| Even the Blairite Ultras on 10:35 - Jul 14 with 1932 views | giant_stow |
That fella's always had a lot to say about new developments or buildings. Not saying he's wrong, but just a bit of context. |  |
|  |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 11:21 - Jul 14 with 1757 views | OldFart71 |
Labour doesn't care what they destroy. The net zero policy is ill thought out costing everyone money through higher energy bills therefore requiring higher wages and adding to inflation and putting jobs at risk whilst making little impact on the environment.
You have Khan in London shutting roads supposedly to cut pollution meaning that traffic has to travel further to get to the same place.
Basic common sense isn't evident in any of Labour's policies.
Reeves states she wants more people in work, so put's up N.I. that has the reverse effect.
Milliband wants to cover East Anglia in solar farms and pylons to cut pollution, but allows places like Ipswich to be clogged up due to no other way of getting traffic to the biggest port in Europe, who have already lost trade due to the Orwell bridge being shut more than open. |  | | |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 11:22 - Jul 14 with 1750 views | DJR |
I wouldn't describe Simon Jenkins as a Blairite. Whilst he has for some time worked for the Guardian before that he worked for and was editor of the Times.
It strikes me that he is a traditional conservative (with a small and big c) but is someone who has disliked the drift rightwards of the Tory party in the last decade or so.
The opinions expressed in his columns suggest to me he is something of a maverick, which is no bad thing. But he is someone who care about things like churches and rural England, which may go some way to explain this article. [Post edited 14 Jul 11:37]
|  | | |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 11:32 - Jul 14 with 1706 views | bluester |
Simon Jenkins is certainly eloquent and poetic, shame he's wrong. | | | |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 11:36 - Jul 14 with 1677 views | Steve_M |
What Simon Jenkins being reliably wrong again? |  |
| |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 11:37 - Jul 14 with 1666 views | MattinLondon |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 11:36 - Jul 14 by Steve_M |
What Simon Jenkins being reliably wrong again? |
In order to back up his one-sided argument he was being a tad melodramatic. [Post edited 14 Jul 11:37]
|  | | |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 11:46 - Jul 14 with 1605 views | StokieBlue |
I think wind turbines often improve the landscape.
SB |  | | |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 11:51 - Jul 14 with 1568 views | chicoazul |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 11:46 - Jul 14 by StokieBlue |
I think wind turbines often improve the landscape.
SB |
I am Jack’s total lack of surprise. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 11:57 - Jul 14 with 1528 views | bsw72 |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 11:46 - Jul 14 by StokieBlue |
I think wind turbines often improve the landscape.
SB |
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - I wonder how many people who are "up in arms" are regular visitors to these areas.
I regularly drive through France and it has become very noticable that the number of turbines has increased. They are amazing constructions, and have certainly changed the skyline, but not necessarily for the worse imo.
If it's change of scenery that people are up in arms about, then this has always evolved. There were also large swathes of woodland across large parts of the country which have disappeared rapidly in the last 300-400 years until the last century when we started protecting them. 500-600 years ago there much less houses everywhere but villages, towns and cities have grown.
As for rising energy costs, surely it all goes back to how the energy sector was privatized. Worth noting that the rest of western europe retains a mixture of private / state owned infrastructure (apart from Spain), allowing more government control over costs etc. |  | | |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 12:06 - Jul 14 with 1453 views | StokieBlue |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 11:51 - Jul 14 by chicoazul |
I am Jack’s total lack of surprise. |
What's wrong with liking wind turbines or industrial buildings in general?
Didn't think you were one for conformist views?
SB | | | |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 12:12 - Jul 14 with 1421 views | giant_stow |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 12:06 - Jul 14 by StokieBlue |
What's wrong with liking wind turbines or industrial buildings in general?
Didn't think you were one for conformist views?
SB |
the ones I see the most: scroby sands off Yarmouth have never bothered me. if anything they give add a bit of perspective on the long view out to sea. I might feel differently about a pristine hilltop being covered in them I spose. | |
| |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 12:20 - Jul 14 with 1365 views | urbanpenguin |
Simon Jenkins is not an "ultra blairite", he is however an intolerable bore.
As a writer myself, i think newspapers - especially the guardian - are over reliant on "commentators" who are overpaid and have to do very little work, while freelancers and hardworking journalists struggle. but they create the clickbait headlines, and seem to be all that matters in today's media landscape.
Re windmills. Personally, and as a lecturer in landscape history and theory at UCL, I think they overwhelmingly, generally, improve a place. They animate and decorate vistas, they remind us of natural forces, and instil a sense of harnessing nature - as mankind always has - in improved ways.
Also, no view is natural, and certainly no view or landscape in Britain is not one that's shaped and formed by mankind and our processes. So there is no "natural view" that can be disrupted, just one that has become widely considered pretty (because of culture, conventions, national stories etc) but nothing to say that other landscapes can't also be considered pretty in time, or that we must keep certain places in aspic forever unchanged. That would be weird.
