La Commissione di beneficenza apre le indagini su IEA
di 457655676
La Commissione di beneficenza apre le indagini su IEA
di 457655676
9 commenti
> We pointed out that the IEA promotes extreme views such as there being “no sensible scientific objection” to increasing drilling in the North Sea, that healthcare in the UK should be insurance-based, and that regulation on disposable vapes should be removed.
Obviously nutters
> the IEA was widely seen as the inspiration for Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng’s disastrous mini budget.
And yet more proof
Their representatives will still be all over the BBC with everyone pretending that it’s all completely normal and above board
I don’t know if it’s recent but it was the first time I seen it , YouTube recommended me a video by them over an hour long explaining how wealth taxes wouldn’t work and the only real solution for growth and better services was to cut taxes for the rich (go figure) they are extremely shady when it comes to their funding and I think that should disqualify them immediately, all funding to think tanks and charities should be an open book regardless of political leanings
How much money has the Good Law project grifted and then wasted?
The lack of self awareness is amazing.
“there being “[no sensible scientific objection](https://thecritic.co.uk/stop-posing-start-drilling/)” to increasing drilling in the North Sea, that [healthcare in the UK should be insurance-based](https://iea.org.uk/publications/how-to-structurally-reform-the-national-health-service-to-improve-patient-outcomes/), and that [regulation on disposable vapes should be removed](https://iea.org.uk/media/disposable-vape).” are not ‘extreme’ in the slightest. They may be Conservative views, but given that Norway drills in the North Sea, various First World countries have insurance-based healthcare etc the notion that these are ‘extreme’ is laughable and serves only to underline that the extremists here are the Good Law project.
Not sure it will achieve much but at least the charity commission are actually looking at these things rather than just making life difficult for genuine charities.
What’s fantastic about the possibility of insurance-based healthcare is that now assisted dying is likely to be made legal, it will probably be cheaper to off yourself! Great news for us proles!
I don’t object to the existence of the IEA as such, but its primary function is clearly political and it shouldn’t be a charity.
Sounds like most people on here are not in favour of a change from the existing political system. Why should Reform be any worse than we currently have?
As regards to CC investigation, great stuff. Many other so called charities need investigating to find out where the donations actually go.
The GoodLawProject are looking ridiculous with this statement. I honestly wonder if the summer intern wrote it –
*We pointed out that the IEA promotes extreme views such as there being “no sensible scientific objection” to increasing drilling in the North Sea, that healthcare in the UK should be insurance-based, and that regulation on disposable vapes should be removed.*
You may not agree with the comments – but that does not mean they are ‘extreme’.
The argument from the IEA on North Sea Gas is that it would be better for us to drill and get the gas than import gas – which is what we are currently doing. It travels less and we have more security of supply.
From the OBR – *Until the UK reduces its dependence on gas, the country is likely to remain heavily reliant on gas imports from abroad, given declining North Sea reserves. In the event of further gas price spikes similar to the scenario covered at the end of this chapter, the UK, as a large net importer of gas, would see further significant negative terms of trade shocks in the future. Households reliant on gas for both heating and electricity would be among the worst affected.* [*https://obr.uk/box/a-history-of-natural-gas-in-the-uk/*](https://obr.uk/box/a-history-of-natural-gas-in-the-uk/)
From the IEA –
*We are shipping fracked gas from the United States while banning fracking here, and we have undermined investment in the North Sea, while allowing Putin to use Nord Stream 2 as a bargaining chip over the future sovereignty of the Ukraine. It is literally the case that we are using public money to import gas to manufacture CO2, while claiming to lead the world on tackling climate change. Unsurprisingly, no one is following. The low carbon transition is going to happen, but it would happen faster and do less harm if we stopped posing and started drilling.*
This is not an ‘extreme’ view. It does not deny climate change. What scientific objection would there be between getting our gas from the North Sea or importing it from the US or Middle East?
“healthcare in the UK should be insurance-based” – is it really ‘extreme’ to suggest a funding model used by the Netherlands, France, Germany… Even discussed in the (Labour) NHS review – [https://change.nhs.uk/en-GB/ideas/healthcare-transformation](https://change.nhs.uk/en-GB/ideas/healthcare-transformation)
Vapes – *“There is clear evidence that e-cigarette flavour bans are associated with an increase in cigarette sales (1). Only last week, a study funded by Cancer Research UK expressed strong reservations about a blanket ban on disposable vapes which are used by 2.6 million Britons (2).*
Those damn radicals with their ‘extreme’ views quoting a Cancer Research funded study – clearly a danger to society. Personally I disagree and think that disposables should be banned due to the litter problem, but it is not ‘extreme’ to hold another view.