Leave aside Labour's moral compass - whatever happened to the party's political compass? How can it have made so crass an error? The Heathrow runway decision has just gifted David Cameron exactly what he needed. His wilting green oak tree is suddenly bursting with acorns as he trumpets his "environmental and energy" revolution, perfectly timed for Heathrow week. He wears the green halo, and nothing the government does between now and the election is likely to reclaim it.
And much good may it do Cameron; climate change was always a low priority for all but the richest people in this country; with the current turbulent times ahead, Cameron is likely to lose more votes than he gains by continuing with this Green wibble.
The substance may be more complicated, but the political symbolism is all-important.
Yeah, symbolism is all you actually care about, isn't it, Polly? After all, you claim to care for the poor, and yet you applaud NuLabour—a government that has continually and deliberately shafted the poor. Fuck you, you hypocritical old bag.
This really was totemic.
Yawn. Better style than substance, eh?
Whenever Labour tries to say or do anything green, the groundswell of protesters will shout back "Heathrow!". End of argument. From standup comics...
As a general rule of thumb, if a stand-up comic takes a political position, it is the opposing position that is the right one.
... to people who don't care much one way or another, everyone will laugh at any future green pretensions from Labour.
Yep. But who cares? There are worse aspects to Labour, frankly.
What a pointless waste of the green capital Labour was building, with Ed Miliband in his new Department of Energy and Climate Change setting a remarkable legally binding target to cut carbon emissions drastically.
Yes, this bothered me at the time. This is a legally binding target, yes?
So, tell me Polly, what the living fuck happens if the state does not meet these targets? What happens, Polly? Will the state be fined? If so, it is we who will pay because the state has no fucking money except what it steals from us.
So it is the taxpayer that will pay the fine, not the state: and if the state is going to fine itself for not meeting ludicrous targets that the state has set itself, and pay the resultant fines using our money, then it would be polite (to put it mildly) to fucking well ask us.
And what is going to happen otherwise? All MPs are personally fined; or will they be put in jail? Well, MPs have no money either—it is, once again, the taxpayer who will stump up. Further, you can bet that we will be raped twice: if MPs calculate that they will have to pay £10,000 each, then they will simply vote to increase their salaries by £20,000. God forbid that MPs should ever be out of pocket.
As for MPs going to jail for not meeting arbitrary targets that a previous government has set... Well, I would love to see those fuckers rot in chokey, but it isn't entirely fair, is it? Desirable, yes (after all, as far as I am concerned, any serial criminal should be in jail), but hardly fair.
So what precisely, Polly, is the point of setting "legally binding targets"? Hello, Pol? Are you there? Pol? Oh, fuck you, you tedious, totemic harridan.
Stay with the bizarre politics of this situation. There was no reason why this decision had to be made before the election.
Oh, how relevant that is, Polly. It is much better that the government look to win the next election, rather than do what's best for the country, isn't it? Fuck me, Toynbee: you are a disgusting, partisan piece of shit, you really are.
Even the government's own figures show the vanishingly minute sum of £47m a year was the only additional growth created. By 2015, when the first sod is cut on the runway, Gordon Brown will be no more than a pub quiz question.
Question: which one-eyed, never-elected-as Prime Minister—later hanged by "your humble Devil"—was responsible for one of the worst economic crashes of history, presided over the financial rape of the poorest in society for political gain, and was discovered in flagrante—"up to his wrinkly old apricots in her pie-bald snatch" as one blogger put it—with Grauniad columnist and wank-stain, Polly "piss-poor" Toynbee?
Answer: too easy...
Plunging towards depression with air travel slumping, what was the rush?
I don't know, Polly; unfortunately, I don't have a villa in Tuscany so I don't know what conditions at Heathrow are like. Tell me, Pol, are you often delayed when you fly out to your second home, you screaming hypocrite?
"Do you think about global warming when you're flying to your villa in Italy?"
No jobs will be created now. Brown by nature, the green agenda was always his lowest priority.
Personally, Polly, I have always thought that the welfare of the British people in general was Brown's lowest priority. Because he is an even bigger cunt than you are.
