CornwallFox

Now apparently the green party are banning horse racing. All the right wing rags on it, jenrick and co tweeting about it. Is it a policy? No. A single tweet from 2018 is the sole rationale for the latest pile on. All just honest journalism though, I'm sure

Anybody got a way to watch this? Fancy an afternoon of misery

You could also mention it's just utter, utter nonsense. As proven by all the countries that don't use it. Such a blatantly transparently nonsense argument.

Why will we need gas? Our neighbours are showing us we really don't need gas. So why do people continue to say we're going to need it.... Based on what? The fact that fossil fuel investors in the British media keep telling us we need it? Clearly we don't. Also, has does this conversation fit with your thought that the greens would apparently destroy the economy with net zero policies?

My only real issue with this is Kemi Badenoch claiming the Tories have forced Labour down when it was the Tories that negotiated 95% of the deal. Really not a fan of dishonesty in media or politics.

The cost of energy here is all pegged to gas. Net zero has nothing to do with it. You can clearly see in your graph that we have the highest prices excluding taxation. Renewables are the cheapest form of energy. What we need to do is unpick the link between energy pricing and gas. Finland is shown as having the cheapest energy. In 2025, they were 42% renewables, 20% nuclear and 34% fossil fuel. Of the total, gas is 3% and coal 6.4%. In Sweden, in 2025 they were 99% low carbon energy. Nuclear is 27%, hydropower 41%, wind 23%. Oil is 0.1% and coal 0.3%. France was 97% low carbon Slovakia 86%. Denmark 86%. Portugal 70% Spain 79%. Britain had 0 coal used but gas fluctuated and at times could be up to 50% of the total. At other times renewables accounted for 60%. This is the reason our energy is costly. We need to go further and faster as getting away from expensive fossil fuels, and in particular gas. Fortunately, we have a government that are committed to doing this.

As I say, if it's policy or involves direct quotes from a leader then it's fair game to discuss and disagree over. Why do you think net zero would destroy the economy out of interest? There are huge economic opportunities through net zero.

I have zero faith in Glover to come up with any useful signings

The spectator: "If you’re wondering why, a party policy document on transport, revealed by the Mail, might give you a clue. The party wants to reduce motorway and dual carriageway speed limits to 55 mph" Clearly attempting to tell readers that there's a current policy (by not mentioning it was 16 years old policy that hasn't been policy since) and the party intention is a 55mph limit. Neither is true. The daily mail: "Even Green Party voters oppose Zack Polanski's plans to reduce the speed limit on Britain's motorways to 55mph, poll shows" and "More than 60 per cent of Green Party voters oppose plans to reduce the speed limit on Britain's motorways to just 55mph, according to a new poll. Almost 70 per cent of all voters are against Zack Polanski's party's controversial plans" They're running a poll and headlines about supposed plans that don't even exist. There are no plans. There is no policy. Clearly dishonest. The telegraph: "The Greens’ 55mph motorway speed limit is an insult to us all" The telegraph talks about a technical paper I believe, it's behind a pay wall, but clearly the article is intended to cause the reader to think the party plans a 55mph speed limit. It doesn't. There is no policy or plan. This is very obviously a coordinated attempt to right wing media to discredit the green party. Rather than picking an actual policy, they've chosen to highlight something that is not a policy or plan, but poll people and run headlines which cause the reader to believe it is a policy or plan.

But it isn't a plan is it? This is the point. It's dishonest. Why not pick out an actual policy and then rip it to shreds, instead of pretending there's a plan to do something when they haven't even got a policy, let alone a plan to enact one. Really don't understand what you aren't understanding here.

That depends. Is it current party policy or something that their leader has said they believe in? If so then it's obviously fair game. If it isn't a policy at all then clearly that would be stupid. I'm not sure why you're all pretending this is hard to understand.

So far at I can see, ZP, whatever you think of his politics, appears very happy to be questioned and it's noticeably good at dealing with interviewers. That's different from claiming something is a policy when it isn't a policy. That really shouldn't be hard to understand. Let's agree to disagree because I really can't be bothered to carry on with this.

Nonsense. It's being used as an attack with zero basis in current policy. Very, very clearly. Should it become policy then it would be absolutely legitimate to focus on it. But it isn't. Beggars belief anybody tries to defend this nonsense.

What aren't you understanding here? They are developing their policy. You don't say anything is in or out until it's developed as who knows, maybe it could be (it won't be). No party days anything about policy until they fix it. I really don't know why you're still playing this stupid game.

Of course media should look at what they would likely do. But is it likely that they'll re-introduce a policy that they got rid of 16 years ago and would be hugely unpopular? Of course it's not likely. But they aren't pushing the idea to honestly discuss possible policy are they? Let's stop playing games, they're putting up those headlines to intentionally mislead people into believing it's their policy. Which is clearly not helpful to democracy. As to the rest of your post, all policies for all parties should be discussed and aired publicly, but it should be an honest discussion based on honesty about what is party policy. We really need to get past the post-fact world in which we currently live and get back to agreeing in what is factual and then debating differences in opinion as to what the response to those facts should be.

