit they do as royals compared to bombing runs that only seem to produce more terrorists, and are only really worth it when targetting training camps or weapons depots. Follow that up with unapologetic tit-for-tat strikes on their line of succession, taking out a number tied to the number of civilian casualties terrorist strikes caused by their funding cause.

7 londoners die?
7 Sauds die, closer to the top the better to destabilize them. (As in, members of the house of saud. Not saudi arabians.)

The goal would be to provoke a civil war in saudi arabia that would eliminate the Sauds ability to fund terrorism and be dickheads, and would also become the obvious focal point for all militant islamists. If they're going to kill for their religion, they may as well be killing the Sauds, who are doubtlessly sinful and in possession of the holy land. Revolution would also be satisfactory, as this would remove the Sauds.

the tit-for-tat strikes could be policy and trade could even continue, if they were willing after realizing what was happening. I suspect a nation adopting that strategy would quickly find that terrorists weren't being wound up to attack there quite so much, and were encouraged to focus elsewhere.

As an added benefit, openly pursuing a policy of destabilizing the Sauds and working toward their overthrow/removal would signal to oil buyers that they had best find other markets while they are able to still buy from the Sauds, as the Sauds won't be selling for much longer. A business could not afford a year of sudden cut off.

If you're going to be so blatantly militaristic, why not just raze all of Saudi Arabia to the ground in a ball of fire and missiles?

[Ostroeuropa]

We could stop trading, but it's not sufficient. I think a better tact to take would be to match their funding on winding up muslims about retaking their holy cities from a decadent and heretical dynasty. We would get more bang for our buck by leaflet dropping expose's on all the fucked up and sinful shit they do as royals compared to bombing runs that only seem to produce more terrorists, and are only really worth it when targetting training camps or weapons depots. Follow that up with unapologetic tit-for-tat strikes on their line of succession, taking out a number tied to the number of civilian casualties terrorist strikes caused by their funding cause.

7 londoners die?
7 Sauds die, closer to the top the better to destabilize them. (As in, members of the house of saud. Not saudi arabians.)

The goal would be to provoke a civil war in saudi arabia that would eliminate the Sauds ability to fund terrorism and be dickheads, and would also become the obvious focal point for all militant islamists. If they're going to kill for their religion, they may as well be killing the Sauds, who are doubtlessly sinful and in possession of the holy land. Revolution would also be satisfactory, as this would remove the Sauds.

the tit-for-tat strikes could be policy and trade could even continue, if they were willing after realizing what was happening. I suspect a nation adopting that strategy would quickly find that terrorists weren't being wound up to attack there quite so much, and were encouraged to focus elsewhere.

As an added benefit, openly pursuing a policy of destabilizing the Sauds and working toward their overthrow/removal would signal to oil buyers that they had best find other markets while they are able to still buy from the Sauds, as the Sauds won't be selling for much longer. A business could not afford a year of sudden cut off.

If you're going to be so blatantly militaristic, why not just raze all of Saudi Arabia to the ground in a ball of fire and missiles?

Because the people of Saudi Arabia aren't necessarily the problem. The problem is the house of Saud and their funding of terrorism and terrorist ideologies.
Your approach is also disproportionate, whereas mine is proportional. One for one on strikes, plus funding matching on winding up people to hate the government of eachother.
Which part of this approach specifically do you disagree with?

Personally i'd wager that with sufficient anti-saud propoganda (The added benefit being we don't have to lie about much.) they'd be the primary target for Islamic militants, since they are closer, and it fits with the religious mentality to shore up the homeland before expanding.

Arguably the only reason the sauds are doing all this winding up of people is that they need to distract zealots from them in the first place.

It's fairly simple.

"The war on the west is failing because Allah is angry we have allowed mecca to fall to these heretical and sinful usurpers."

If we can have our enemies fight eachother instead of us, then why shouldn't we do that?

Environmentalism could also be pushed by encouraging the populace to notice the wests reliance on oil, and linking Saud sales of it to their treachery.
Then, when they take over, they'll stop selling it.

The key is to tell the same story a thousand different ways, but basically amounting to, "Bring down the Sauds, because Islam."

This might provoke a back and forth of "No, kill that guy instead!" or it might provoke the Sauds to start preaching peace. Either is also acceptable. The first makes the entire thing seem ridiculous and incoherent, and the second amounts to them de-escalating, after which, so can we.

