• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Reply to: Greeny Hypocrisy ?

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Greeny Hypocrisy ?"

Collapse

  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    pj
    do you have any small bottles of shower gel I can borrow ?

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post


    Its reliance on old, highly variable and unpredictable fossil fuel prices that is costing Germany dear, not renewables.
    so the subsidy (a cost) goes up by 5.5 cents and the total charged to the customer goes up 11 cents sounds like 100% markup to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by MicrosoftBob View Post
    That could describe MPs as well
    Where's the slow-clap smiley?

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    High Costs and Errors of German Transition to Renewable Energy - SPIEGEL ONLINE

    with no proof it will make any difference to climate change


    Its reliance on old, highly variable and unpredictable fossil fuel prices that is costing Germany dear, not renewables.

    Leave a comment:


  • MicrosoftBob
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Taking money from hard-working people to line their pockets and providing very little value in return.

    But enough about recruitment agents...
    That could describe MPs as well

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Taking money from hard-working people to line their pockets and providing very little value in return.

    But enough about recruitment agents...

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    The only proof is to wait and see. Just like how it took decades to build a consensus that the climate was changing, and more time to build a consensus that man's impact was significant to that.
    In the meantime the left are robbing us blind and killing off capitalism

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    The only proof is to wait and see. Just like how it took decades to build a consensus that the climate was changing, and more time to build a consensus that man's impact was significant to that.

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
    Just a thought. Try and go a day without making stuff up.

    High Costs and Errors of German Transition to Renewable Energy - SPIEGEL ONLINE

    with no proof it will make any difference to climate change

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
    800,000 Germans have been disconnected because they cant pay their lekky bills.
    bills that are doubled due to green surcharges
    Just a thought. Try and go a day without making stuff up.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Can we put the children there then?

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    I found the Green policy about house insulation and warming up 2 million cold children (?!) amusing - if they let the world warm up a bit this wouldn't be a problem.

    Apparently the heat is hiding at the bottom of the oceans

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    The stuff you quoted doesn't mention the word members - I don't really use members as being representative.

    Interesting UKIP ban BNP members though... presumably because they can see that bad PR coming.
    no it doesn't but you seemed to suggest you meant more by 'supporters' not being happy about me quoting voting intentions. Hence the question at the top.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    The stuff you quoted doesn't mention the word members - I don't really use members as being representative.

    Interesting UKIP ban BNP members though... presumably because they can see that bad PR coming.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    How many supporters do you think BNP had? UKIP has a lot of supporters, so 3% of them could quite possibly be most of the BNP supporters.

    And of course you fail to mention (whether from ignorance or malice) this is data how UKIP supporters voted, not who they supported. Most constituencies probably didn't have a BNP candidate, so clearly not all BNP supporters voted BNP. You could say the same for UKIP in 2010 as well, your data makes it look like most current UKIP supporters weren't UKIP supporters in 2010 but that is not guaranteed. We've yet to see how many UKIP supports vote for UKIP in 2015, or if they are pragmatic and try to prevent Labour get in.
    Supporters=Members?
    or
    Supporters=likely to vote for them this time round?

    well as UKIP is the only party banning former BNP members it was obvious there is no point talking about members. But seeing as you mentioned it and you meant BNP-> UKIP members :

    Former BNP member disowned by Ukip | Politics | The Guardian

    UKIP > Join Online - see the declaration on the bottom, its been that way since 2003.

    plenty on Stormfront were upset about it.

    so its zero ex BNP members UKIP have accepted.

    The BNP did have 12,632 members
    Western Spring » BNP Membership Drops by 68% in Three Years

    as none should be joining UKIP where did they go? May I suggest other extreme organisations or Labour / Tory can't see them joining the greens.

    so the most sensible thing was to look at their voting intentions.

    If you read the link Yougov were specifically talking about who they were likely to vote for against who they voted for in 2010. It was the closest I could get to as 'supporters'

    so it wasn't malice or ignorance it was attempting to answer your underlying question.

    BNP got 940,000 votes in 2010.
    UKIP 3.2M votes in 2010.

    from the 14.8 people that make up that 3%. I make that about 96,000 votes so about 10% of BNP support less than UKIP's share of UK voters which has grown since 2010.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X