You seem to be ignoring the point here. It isn't current policy. His quote that you shared specifically talks about newspapers pulling out old policies and ignoring the fact they are reviewing their policies. He doesn't commit to any policy, obviously, given they don't have a current policy. So therefore when newspapers claim that the greens are pursuing a 55mph policy it is not true. Granted, he hasn't ruled it out, in the same way he hasn't ruled out increasing it to 100mph, but there is no current policy. Therefore claims made by the mail, telegraph etc are not true.

In January of this year the UK's national security assessment into Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security was published. You can find it below. This is not written by Greenpeace, hippies or even scientists. It's our government's formal assessment of security risk. Read it. The main body is only about 10 pages long. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/696e0eae719d837d69afc7de/National_security_assessment_-_global_biodiversity_loss__ecosystem_collapse_and_national_security.pdf Some 'highlights': The world is already experiencing the impacts of biodiversity loss, including crop failures, intensified natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks.1,2,3 Ecosystem degradation is occurring across all regions and ecosystems. The average size of monitored wildlife populations declined by 73% between 1970-2020. Populations of vertebrate species have declined by an average of 68% since 1970. Freshwater ecosystem species populations have shown the largest losses, falling 84% in the same period.4 The rate of extinction is tens to hundreds of times higher than the average over the past 10 million years. It suggests that a sixth mass extinction may be underway.2, 5 With current trends, global ecosystem degradation is highly likely to continue to 2050 and beyond. There is a high degree of uncertainty around the timing and pathways of ecosystem degradation, given the number and complexity of the drivers involved. Food production is the most significant cause of terrestrial biodiversity loss.6, 7 As the global population grows, reaching 9.7 billion by 2050,8 the impact of food production on natural systems will intensify and it will become even more challenging to produce sufficient food sustainably.

So their transport policies are under review, as you would expect given it's a relatively new leadership. How does that equate to screaming headlines that they plan to reduce motorway speed limits to 55mph? It's clearly untruths being spread to attack a party. This is not helpful to democracy. It's exactly the same as the daily mail spreading lies about labour planning to introduce a garden tax on the eve of an election, when no such thing was in their manifesto. We need a media that is free to challenge anybody, but we also need a media that deals in facts.

Netenyahu is openly going around telling anybody that will listen that he is the "King of America" and the war only ends when he says so.

Stolen from elsewhere: It's probably a good time to remind everyone that 11 years ago, President Obama negotiated a landmark deal with Iran that saw tangible restrictions on Iran's nuclear program that could be monitored and enforced, while placing realistic limits on how quickly they could plausibly develop a weapon if they chose to break the deal. It included: Enrichment capped at 3.67% purity (weapons-grade is 90%). Uranium stockpile cut by 98%. Exhaustive, intrusive, and continuous monitoring by the IAEA. In return, the UN, USA, and EU agreed to lift specific sanctions related to its nuclear program (but not sanctions related to its proxies, ballistic missile program, or human rights abuses). The USA also agreed to unfreeze about $50 billion in Iranian assets. This agreement was signed without a shot being fired or a life being lost. There was no massive military campaign or economic crisis, and no one questioned whether commercial vessels could travel through the Strait of Hormuz without being sunk. Trump has declared a ceasefire, ostensibly on the grounds that: "We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate". According to Iranian State media, these 10 points include: • Iran maintains control of the Hormuz Strait and charges every transiting vessel $2 million as a tariff to fund reconstruction. • Removal of all sanctions and release of frozen assets. • Iran commits to not seeking possession of any nuclear weapons, but makes no commitment regarding enrichment or monitoring. • USA withdrawals completely from the Middle-East. • Israel stops its war on Hezbollah and the Houthis. • Immediate ceasefire takes effect on all fronts immediately upon approval of the above conditions Obviously, this is not a final deal that Trump has agreed to, but I think it's worth appreciating just how much ground Trump is going to have to make up just to get something even close to what Obama had signed the whole world on to more than a decade ago. The Iranian regime remains in power, now with unprecedented strategic leverage over the entire planet, and quite possibly a renewed conviction that the development of a nuclear deterrent is the only means to achieve security.

No I didn't assume you supported him, just responding it would be a pretty poor play. But then again everything he's done in the last few months has lost America it's standing in the world so I'm not sure he cares or probably even realises.

By all accounts the son was already running things, the dad was just the figurehead

Would you now order more from the US? I'm not sure they're selling more to the world after their behaviour over the last year. Tourism is down, countries have been setting up alternative suppliers for stuff like military equipment. There are moves by some countries to stop selling oil in dollars. Not sure it's a very good plan if that's their plan.

It's not been in a manifesto or party policy for 16 years. Should they really need to go around debunking every lie spread on social media? Should we not expect the proper media to just be, you know, honest?

On a completely different subject, I've noticed a concerted effort across media and social media to talk up the green party seeking a 55mph motorway speed limit, and a need to re-test every 5 years as a driver. As far as I can tell, these things appeared once in a 2010 manifesto but haven't been party policy since, nor have they been suggested. So why are lies being spread? I really, really dislike how democracy is manipulated by money.