[Questers]

^ Questers

Why are all Labour party supporters either ardent militarists with a giant fetish for invading Muslims or disgustingly anti-protection-of-any-sort hippies?

As opposed to the Conservative party supporters position: speak loudly and carry a small stick

[Eastfield Lodge]

If you're going to be so blatantly militaristic, why not just raze all of Saudi Arabia to the ground in a ball of fire and missiles?

Because the people of Saudi Arabia aren't necessarily the problem. The problem is the house of Saud and their funding of terrorism and terrorist ideologies.
Your approach is also disproportionate, whereas mine is proportional. One for one on strikes, plus funding matching on winding up people to hate the government of eachother.
Which part of this approach specifically do you disagree with?

Personally i'd wager that with sufficient anti-saud propoganda (The added benefit being we don't have to lie about much.) they'd be the primary target for Islamic militants, since they are closer, and it fits with the religious mentality to shore up the homeland before expanding.

Arguably the only reason the sauds are doing all this winding up of people is that they need to distract zealots from them in the first place.

It's fairly simple.

"The war on the west is failing because Allah is angry we have allowed mecca to fall to these heretical and sinful usurpers."

If we can have our enemies fight eachother instead of us, then why shouldn't we do that?

Environmentalism could also be pushed by encouraging the populace to notice the wests reliance on oil, and linking Saud sales of it to their treachery.
Then, when they take over, they'll stop selling it.

The key is to tell the same story a thousand different ways, but basically amounting to, "Bring down the Sauds, because Islam."

This might provoke a back and forth of "No, kill that guy instead!" or it might provoke the Sauds to start preaching peace. Either is also acceptable. The first makes the entire thing seem ridiculous and incoherent, and the second amounts to them de-escalating, after which, so can we.

You're operating on the principle that the Middle East populace can be convinced that the Sauds are the root of terrorism, and not the USA/Jews. There's this meme that repeatedly pops up in my Facebook feed from various different pages where the USA places a terrorist into a Muslim city, destroys the city as a excuse, and then recycles the terrorism; and that's amongst several different posts about the CIA/USA/'the West' creating division in the Middle East as a means of destruction/conquest.

Also, why not just go with the principle of "Can't have Islamic terrorism if there aren't any Muslims"?

[Hydesland]

He'll stop as long as they're ostensibly allied to the west.

Britain isn't KSA's ally. KSA is our suzerain.

They're an ally in the sense that Iran, Palestine, Syria etc.. are not an allies, from wiki:

"Although a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, Saudi Arabia has been described as leading the "Pro-Western Camp" of Arab countries, aligned with the U.S. and composed of Egypt, Jordan, and Arab states of the Arabian Gulf.[5]"

See also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Ara ... _relations

[Imperializt Russia]

^ Questers

Why are all Labour party supporters either ardent militarists with a giant fetish for invading Muslims or disgustingly anti-protection-of-any-sort hippies?

He spent the early part of this year supporting the Tories explicitly in order to oppose Labour, I'd hardly say Ostro was a "Labour supporter", but Ostro certainly isn't representative of a Labour supporter, nor even Labour voter. Nor am I, nor is Questers.

[Ostroeuropa]

^ Questers

Why are all Labour party supporters either ardent militarists with a giant fetish for invading Muslims or disgustingly anti-protection-of-any-sort hippies?

He spent the early part of this year supporting the Tories explicitly in order to oppose Labour, I'd hardly say Ostro was a "Labour supporter", but Ostro certainly isn't representative of a Labour supporter, nor even Labour voter. Nor am I, nor is Questers.

I'm a labour party member again, though i'd agree my "Support" is rather tepid.

[Imperializt Russia]

He spent the early part of this year supporting the Tories explicitly in order to oppose Labour, I'd hardly say Ostro was a "Labour supporter", but Ostro certainly isn't representative of a Labour supporter, nor even Labour voter. Nor am I, nor is Questers.

I'm a labour party member again, though i'd agree my "Support" is rather tepid.

Yeah, I've just realised how that post looks.

My point was that you certainly aren't "all Labour supporters".

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm a labour party member again, though i'd agree my "Support" is rather tepid.

Yeah, I've just realised how that post looks.

My point was that you certainly aren't "all Labour supporters".

Fair enough. I'm probably fringe on a number of issues, but you never know. Corbyn is the party darling for the base, because he's leftish.