Interviews on the streets is not always a good idea
Diane is taking pmqs for labour tomorrow
You must log in or register to see media
Diane is taking pmqs for labour tomorrow
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
You must log in or register to see images
Catherine Blaiklock BP@blaiklockBP 8h8 hours agoIf LBC can find it ,
why can’t :
The British police
The French police
The darling EU
The secret security services
Interpol
The British army
The French army
The UN
Probably because they don’t want to stop it .
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.lbc.co.uk/news/lbc-investigation-people-smuggling-migrants-uk/…
Are speculators pushing the PM towards no deal?
Simon Jack Business editor@BBCSimonJack on Twitter
Is there a conspiracy between so called "disaster capitalists" who have made big financial bets which will come good if the UK leaves the EU without a deal - and a government that is determined to leave on 31 October - do or die?
There has been a lot speculation, that er… speculators who help fund the Conservative Party are set to win big on their bets against the pound and UK assets if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.
The current strain of this theory runs something like this - you Conservatives deliver a no-deal Brexit from which we will profit and we promise to bankroll the party in the coming election and beyond.
There are always plenty of fans of compelling and dramatic narratives like this - but they don't usually include the former chancellor of the exchequer and the former permanent secretary to the treasury - Nick (now Lord) Macpherson.
Philip Hammond said: "Johnson is backed by speculators who have bet billions on a hard Brexit - and there is only one option that works for them: a crash-out no-deal that sends the currency tumbling and inflation soaring."
Lord Macpherson then backed him in the following tweet.
Boris Johnson's own sister Rachel, when trying to explain her brother's do or die approach to leaving on 31 October, said one explanation could be influence "from people who have invested billions shorting the pound and the country in the hope of a no deal Brexit".
What should we make of the clear implication/insinuation that Boris Johnson is being influenced by financial gamblers who stand to make a packet out of no deal?
What we know to be true is that Tory party finances which had begun to struggle under Theresa May are reported to have bounced back under Boris Johnson.
John McDonnell claimed in the House of Commons that backers of no deal had donated £726,000 this year alone - some from hedge funds.
But most of it was not from hedge funds and to put the sums in context, in the first six months of the year, donations to the Tory party totalled more than £9m.
Party officials say the recent uptick in donations is because Johnson is better at shaking the hat - not because he's agreed to seek no deal to enrich a small minority of donors.
The claim that these no deal-backing hedge funds are betting against British companies that will falter come 1 November is also hard to find evidence for. The way most hedge funds work is that they take two positions - one long, one short.
Image caption Shadow chancellor John McDonnell has raised the issue of no-deal Brexit "profiteering"
For example, if you think, say, Barclays will do better than, say, Metro Bank over the next few months or years, you back Barclays and you bet against Metro. You make money as long as Barclays goes up more than Metro OR - if they both fall - that Barclays falls less than Metro Bank.
This is not a bet against British banks - it's a bet on two companies' relative performance.
As for the currency, companies of all types make bets against the pound for different reasons. The main reason is as a form of insurance. If I am a US-based multinational that makes, say, 30% of my money in sterling, that contribution will be hit if the pound falls (as most expect will happen after a no-deal Brexit). By taking a bet against sterling, that hit will be offset by the return on that bet and my income will be insured.
But there are hedge funds who place out-and-out bets on currencies. One of them is run by Crispin Odey who made £300m when the pound plunged following the UK referendum result in 2016. He is a no-deal backer, doesn't deny he will prosper if that happens, and contributed £10,000 towards Boris Johnson's campaign.
He described claims that he was trying to influence Johnson as nonsense, insisting he had absolutely no influence over Johnson.
'Bonkers'
Another hedge fund boss who wished to remain anonymous said the idea that a small group of financiers was pulling the strings to achieve a no deal was ridiculous. Not least, he said, because it would be "bonkers" to bet that a currency that was already at a 30-year low against the rest of the world would go that much lower.
"Most hedge funds are waiting for the moment to buy," he told me, adding that he was certain that Johnson was sincere in his wish for a deal.
They would say that wouldn't they, I hear you say. But it's also worth remembering that for every person who has bet against the pound, there is someone who has taken the other side of that bet. These are usually big international investment banks, the bosses and partners of which often make political donations of their own.
Hedge funds make money by betting the market is wrong - that the price of something is not reflecting what is really going on. It's no secret that many pollsters are hired by hedge funds to conduct political research on which they bet. Paying for better information is not the same as nobbling the result.
The general unease about speculators getting involved in politics is understandable.
