wozearly
55p159 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0
3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Chris Whiteside: Why B... · 0 replies · +1 points
I don't know the full details of the proposals, but my understanding is that you're right - strategically, this appears to be a sensible move and, although counterintuitive at a glance, has a valid and hopefully valuable role in what Net Zero is aiming at achieving.
In terms of Net Zero itself, I'm empathetic to what is trying to be achieved. And there's not really any 'perfect' way to go about it; similar to nuclear deproliferation, going alone domestically isn't enough (and going unilaterally carries additional problems), but it's far easier to ensure domestic action is taken than international action.
I don't write off carbon sustainability as virtue signalling, although it does undoubtedly attract some virtue signallers. On any given issue, I find it distasteful to see people of any political stripe try to throw out overwhelming scientific concensus on the basis of it being inconvenient to them personally or politically. On Net Zero itself as a policy, it's riddled with problems and challenges, but some of those do need addressing at some stage on a domestic level either way.
The irony of what seems to have happened here is that in the absence of a clearer overall strategy, and the ability to communicate Copeland mine's role as part of it, the Green/XR side of the fence has (somewhat understandably) risen up angrily at the proposals. Some perhaps because they haven't seen the bigger picture, some perhaps because the symbolism of opening a coal mine while pushing for overall emissions reductions was just too easy a target, leaving their opponents to make the counterintuitive case that it's actually a good idea.
The government has indicated there will be a clearer strategy on Net Zero coming out in the works. In the meantime, it's a shame that it's had to fall to local level politicians to explain and champion the case rather than national level ones.
3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Chris Whiteside: Why B... · 2 replies · +1 points
Sorry if pointing out that economic factors were raised offended you in some way, as I'm not sure why else you felt the need to paint me as a virtue signalling lunatic with no understanding of materials science.
3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Chris Whiteside: Why B... · 4 replies · +1 points
So some of the concerns are very much economical, not just environmental.
3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Protecting free speech... · 0 replies · +1 points
3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Protecting free speech... · 1 reply · +1 points
The issue Rowling walked into is complex, by no means new, and reflects tension between (some) feminist and (some) trans groups that ultimately boils down to the issue of whether a trans woman can, or should, be able to be recognised as and considered as a 'woman' by society at large - or whether it must be made clear that they are a 'trans woman', which puts them in a slightly awkward place given a number of occasions where society presents a split along gender lines that present the options are "male" or "female" only.
Both sides have valid points and legitimate concerns, and both have overly shrill factions that are all too happy to make it about a war of philosophical ideals with the other.
I think that to group arguments like this alongside critical race theory, 'cancel culture' and generally left of centre political views as being part of a co-ordinated "woke agenda" would be to see a puppetmaster where none exists. They're fundamentally separate tensions occurring between, or within, different groups in society with clashing views.
3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Chris Skidmore: Global... · 0 replies · +1 points
Ascension Island is well placed from that perspective, but is otherwise in the middle of nowhere, globally speaking, and without the size to develop the necessary surrounding industry, which again makes it a PITA to use as a launch site when more commercially sensible options are available.
We can continue to be at the forefront of developing and/or manufacturing the tech, but we'll realistically need to work in partnership with ESA or NASA to actually do anything with it. For all the popularity of EU-bashing these days, tying us in with ESA would be a smart strategic move if we intend to be major players in space.
3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Conservative MPs on wh... · 1 reply · +1 points
Tennis courts are currently closed, and there's no realistic prospect of audiences being allowed to watch games in person any time soon, but as tennis itself is a socially distanced sport it's one of those likely to come under the review on 22nd Feb and has a good to fair chance of having restrictions lifted.
3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Jenrick warns the City... · 0 replies · +1 points
https://democracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/documents/s...
The section on statues is part of the culture workstream, starting at point 74 on page 15 (ie, it really wasn't the focus of the exercise). In a nod to the article writer's lack of fact-checking, the decision to remove the statue of John Cass was taken by the John Cass foundation itself, rather than the City of London (point 78).
The idea that the City of London Corporation is run by leftists is easy to debunk with a quick look at the individuals involved. The same is true of the Policy and Resources Committee subset that approved the final decision.
Accusations that the members of the task force looking into it were more diverse politically and ethnically than the Corporation's typical leaders is correct, although in the context of a task force reporting into racism this is neither unexpected or undesirable. The majority of the recommendations of the task force had nothing to do with statues, nor was it their focus. The City also ran a public and internal consultation for 3 months before any final decision was made.
The decision to propose the removal and relocation of Beckford's statue primarily hinged around the fact that he was personally the owner of around 3,000 slaves on his sugar plantations in Jamaica. The Guildhall's reason for raising a statue in his honour in the first place was that the City of London Corporation of the time quite liked the rogue former Mayor for twice speaking up against the King when he disagreed with him, viewing it as asserting the City's right to speak out and be heard.
3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - "We have been terrific... · 0 replies · +1 points
On the academic "pure research" side, there will always be a certain truth that someone willing to push the boundaries of knowledge for the sake of it, not just because of a visible commercial prize at the end, is probably not the best placed person to attempt to monetise it. Not because of ethos so much as not having the right mix of skills for it. This is where UKRI and other halfway house groups can play a useful role in spreading knowledge as we'll as funding it, and connecting the newly forming technologies to people who can make creative and commercial use of them.
3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Jenrick warns the City... · 0 replies · +1 points
Yes, it's fair to ask "would providing additional context to the history of these individuals have been an appropriate alternative?", and I leave that for the City's task force to respond to, since I don't have their recommendations. But to me there is nothing screamingly wrong with a community deciding they no longer want statues up celebrating individuals who were heavily involved in the slave trade. That's not a hill I see as worth dying on.
To respond by threatening the existence of the City of London for making a decision some people disagree with (and which could be overturned democractically if it is a major issue to the people of the city) is petty beyond belief, and ironically echoes the actions of the "cancel culture" the author no doubt would profess to despise.
You could also spin the closing accusation round. Why is the author so desperate to expend his energy defending public venerations of individuals involved in the historic slave trade, if the truly important issue is raising awareness of and dealing with modern slavery.
If we are going to promote division and culture wars with our fellow citizens, can we at least make it over something worth defending?