Annie Bynnol Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 Dronfield Conservatives have made a point of opposing the fracking proposal! The fact that this policy is in direct contradiction of Westminster Tory policy is yet to catch up with them. And the Tory candidate for North East Derbyshire is not mentioning the issue much. Dronfield Conservatives versus Theresa May. The result is... A"...candidate for North East Derbyshire is not mentioning the issue much." versus a candidate who goes into great detail on why they have a viewpoint on fracking. The best candidate is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoatwobbler Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 Dronfield Conservatives versus Theresa May. The result is... A"...candidate for North East Derbyshire is not mentioning the issue much." versus a candidate who goes into great detail on why they have a viewpoint on fracking. The best candidate is... A loaded question with the answer you might be wishing for certain to get less votes as a result of this. Regardless of your political viewpoint, there's no getting round the fact that politics in 2017 is a sickly, unjust beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrinkly67 Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 The views of Natascha Engel, Labour MP for North East Derbyshire on proposals for fracking near Eckington. Goes directly against Labour party policy and will be something of a slap in the face for the majority of local residents opposed to fracking. https://nataschaengel.com/fracking/ I find this quite clever. Whilst sticking to her opinion on fracking, she has covered the whole spectrum of her constituents in a way quite beneficial to gaining votes. "I am not against fracking" - could go down well with the like-minded. "I totally agree with the green campaigners" - so that's taken care of them. As for the majority - not in the firing line but with reservations, her research assures us of no proven safety issues. And a "massive expansion creating jobs" (as opposed to loss of jobs if fracking doesn't happen) has to be good for a few votes. And for those on the door step and most affected - her concerns over lorry movements - quickly explained away that disruption won't be on-going. In addition "compensation paid to locally affected residents", a Community Liaison Group (which always gives the hope that something is being done) to fight for a "shale bus", "free energy for all homes within a certain radius", "INEOS to work with Eckington School" and "to pay for local people to train as lorry drivers". All winners to some who can't see further than the end of their nose if there's "summat for nothing". So a few more won over there? I don't doubt that Natascha is hardworking in the care of her constituents but I don't see how she would ever be in a position of being a lone voice against her party when as a Deputy Speaker, she can no longer vote or take part in debates on any issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoatwobbler Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 I find this quite clever. Whilst sticking to her opinion on fracking, she has covered the whole spectrum of her constituents in a way quite beneficial to gaining votes. "I am not against fracking" - could go down well with the like-minded. "I totally agree with the green campaigners" - so that's taken care of them. As for the majority - not in the firing line but with reservations, her research assures us of no proven safety issues. And a "massive expansion creating jobs" (as opposed to loss of jobs if fracking doesn't happen) has to be good for a few votes. And for those on the door step and most affected - her concerns over lorry movements - quickly explained away that disruption won't be on-going. In addition "compensation paid to locally affected residents", a Community Liaison Group (which always gives the hope that something is being done) to fight for a "shale bus", "free energy for all homes within a certain radius", "INEOS to work with Eckington School" and "to pay for local people to train as lorry drivers". All winners to some who can't see further than the end of their nose if there's "summat for nothing". So a few more won over there? I don't doubt that Natascha is hardworking in the care of her constituents but I don't see how she would ever be in a position of being a lone voice against her party when as a Deputy Speaker, she can no longer vote or take part in debates on any issues. I have been keenly monitoring the reaction to this on Tw@tter and the anti-fracking campaigners and local residents responding to this are in no way "taken care of" or appeased. Quite the opposite in fact! I think she (and INEOS) will have to show a lot more of their research to local residents to get them anywhere close to accepting fracking. And I don't think a couple of extra buses a day will be enough to bring Marsh Lane residents round to Engels point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Luthor Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 (edited) Wow, this is a really big political if not to say philosophical question. If the resource is natural how can it belong to anyone? Using the logic that everything belongs to someone how long will it be before we are charged for breathing? Look at why natural resources, such as oil, gas and land belong to someone and it's territorial theft or spoils of war which has ensured that the winners of fights end up owning these things. My sentiments exactly. To borrow Crocodile Dundee's analogy - if they think these natural resources actually belong to them, it's like a bunch of fleas, thinking they own the dog they're riding on. We don't 'own' anything. We've just been fortunate enough to have been put here at this time. We are caretakers for generations to come. By the way, did anyone see Dr Who yesterday? Where the oxygen was being sucked out of their suits and being sold back to them? Very frightening - and I'm afraid we're already a long, long way down that path. ---------- Post added 14-05-2017 at 18:32 ---------- The Act is at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/7/contents Please look at it and report-back whether (and where) it supports your view. Section 45 seems to support my view, you see. What is lawful is not necessarily just. Edited May 14, 2017 by Lex Luthor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 What is lawful is not necessarily just. Well, define "just"! If it's unlawful, one may be prosecuted. Claiming that one acted "justly" is not a defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukdobby Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 Just seen the anti fracking protesters packing up shop after months,who are these people?are they professional protesters?how do they pay their way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickey finn Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 Just seen the anti fracking protesters packing up shop after months,who are these people?are they professional protesters?how do they pay their way? Big Issue ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukdobby Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 Big Issue ? What whilst protesting?or are they part time protesters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lottiecass Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 No amount of protesting will stop fracking, too much money involved, its a done deal like it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now