Awol

You are Shaw Taylor I claim my packet of Spangles and a fruit Jublee Police 5, blimey. That takes me back a bit!

Hang on, if the clip was posted on Facebook surely even West Mid's finest can follow the trail to the perp'?

Ultimately, of course, the money spent to build the thing will come from the people supplied with the electricity generated or customers, as we're called. In return for the initial money to build the station which comes, essentially, from the Chinese and French gov'ts, the UK Gov't is guaranteeing a price for the energy to be generated, a price that's more than double the current cost. Though obviously fixing energy prices is bad and marxist and that, right? state intervention in a free market is quite not the done thing amongst all right thinking tories. Not like that mad Red Ed. When a bill consists of a few percent for support for renewable energy, you have various tories saying we should cut green the subsidy. Yet on the other hand they're quite happy for the future cost of nuclear energy to be fixed and to be double the current cost. As PMS alluded the other day, what could possibly go wrong with the Chinese and French Gov't controlling energy generation in the UK? I mean obviously you wouldn't want a British Gov't doing that sort of thing - much better outsource control and the future profits to that Europe they so love, and to the communists of China. Act in haste, repent at leisure. The build will be to UK standards, as will its operation. The Chinese will not be learning on the job in Somerset - although observing the operation of UK standards may well benefit the culture of safety in their own domestic industry. Yes the profits will go to foreign firms but EDF already supply a good chunk of UK electricity and I didn't see anyone wailing about that when Labour structured the market to enable that through the merger of electricity generators and suppliers. Strange that is now an issue when the coalition follows similar policy? As Mr Tony would say, the H word springs to mind. Currently our energy security relies on an unbroken chain of LNG tankers carrying gas to our shores from autocratic and increasingly unstable regimes. That should be of greater concern than whether or not a French company increases its market share of the UK domestic energy infrastructure, after all, they can't simply get the arse and walk off with a nuclear power station and possession is 9/10ths of the law.. I was going to say that achieving a fixed rate for 10 years hence that was double the current rate was actually pretty canny business.....but then I read that it was actually index linked. That is indefensible madness. Osborne, who I've never rated, deserves a bloody good shoeing for that, but he may argue that they have us over a barrel. Why? Due to the virtually glacial speed of progress made in recent decades towards updating the national energy infrastructure (shame on both Labour and Tory parties for that), it now requires massive investment and the UK is still far too broke to be able to stump up for it ourselves. One could take the PMS view that high debt levels are either not a concern or actually a badge of social honour, but if it was that simple I suspect his view would be more widely held. So assuming that cost is an issue, we want to increase domestic energy security, but we can't simply borrow 100's billions more to fund it, we are left with two main options: 1) Seek foreign investment into the sector, in areas such as nuclear 2) Alter the restrictions under which the energy sector is operating, specifically the targets for reducing carbon emissions I'd prefer point 2 to be the focus but the green movement has been so successful - over decades - in distorting the perception of people that the UK can make any real difference to global CO2 levels (and their simultaneous campaign against nuclear power generation in favour of a wind driven "miracle") that politicians seem terrified to tackle that fallacy head on. For example, China is currently building 70 new international airports and scores of coal fired power stations, who could seriously argue that by not building 20 gas fired power stations the UK is going to help save the planet? It's a dangerous nonsense that is in large part responsible for leading the UK power industry to its current ridiculous situation. Although the technology isn't yet ready for carbon capture to allow clean coal power generation, gas produces a fraction of the pollution and if the "experts" are to be believed we are sitting on 100's of TCF of the stuff, so why not use it? The debate around energy needs to get serious and grow up. We can't do without electricity and a combination of short termism, political mismanagement and the quasi-religious 'greenism' around renewables has left us in a tight spot. Either we go nuclear with foreign investment in a big way and pay the piper accordingly, or we scrap the climate change act and use the resources we have to hand to generate enough power. Hopefully in 50 years there will be genuinely viable renewable solutions available, but in the mean time wishful thinking won't keep the lights on.

It was a joke, and no, I didn't know that. Must have made Christmas mornings a bit tricky.

Mate, there isn't a male version...

MMV, that's a good post, but to put it mildly it opens a few cans of worms..

If I could make an ounce of sense out of the post above I'd try to respond. Sadly that is not possible.

