It goes to the existing sewage treatment plant at Beckton.

Our sewer systems were too old to handle too much rain water, so when it rained heavily, the sewers overflowed into the Thames. Which was intentional, insofar as it’s better than overflowing into the streets, but obviously not ideal.

Yes, I’m willing to give a lot of leeway to Starmer because he won, but his comms are just terrible. Hostile media, sure, but why are they talking about benefit cuts and deportations instead of this stuff?

Yes, this. And studies like this shouldn’t make us complacent about our ability to identify or avoid misinformation!

This is a weird experience for me. Normally when I demonstrate that things are, in fact, the case, people just go very quiet. This is the first time I’ve had ‘that’s too much proof’ used against me, so you at least get some marks for originality.

I do indeed get my information about the news from the news; again, it hadn’t previously occurred to me to do it another way, so I guess I’m learning a lot! I’m not learning things like ‘Why does this person I’m talking to on a website think websites are objects of scorn?’ or ‘Where do they get their news if not from the news?’ but, still. It’s not nothing.

Nevertheless, you’re straying into ‘not even wrong’ territory, here. The things I said are happening, are happening, and while you can believe anything you like, including that things that are happening, aren’t happening, that doesn’t change the fact that they are, actually, happening. Since you’re not amenable to things like evidence (about the news… from the news), I hope you’ll forgive me for ending this conversation. Feel free to get in one last shot, but I don’t intend to reply.

I was asked to prove first that Labour are moving us away from oil dependence, and then that they are investing record breaking amounts, approving record numbers of green projects, that they have eased planning law to build more green infrastructure, and that they’re planning to do more.

The sources more than prove this. For example, when we have more solar power, we will be less dependent on oil. Labour are making this happen. I refer you again to the many different sources discussing other ways Labour are making this happen through the record investments that are also cited in the sources.

I acknowledged that there’s some repetition. One for each of the claims would suffice, but I added more because I felt that ‘record breaking’ is a bit vague (record for this country or for a fiscal year or…?) so I used more than one source to show that this was a valid interpretation of the facts.

Your latter critique, that all the sources discuss what Labour ‘will do’ is just false. Some of them do, of course - because that’s one of the things you asked me to prove.

I actually have a folder of saved tabs called ‘good things Labour are doing’ because I frequently have conversations with people determined to ignore these things. Could they do more? Yes, of course, and they should. Are they doing the things I’ve said they are doing? Yes.

I’m not especially keen on googling things for you, as it’s publicly available information which is easy to find. I think a better question, given that these are straightforward facts widely reported in both the mainstream and specialist press, is why you don’t think they’re doing anything.

Might not be obvious, but every highlighted word above is a different link to evidence that Labour is, in fact, all what I claimed on climate change - and more. Some repetition, inevitably, but I wanted to use multiple kinds of sources. And I could keep going!

Depends on your definition of ‘disability’, but I guess they meant because she’s visibly overweight, but that doesn’t mean she can’t be in Starfleet.

Reminds me of the great anecdote: After the casting of Patrick Stewart, someone said to Gene Roddenberry, 'By the 24th century, won’t they have cured baldness?’

Roddenberry replied, ‘By the 24th century, they won’t care’.

I think a lot of Labour’s plans are good plans that will easily pay off in the medium-to-long-term, but I fear that won’t be enough if they want to make a good impression before the next GE.

Exactly my worry!

Also, guessing by your username, are you a DS9 fan?

It’s interesting you cite Norway because as I said elsewhere in this thread, they are a major oil producer and exporter who are also committed to green infrastructure. That’s the exact approach I think we should take!

You are right that we have a lot of encouraging tech but deploying that takes time and money, and often an ‘upfront’ increase in carbon emissions. Other tech looks good but hasn’t been proven to scale up or is still in the trial stage (as you akcnolwedge).

As I said, I agree with you that Norway is the model to follow; but they produce a lot of oil.

My line of argument does not require that the oil be used here.

And they said British manufacturing was dead.

Well, we need both and we should keep exploring both, although we can probably get away from gas sooner.

Norway is actually a great example of what I think we should do: keep using oil in order to fund a rapid transition to green power. It’s working well for them!

If it was in my power, I would certainly jail the CEOs and nationalise the oil companies, so I’m with you there.

However, stopping oil immediately before alternatives are in place would be a humanitarian disaster.

The government is investing record amounts in green energy, approving record numbers of green projects and rewriting planning law so it can approve even more.

Honestly assumed this would be some dreadful sex thing, then laughed out loud when I found out it was ‘I’m glad one of my constituents was hit by a truck’.

I didn’t say the Saudis would produce less, I said we’d use the same amount but buy more off the Saudis.

We do need to move away from oil dependence (and we are), but until we do that, we need oil from somewhere and we may as well get it here.

If we immediately stopping drilling for oil here, we won’t use less oil, we’ll use the same amount of oil, but buy it off the Saudis, who suck.