As one bank chairman told me: "When hedge fund owners start backing individuals or parties we should worry. It creates at best a perception of conflict of interest. At worst a genuine conflict."
The widespread acceptance of this current conspiracy theory demonstrates that this rings true for many. But, as yet, there has not been enough evidence produced that a few shadowy financiers are pulling the strings of a no-deal Brexit puppet.
You must log in or register to see images
Simon Jack Business editor@BBCSimonJack on Twitter
You must log in or register to see images
Image copyright Getty ImagesIs there a conspiracy between so called "disaster capitalists" who have made big financial bets which will come good if the UK leaves the EU without a deal - and a government that is determined to leave on 31 October - do or die?
There has been a lot speculation, that er… speculators who help fund the Conservative Party are set to win big on their bets against the pound and UK assets if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.
The current strain of this theory runs something like this - you Conservatives deliver a no-deal Brexit from which we will profit and we promise to bankroll the party in the coming election and beyond.
There are always plenty of fans of compelling and dramatic narratives like this - but they don't usually include the former chancellor of the exchequer and the former permanent secretary to the treasury - Nick (now Lord) Macpherson.
Philip Hammond said: "Johnson is backed by speculators who have bet billions on a hard Brexit - and there is only one option that works for them: a crash-out no-deal that sends the currency tumbling and inflation soaring."
Lord Macpherson then backed him in the following tweet.
Boris Johnson's own sister Rachel, when trying to explain her brother's do or die approach to leaving on 31 October, said one explanation could be influence "from people who have invested billions shorting the pound and the country in the hope of a no deal Brexit".
What should we make of the clear implication/insinuation that Boris Johnson is being influenced by financial gamblers who stand to make a packet out of no deal?
What we know to be true is that Tory party finances which had begun to struggle under Theresa May are reported to have bounced back under Boris Johnson.
John McDonnell claimed in the House of Commons that backers of no deal had donated £726,000 this year alone - some from hedge funds.
But most of it was not from hedge funds and to put the sums in context, in the first six months of the year, donations to the Tory party totalled more than £9m.
Party officials say the recent uptick in donations is because Johnson is better at shaking the hat - not because he's agreed to seek no deal to enrich a small minority of donors.
The claim that these no deal-backing hedge funds are betting against British companies that will falter come 1 November is also hard to find evidence for. The way most hedge funds work is that they take two positions - one long, one short.
You must log in or register to see images
Image copyright Getty ImagesImage caption Shadow chancellor John McDonnell has raised the issue of no-deal Brexit "profiteering"
For example, if you think, say, Barclays will do better than, say, Metro Bank over the next few months or years, you back Barclays and you bet against Metro. You make money as long as Barclays goes up more than Metro OR - if they both fall - that Barclays falls less than Metro Bank.
This is not a bet against British banks - it's a bet on two companies' relative performance.
As for the currency, companies of all types make bets against the pound for different reasons. The main reason is as a form of insurance. If I am a US-based multinational that makes, say, 30% of my money in sterling, that contribution will be hit if the pound falls (as most expect will happen after a no-deal Brexit). By taking a bet against sterling, that hit will be offset by the return on that bet and my income will be insured.
But there are hedge funds who place out-and-out bets on currencies. One of them is run by Crispin Odey who made £300m when the pound plunged following the UK referendum result in 2016. He is a no-deal backer, doesn't deny he will prosper if that happens, and contributed £10,000 towards Boris Johnson's campaign.
He described claims that he was trying to influence Johnson as nonsense, insisting he had absolutely no influence over Johnson.
'Bonkers'
Another hedge fund boss who wished to remain anonymous said the idea that a small group of financiers was pulling the strings to achieve a no deal was ridiculous. Not least, he said, because it would be "bonkers" to bet that a currency that was already at a 30-year low against the rest of the world would go that much lower.
"Most hedge funds are waiting for the moment to buy," he told me, adding that he was certain that Johnson was sincere in his wish for a deal.
They would say that wouldn't they, I hear you say. But it's also worth remembering that for every person who has bet against the pound, there is someone who has taken the other side of that bet. These are usually big international investment banks, the bosses and partners of which often make political donations of their own.
Hedge funds make money by betting the market is wrong - that the price of something is not reflecting what is really going on. It's no secret that many pollsters are hired by hedge funds to conduct political research on which they bet. Paying for better information is not the same as nobbling the result.
The general unease about speculators getting involved in politics is understandable.