Every landscape is a product of what we have made it and how we discuss it, and I think that wind turbines add beauty to both the purpose of landscape and the narrative we build upon it. |  | | |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 12:39 - Jul 14 with 1287 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 11:36 - Jul 14 by Steve_M |
What Simon Jenkins being reliably wrong again? |
He does seem to make a habit of it. He comes across as deliberately contrarian for the attention/clicks.
There’s an element of truth in this though. We do need to balance infrastructure development and preservation of landscape, and especially those with high cultural and/or tourist value. You could build thousands of the things on the former industrialised valleys around here - it wouldn’t bother me a bit and would be in keeping in a way, as the area’s been shaped by industry. But I’d be annoyed if they plastered them along the Pembrokeshire cost. Same with pylons. It doesn’t matter what the development is, some areas need to be exempt. |  |
| |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 13:06 - Jul 14 with 1182 views | Dubtractor |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 11:21 - Jul 14 by OldFart71 |
Labour doesn't care what they destroy. The net zero policy is ill thought out costing everyone money through higher energy bills therefore requiring higher wages and adding to inflation and putting jobs at risk whilst making little impact on the environment.
You have Khan in London shutting roads supposedly to cut pollution meaning that traffic has to travel further to get to the same place.
Basic common sense isn't evident in any of Labour's policies.
Reeves states she wants more people in work, so put's up N.I. that has the reverse effect.
Milliband wants to cover East Anglia in solar farms and pylons to cut pollution, but allows places like Ipswich to be clogged up due to no other way of getting traffic to the biggest port in Europe, who have already lost trade due to the Orwell bridge being shut more than open. |
Not sure why I'm bothering engaging, but.....
Net zero was a conservative policy, not labour.
And blaming labour for the Orwell bridge is the stretch of all stretches. [Post edited 14 Jul 13:09]
|  |
| |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 13:07 - Jul 14 with 1177 views | chicoazul |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 12:06 - Jul 14 by StokieBlue |
What's wrong with liking wind turbines or industrial buildings in general?
Didn't think you were one for conformist views?
SB |
I didn’t say there was anything wrong with it? Merely that I am not surprised to hear you think turbines “often improve” the landscape. That’s very on brand. | |
| |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 13:16 - Jul 14 with 1117 views | Freddies_Ears |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 11:21 - Jul 14 by OldFart71 |
Labour doesn't care what they destroy. The net zero policy is ill thought out costing everyone money through higher energy bills therefore requiring higher wages and adding to inflation and putting jobs at risk whilst making little impact on the environment.
You have Khan in London shutting roads supposedly to cut pollution meaning that traffic has to travel further to get to the same place.
Basic common sense isn't evident in any of Labour's policies.
Reeves states she wants more people in work, so put's up N.I. that has the reverse effect.
Milliband wants to cover East Anglia in solar farms and pylons to cut pollution, but allows places like Ipswich to be clogged up due to no other way of getting traffic to the biggest port in Europe, who have already lost trade due to the Orwell bridge being shut more than open. |
I won't bother unpicking all the untruths in that rant, but for starters, air quality in London is measurably, significantly improved since ULEZ. And for seconds, UK's reliance on gas for energy makes our electricity far more expensive than in France or Germany, where nuclear and renewable are far more important. Reducing our reliance on gas is essential.
"Miliband wants to cover East Anglia in solar farms and pylons" is, of course, absolute rubbish. But it does make sense to install solar and wind where there is existing Grid capacity. | | | |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 13:40 - Jul 14 with 1038 views | Tangledupin_Blue |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 11:46 - Jul 14 by StokieBlue |
I think wind turbines often improve the landscape.
SB |
I agree and have thought so for years. They are sleek and graceful; almost elegant. And functional.
I also remember when the first few had been erected. There were 'anti' politicians, on tv and radio, who'd obviously never stood near a working turbine, complaining about the noise they made. A gentle swish is all I've heard whilst standing under them. |  |
| |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 13:59 - Jul 14 with 978 views | jontysnut |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 12:20 - Jul 14 by urbanpenguin |
Simon Jenkins is not an "ultra blairite", he is however an intolerable bore.
As a writer myself, i think newspapers - especially the guardian - are over reliant on "commentators" who are overpaid and have to do very little work, while freelancers and hardworking journalists struggle. but they create the clickbait headlines, and seem to be all that matters in today's media landscape.
Re windmills. Personally, and as a lecturer in landscape history and theory at UCL, I think they overwhelmingly, generally, improve a place. They animate and decorate vistas, they remind us of natural forces, and instil a sense of harnessing nature - as mankind always has - in improved ways.