... Nor is it true that future growth depends on the additional runway at Heathrow. Of course it doesn't.
Really? Oh, if you say so, Polly. You fucknut.
Why was this debate not taken to Europe when the argument was that Schiphol or Frankfurt would seize the business? The EU needs to agree air-traffic decisions.
Oh, you have just lost any sympathy that I had for you, you turd. Fuck you: the EU should not be making decisions for us, that is why we have our own government. An elected one. Shit though they are, they are, at least, subject to removal every five years (maximum). Go fuck yourself, you evil old baggage.
This decision matters most because of its monumental symbolism. Planes will not take off from the third runway until 2020, a great increase in flying on the very date by which greenhouse gases should have been cut by 20%. On the present trajectory, having cut just 6.4% of CO2, that looks fanciful.
No shit, Polly, no shit. And you know what? We will pick up a massive, and continuing, fine for not meeting those targets. Why? Because they were set by the EU—your favourite dictatorship, apparently. And the very poorest in this country—those you claim to champion—will pay for our government's craven inability to confront reality.
And meanwhile, you will continue to hector us whilst jetting back and forth between your mansions here and in Tuscany. You shit.
Why? Because the country still needs so much persuading to make the smallest changes.
Is it surprising when those telling them to make those changes are rancid fucking hypocrites like you, Toynbee?
Some 43% of people tell Ipsos Mori that scientists still argue about climate change.
They do, you pecunious fucktard (© Bookdrunk); what they mostly argue about is the extent of it, which is pretty fucking crucial. Well, actually, most scientists argue about "climate change"; many more argue about anthropogenic climate change (which is what I assume you mean, Pol). Or do you have some super information about The New Consensus?
Even the modest inconvenience of changing from incandescent light bulbs has made the Daily Mail incandescent, offering free old bulbs in a campaign against the wicked Brussels edict. This despite the Mail's own admission that more expensive, energy-saving bulbs, using far less electricity, save the average household £60 a year. Between 10% and 15% of electricity use is for lighting.
Um. Well. Tell you what, Pol, why don't you read this article from EUReferendum on the subject of these super "energy-saving" lightbulbs, eh? Unlike you, those people actually do some research and, as it happens, they also have the real low-down on the ban.
Politicians have been extraordinarily craven, failing in the leadership it will take to make real change. Look how bravely Barack Obama has confronted his climate-denying nation - and won, through courage and determination. The Heathrow decision was an opportunity to tell it like it is: we have to change.
Really? Do we? Will you be selling your villa, Pol, or merely using another carbon-emitting mode of transport? You shitbag.
If politicians never dare tell us that we will have to fly less, we are probably doomed.
Why leave it to the politicians? Hey, Polly!—fly less, you miserable old hag!
Of course other cuts could be made instead - but if they dare not signal any lifestyle change, we may all be done for.
And it is that "may" that is so very, very important, Polly. And if you actually looked at a few observable facts, rather than talking to your pig-ignorant, media-studies degree-owning media buddies, you might shift your opinion of how likely that "may" is to become "will", i.e. not very.
But they are partly right: the hardest truth about climate change is that it can't be stopped unless the consequences are shared more fairly. The only way to do that is to give everyone the same quota of carbon to spend, whether on petrol, flying or heating. Are we ready for that kind of fairness?
Um, no. Because those of us who live in the real world, as opposed to Lah-Lah Land, believe that the state restricting people's access to resources is socialism—nay, flat-out Communism—and it is a morally disgusting and disastrously inefficient way to order an economy.
And as Timmy says...
No, we’re not ready for that kind of "fairness". Because it’s insane.
We know what we need to do to "battle climate change". We need to impose a Pigou Tax on emissions. And that’s it, that’s all we need to do. And as I’ve said repeatedly, we already pay, even if not in quite the right places, the appropriate level of taxes.
We in the UK have already "battled" and beaten climate change.
Even if anthropogenic climate change were not the merest wibble, we have already taken the correct steps to combat it: please leave your Communist fantasies where they belong Polly—in the bin, along with your pathetic writings.
Fuck you, Polly: fuck you right in the face.