As one bank chairman told me: "When hedge fund owners start backing individuals or parties we should worry. It creates at best a perception of conflict of interest. At worst a genuine conflict."
The widespread acceptance of this current conspiracy theory demonstrates that this rings true for many. But, as yet, there has not been enough evidence produced that a few shadowy financiers are pulling the strings of a no-deal Brexit puppet.
Proof tonight, if any were really needed, that Cummings and Johnson have never really been at all interested in getting a deal. A sham 'take it or leave it' proposal that they know full well the EU couldn't possibly accept. The hedge fund speculators who have bet against Sterling and UK companies will be counting their winnings.
You say proof. We still don't actually know the detail of the proposal - just a few carefully crafted hints as to what it might be. Let's see what tomorrow brings. I'm not convinced that Johnson is as clueless as he seems. He seems well in control of what he needs to say. Then again, perhaps Boris and/or Cummings actually do believe that all it needed was to stand firm and give 'our friends' the ultimatum all true Brexit supporters told us would unlock the key to independence, prosperity and untold riches. Barnier will lay down his weapons and negotiate his escape to the free world after stopping to applaud the man who outsmarted him. Let's see.
You must log in or register to see media
This is an interesting 20 min talk on the science and historical data of CO2 and temperature.
I'd say there's a good chance that what the Telegraph has published is correct, given that it's the paper that Johnson writes for.
You must log in or register to see images
NASA admits that climate change occurs because of changes in Earth’s solar orbit, and NOT because of SUVs and fossil fuels
(Natural News) For more than 60 years, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has known that the changes occurring to planetary weather patterns are completely natural and normal. But the space agency, for whatever reason, has chosen to let the man-made global warming hoax persist and spread, to the detriment of human freedom.
It was the year 1958, to be precise, when NASA first observed that changes in the solar orbit of the earth, along with alterations to the earth’s axial tilt, are both responsible for what climate scientists today have dubbed as “warming” (or “cooling,” depending on their agenda). In no way, shape, or form are humans warming or cooling the planet by driving SUVs or eating beef, in other words.
But NASA has thus far failed to set the record straight, and has instead chosen to sit silently back and watch as liberals freak out about the world supposedly ending in 12 years because of too much livestock, or too many plastic straws.
In the year 2000, NASA did publish information on its Earth Observatory website about the Milankovitch Climate Theory, revealing that the planet is, in fact, changing due to extraneous factors that have absolutely nothing to do with human activity. But, again, this information has yet to go mainstream, some 19 years later, which is why deranged, climate-obsessed leftists have now begun to claim that we really only have 18 months left before the planet dies from an excess of carbon dioxide (CO2).
The truth, however, is much more along the lines of what Serbian astrophysicist Milutin Milankovitch, after whom the Milankovitch Climate Theory is named, proposed about how the seasonal and latitudinal variations of solar radiation that hit the earth in different ways, and at different times, have the greatest impact on earth’s changing climate patterns.
The below two images (by Robert Simmon, NASA GSFC) help to illustrate this, with the first showing earth at a nearly zero orbit, and the second showing earth at a 0.07 orbit. This orbital change is depicted by the eccentric, oval shape in the second image, which has been intentionally exaggerated for the purpose of showing the massive change in distance that occurs between the earth and the sun, depending on whether it is at perihelion or aphelion.
You must log in or register to see images
You must log in or register to see images
“Even the maximum eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit – 0.07 – it would be impossible to show at the resolution of a web page,” notes the Hal Turner Radio Show. “Even so, at the current eccentricity of .017, the Earth is 5 million kilometers closer to Sun at perihelion than at aphelion.”
For more related news about climate change and global warming from an independent, non-establishment perspective, be sure to check out ClimateScienceNews.com.
The biggest factor affecting earth’s climate is the SUN
As for earth’s obliquity, or its change in axial tilt, the below two images (Robert Simmon, NASA GSFC) show the degree to which the earth can shift on both its axis and its rotational orientation. At the higher tilts, earth’s seasons become much more extreme, while at lower tilts they become much more mild. A similar situation exists for earth’s rotational axis, which depending on which hemisphere is pointed at the sun during perihelion, can greatly impact the seasonal extremes between the two hemispheres.
You must log in or register to see images
You must log in or register to see images
Based on these different variables, Milankovitch was able to come up with a comprehensive mathematical model that is able to compute surface temperatures on earth going way back in time, and the conclusion is simple: Earth’s climate has always been changing, and is in a constant state of flux due to no fault of our own as human beings.
