I’m sure the clever mr. Mercer understands completely how the massive foreign and private companies who are currently buying/owning the licences have nothing but deep concern for Britain’s energy security as they sell the oil and gas for the best price on the open market.I understood her to be asking the question "how will allowing a multinational company to drill for oil improve energy security?" as the Tories claimed.
Mercer simply kept repeating again and again that it would be more secure with absolutely no specifics or details or explanation, and did not address how it was any way different to what we already have. He had plenty of opportunity to expand or explain but just expected people to believe it because he said it.
He was clearly parroting the party line and either because it is untrue or he doesn't understand there was no argument to support his claim.
You think it is.My ilk is the vast majority of the population.
I get your point that there are always more complexities and that the format is not suitable for an extended in depth discussion of all the angles.
However I would have been a lot happier with just your first paragraph as an answer than what we got from Mercer.
That could at least have lead to an exchange of views and some learning and improved understanding.
There is no interest or benefit watching people say what they think, I would prefer to know why they think what they do.
It is not just QT that is like this, everything including the news is now about how people feel or what they think, very little about why they think that or how they justify it, or what the facts are.
How does it not improve our energy security? Risk diversity will always improve security. Thats what I would have said, probably be accused of avoiding answering the question she didn’t really understand the complexity of.
Unless …. she wanted to challenge the ownership model against a backdrop of global supply chains that we’ve already seen stretched? (A fair challenge but not one that can be answered in 5 minutes and I’m not going to get in to the sheer hypocrisy of the left supporting the government to pay our energy bills).
Maybe she was hoping for a discussion on increasing refining capacity or government adopting a mothball approach to unused capacity to ensure security…
Or perhaps she wanted a conversation around security of renewables and was concerned with the lack of any noise from government or opposition on the storage conundrum (the elephant in the room if ever there was one)…
Maybe she wanted to expand on technology as a security driver and discuss the viability of direct air capture to fuel as a scalable tool to net zero? (Check this one out, it’s interesting tech)
And so on and so forth. Try having a meaningful conversation on any of these in a couple of minutes. Thats why the answers are always shit like let’s insulate homes or “waffle, waffle, something, because I said so, waffle”.
I’m sure the clever mr. Mercer understands completely how the massive foreign and private companies who are currently buying/owning the licences have nothing but deep concern for Britain’s energy security as they sell the oil and gas for the best price on the open market.
Doesn’t he?
The control was all waffle, wasn't it though? It was harking back to take back control sloganism of Brexit. It's not a serious point about energy security otherwise, there would be conditions or state equity imposed.
The Tory party don't do anything other than Slogan policies anymore.
That's probably why their most successful policy "Ban the XL Bullies) in recent months was so quick.
You think it is.
It is certainly the majority of the easily led populists.
Give it 18-24 months and the narrative on here will be “you voted for Starmer, you voted for a populist”.
Read my next reply on why it doesn’t matter who owns it….
Thought you said you were voting SNP, having slated the fuck out of them.Give it 18-24 months and the narrative on here will be “you voted for Starmer, you voted for a populist”.