Starmer's vision quest

[Psamathe]

Or whataboutery, as your approach is generally known.

Nothing to do with whataboutery. She is proposing a 3rd runway at Heathrow based on what virtually all experts in Climate Change are saying just doesn't stack-up and will cause increases in emissions rather than the reduction we are committed to making. She's talking twaddle about bat tunnels and species protections. She has announced she will be approving Rosebank & Jackdaw permissions despite the legally required application & impacts not having been submitted (ie she's bypassing scrutiny of climate damaging extraction).

No whataboutery[ in that. They are important issues. I can't understand where you get whataboutery from the points I've raised - makes no sense.

Ian

 

[icowden]

You are wasting your breath, Iain.

Yes I know. The fun is starting to go out of it now...

 

[icowden]

Nothing to do with whataboutery. She is proposing a 3rd runway at Heathrow based on what virtually all experts in Climate Change are saying just doesn't stack-up and will cause increases in emissions rather than the reduction we are committed to making.

At no point has she proposed it. It was proposed as far back as 2009 and Gordon Brown approved it. Call me Dave unapproved it. Theresa May reapproved it. Sadiq Khan applied for a judicial review and it was unapproved as the approval had been unlawful. Then the pandemic happened. And now it's back on the table again.

She's talking twaddle about bat tunnels and species protections.

She didn't say anything about bat tunnels as far as I can see. She did seem to indicate that developers need not worry about bats and newts anymore and to pay into a nature restoration fund instead which has rather annoyed the environmentalists.

She has announced she will be approving Rosebank & Jackdaw permissions despite the legally required application & impacts not having been submitted (ie she's bypassing scrutiny of climate damaging extraction).

They were already approved and the issue has been a technicality of process. The Judge specifically ruled that the companies could go on working on the oil fields but no oil or gas could be extracted unless fresh approval was granted. Oddly I can't find any news story reporting that Reeves has announced she will be approving the permissions.

 

[matticus]

No whataboutery[ in that. They are important issues. I can't understand where you get whataboutery from the points I've raised - makes no sense.

Quite simply because you were replying to the accusation of sexist insults. You retaliated by criticising the woman for something else - this is textbook whataboutery. Just scroll back and read your posts.

 

[Psamathe]

Quite simply because you were replying to the accusation of sexist insults. You retaliated by criticising the woman for something else - this is textbook whataboutery. Just scroll back and read your posts.

I replied to the accusation of sexist insults separately. Quotes on the post were to put it in the context of Ms Reeves as there are several parallel discussions going on in this thread. As far as I'm concerned the discussion of nicknames has run its course and the discussions moved on. There seem a range of opinions as to its use (often the case with nicknames) - fine, range of opinions on lots of things.

Climate Change denial and impacts has nothing to do with accusation of sexist or fascist insults.They are separate and valid points.

But I think best to agree to disagree as Climate change and Climate Denial and damage is a major issue and Ms Reeves appears to be throwing measures to reduce our impact "out of the window" so your seeing whataboutery is kind of a distraction from important topics and or no real interest to others.

Ian

 

[matticus]

But I think best to agree to disagree as Climate change and Climate Denial and damage is a major issue and Ms Reeves appears to be throwing measures to reduce our impact "out of the window" so your seeing whataboutery is kind of a distraction from important topics and or no real interest to others.

Because it IS an important topic, I think it unwise to discredit the cause with sexist comments.

(as well as the sexism, it gives the appearance of a personal vendetta on your part. Something very common when politicians are involved, I'm sure you can see. It is yourself who is causing the distraction! )

 

[Psamathe]

Because it IS an important topic, I think it unwise to discredit the cause with sexist comments.

(as well as the sexism, it gives the appearance of a personal vendetta on your part. Something very common when politicians are involved, I'm sure you can see. It is yourself who is causing the distraction! )

OK, so you don't want to agree to disagree and think everybody else wants to have the interesting thread polluted because you are associating unrelated posts.

I've explained the different subjects are unrelated, I've discussed the accusations of sexism (or fascism). I've clarified my intent and concerns. You don't seem to want to accept or believe any of that. I don't know what else I can say to clarify my meaning or concerns. You seem to be refusing to accept I have concerns over Ms Reeve's Climate & Environment damaging lies, misdirection and misunderstandings or at least you think I should not be allowed to post about those concerns. Again, makes no sense to me.

So why not agree top disagree?

Ian