Also, no view is natural, and certainly no view or landscape in Britain is not one that's shaped and formed by mankind and our processes. So there is no "natural view" that can be disrupted, just one that has become widely considered pretty (because of culture, conventions, national stories etc) but nothing to say that other landscapes can't also be considered pretty in time, or that we must keep certain places in aspic forever unchanged. That would be weird.
Every landscape is a product of what we have made it and how we discuss it, and I think that wind turbines add beauty to both the purpose of landscape and the narrative we build upon it. |
As Alice Roberts said in response to Jenkins there was a nice view over the River Gardon in Avignon before the Romans decided they needed water and built a bloody great aqueduct across it. |  | | |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 14:12 - Jul 14 with 933 views | DarkBrandon |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 13:40 - Jul 14 by Tangledupin_Blue |
I agree and have thought so for years. They are sleek and graceful; almost elegant. And functional.
I also remember when the first few had been erected. There were 'anti' politicians, on tv and radio, who'd obviously never stood near a working turbine, complaining about the noise they made. A gentle swish is all I've heard whilst standing under them. |
I cycle past them all the time here and I’ve never heard them |  | | |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 14:29 - Jul 14 with 902 views | mellowblue |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 13:59 - Jul 14 by jontysnut |
As Alice Roberts said in response to Jenkins there was a nice view over the River Gardon in Avignon before the Romans decided they needed water and built a bloody great aqueduct across it. |
The Pont Du Gard is made of local materials and is a one off whereas turbines are completely ubiquitous and everywhere. It is a false argument. BTW Avignon is on the River Rhone and the Pont Du Gard is 15 miles away from Aignon. | | | |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 14:36 - Jul 14 with 873 views | backwaywhen |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 11:21 - Jul 14 by OldFart71 |
Labour doesn't care what they destroy. The net zero policy is ill thought out costing everyone money through higher energy bills therefore requiring higher wages and adding to inflation and putting jobs at risk whilst making little impact on the environment.
You have Khan in London shutting roads supposedly to cut pollution meaning that traffic has to travel further to get to the same place.
Basic common sense isn't evident in any of Labour's policies.
Reeves states she wants more people in work, so put's up N.I. that has the reverse effect.
Milliband wants to cover East Anglia in solar farms and pylons to cut pollution, but allows places like Ipswich to be clogged up due to no other way of getting traffic to the biggest port in Europe, who have already lost trade due to the Orwell bridge being shut more than open. |
Great points made there and looks like it’s putting a few red noses out of joint .
Vote for change vote Labour ? …….oh dear oh dear . | | | |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 14:38 - Jul 14 with 861 views | Kievthegreat |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 14:29 - Jul 14 by mellowblue |
The Pont Du Gard is made of local materials and is a one off whereas turbines are completely ubiquitous and everywhere. It is a false argument. BTW Avignon is on the River Rhone and the Pont Du Gard is 15 miles away from Aignon. |
Hold on, you think roman aqueducts weren't "ubiquitous and everywhere"? They built hundreds of them all over Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. They usually rehashed the same designs as well because they knew what worked. It's a great analogy! |  | | |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 15:44 - Jul 14 with 769 views | mellowblue |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 14:38 - Jul 14 by Kievthegreat |
Hold on, you think roman aqueducts weren't "ubiquitous and everywhere"? They built hundreds of them all over Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. They usually rehashed the same designs as well because they knew what worked. It's a great analogy! |
I am talking about the Pont du Gard rather than aquaducts in general which certainly were and still are common and blend into nature harmoniou,ly. generally being single arch high. More harmonious than wind turbines do. Segovia aquaduct is another nice example. | | | |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 17:11 - Jul 14 with 657 views | Kievthegreat |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 15:44 - Jul 14 by mellowblue |
I am talking about the Pont du Gard rather than aquaducts in general which certainly were and still are common and blend into nature harmoniou,ly. generally being single arch high. More harmonious than wind turbines do. Segovia aquaduct is another nice example. |
I don't think aqueducts or windmills do blend into nature at all really. I think they can be complementary. Personally I think they are both beautiful in their form, elegant as engineering solutions and not eyesores in the slightest. However they are giant obstructions of nature and natural views*.
I think the difference is what people think of as attractive and how they think things go together. I don't think a wind turbine on a hill is different to an aqueduct across a valley. It's beautiful structures in a beautiful setting IMO, but beauty and aestethics is subjective and people's feelings differ.
*being aware that sometimes "natural" is colloquially used for anything not developed, i.e pastures or farmland which aren't really natural, but are still pretty and scenic.
EDIT: Added "aesthetics" [Post edited 14 Jul 17:11]
| | | |
| Even the Blairite Ultras on 17:21 - Jul 14 with 616 views | Mercian |
Survey:
1: Do you wan't to see more clean electricity genereated?
2: Do you object to the building of wind-farms to help reach that goal?
3: Do you object to them being built in the large field at the front of your house?
"Not in my back yard" [Post edited 14 Jul 17:22]
|  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