When Milankovitch first put forward his model, it went ignored for nearly half a century. Then, in 1976, a study published in the journal Science confirmed that Milankovitch’s theory is, in fact, accurate, and that it does correspond to various periods of climate change that have occurred throughout history.
In 1982, six years after this study was published, the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences adopted Milankovitch’s theory as truth, declaring that:
“… orbital variations remain the most thoroughly examined mechanism of climatic change on time scales of tens of thousands of years and are by far the clearest case of a direct effect of changing insolation on the lower atmosphere of Earth.”
If we had to sum the whole thing up in one simple phrase, it would be this: The biggest factor influencing weather and climate patterns on earth is the sun, period. Depending on the earth’s position to the sun at any given time, climate conditions are going to vary dramatically, and even create drastic abnormalities that defy everything that humans thought they knew about how the earth worked.
But rather than embrace this truth, today’s climate “scientists,” joined by leftist politicians and a complicit mainstream media, insist that not using reusable grocery bags at the supermarket and not having an electric vehicle are destroying the planet so quickly that we absolutely must implement global climate taxes as the solution.
“The climate change debate is not about science. It is an effort to impose political and economic controls on the population by the elite,” wrote one commenter at the Hal Turner Radio Show.
“And it’s another way to divide the population against itself, with some who believe in man-made global warming and some who don’t, i.e. divide and conquer.”
You can read the full Hal Turner Radio Show report at this link.
Sources for this article include:
HalTurnerRadioShow.com
NaturalNews.com
BBC.com
seems like an ad for hal turner
whoever he is
KIWI, dear, dear bored out of your mind Kiwi,
Who funds NASA my sweetie pie?
Who has most to gain from this report?
How many bites did you expect on this one?
You're a very, very naughty boy aren't you Kiwi?
His Wikipedia page is interesting, he’s certainly had a chequered career to say the least.
He has his critics, as does anyone who challenges the established processes. I could post 10 more videos of scientists saying the same thing. Did you watch the video?
I did watch it, an awful lot of graphs and new (for me) terminology so while he presented the information in support of his view that carbon is good, I found the presentation clumsy and unclear. What did you think of it?
I want to believe that climate change is not happening, mainly because I’m lazy and don’t want to have to change my life because of what the powers that be will impose on me.
I suppose what he's saying is that he acknowledges climate change, but he tells us that climate has always changed.
His graphs and data show that over history, global temperatures and CO2 levels have fluctuated enormously.
He mentions that correlation between the 2 doesn't imply causation.
He tells us that during periods of glaciation, CO2 is absorbed deep into the oceans and then released during warmer periods. We are currently in a warmer period.
He says the sun's influence is not factored in to the climate emergency model.
I've learned that CO2 comprises 0.04% of our atmosphere and that humans contribute 4% to that 0.04%.
I've learned that termites produce more CO2 than humans.
He tells us that CO2 is a hugely important gas for abundant life, citing that food producers pump extra CO2 into their greenhouses to increase growth.
There are lots of scientists saying the same things he's telling us, but they are not given a public platform.
The debate is never had on the mainstream and that's what's lacking in my opinion. We've got to the point that anyone who questions the emergency narrative is bundled into the same corner as holocaust deniers. That alone speaks volumes.
The scientists, like this guy, who are speaking up say that the science is on their side.
I'm like you, I'm not a scientist, I want to hear this debated properly and openly. I've tried numerous times to have the conversation on BBC radio, but when you tell the researcher what you want to talk about, you don't hear back from them.
Worth noting that climate change and pollution are two different topics, I'm certainly not suggesting that disgusting things are going on in the world, mainly to serve the economic growth of businesses.
There are consequences of simply accepting the climate emergency and they are dark and hugely controlling.
I simply want rational, scientific, open and honest debate.
Viscount Braithwaite Esq.@ViscountBraith1 12h12 hours ago
More
BREAKING: Prince Harry continues saving the planet from Climate Change
5 cars shipped to Africa.
4x LR Discoveries = 8,800kg
1x RR Sport = 2,500kg
This produced 67,177kg CO2.
All because they didnt want locally sourced armor-plated cars.
climate change hypocrites
or just safety conscious
More
BREAKING: Prince Harry continues saving the planet from Climate Change
5 cars shipped to Africa.
4x LR Discoveries = 8,800kg
1x RR Sport = 2,500kg
This produced 67,177kg CO2.
All because they didnt want locally sourced armor-plated cars.
You must log in or register to see images
climate change hypocrites
or just safety conscious