Can you honestly not see the relevance of the reference to Labour as an example? I'll try to explain it really simply: You suggest it is hypocritical for the current government to do business with countries that have a different and/or opposing political ideology, i.e. France or China. I disagreed and said that the equivalent idiocy would be a Labour government refusing to do business with staunchly capitalist countries or religious theocracies because Labour disagreed with their politics. The intention was to help you understand what an utterly weak and bone argument you were attempting to make. Obviously that failed. Never mind. As for trade, where have I ever suggested that we shouldn't be trading other countries? Where do you get these strange ideas?

It is certainly nice to have evidence presented in such a clear way. But it is not until you actually examine the list carefully that it becomes disappointing and questionable. Most of the list are simply cuts which are the natural consequences of the country's toxic combination of massive debts and economic recession. Many items on the list make contradictory accusations. Accusing the government of spending money on "racist vans" (90) and complaining that jobs have gone to foreign workers (95), is glaringly contradictory. It seems unreasonable and illogical to demand things, each of which would require policies which produced an opposite effect, like demanding low interest rates, low inflation and a high pound at the same time, are mutually exclusive. So if all the cuts which are the natural consequences of managing the deficit and the demands which are mutually exclusive are removed, then you are just left with governments failings plus their ideological meddlings. Which would probably leave less than 20 valid criticisms - after a quick count I got it down to 16. This is not to let the government off the hook but it would sure make these actual failings easier to defend. Good post by the way. I suppose the nature of the political mess we find ourselves in is that we need to scrutinise the actions and then look against what are the motives, necessary actions and what alternatives there are / were. There are a lot of facts that certainly back up the initial accusations in the article, IMO, and it certainly is the Gvmt's responsibility t justify them with a lot more than a glib "ahhh but Labour ..." response and why they did what they did / or didn't despite saying they would etc. I think the article gives enough sticks to certainly give the Gvmt a headache So an article presents 100 points, 10-15% of which may be reasonable, which means it is a good article. Allrightythen. Sounds more like an utterly carp attempt at *ahem* "journalism". No, I think you have got it exactly backwards. It is a crap article in that it does not bear close analysis but it is actually good journalism because most people will not bother to unpack it and will just see it as proof that the government are a nasty bunch of so-and-sos who have deliberately and gratuitously inflicted misery on the nation. Journalism is about arousing emotions and the list will certainly do that. I think we agree. The piece Drat C & P'd was poor propaganda, masquerading as journalism. Make a ton of accusations, sprinkle a few recognisable truths within and wait for the masses to howl at the moon. It did the job, too.

What? - I am sorry but you have completely lost me now. I f you see no real hypocrisy in the words that come out from the Tory party and the right wing media and support those, and then then think that deals like this are to be encouraged, I suspect that double standards are at play and really your argument is just tailored to fit the topic (and possibly the person). But thanks for the update that you see no issues with the French Gvmt or the Chinese and the ideologies that they both run under - good to see a change of views If you think that opposing an ideology for your own country means that you cannot do business with others who embrace that ideology then you simply don't understand business or international politics. In the main what others do is their own concern, not that of the UK. The counter argument to your point would be whether a Labour government should refuse to do business with arch capitalist countries like the US, or by oil from deeply conservative theocracies like Saudi, on the grounds that Labour disagree with their politics. It would be a complete nonsense, wouldn't it? Rather like your proposition above regarding the French and Chinese.

To be fair the coalition didn't have the courage and/or intelligence to bin them.

Subsidies are already being paid to green energy providers otherwise their product wouldn't be economically viable. At least paying subsidies to nuclear energy providers will result in a constant source of energy, whereas when the wind stops and the turbines are motionless the shortfall is made up by diesel generators! The bigger problem is is crippling de-carbonisation targets. Given that the UK contribution to global CO2 production is about 2% of the whole (literally a drop in the ocean), we'd be far better off securing more natural gas by investing in fracking and burning that. That the government have had to change their policy on subsidising nuclear is hardly surprising, when you set unrealistic targets then reality has an uncomfortable tendency to force that change.

It is certainly nice to have evidence presented in such a clear way. But it is not until you actually examine the list carefully that it becomes disappointing and questionable. Most of the list are simply cuts which are the natural consequences of the country's toxic combination of massive debts and economic recession. Many items on the list make contradictory accusations. Accusing the government of spending money on "racist vans" (90) and complaining that jobs have gone to foreign workers (95), is glaringly contradictory. It seems unreasonable and illogical to demand things, each of which would require policies which produced an opposite effect, like demanding low interest rates, low inflation and a high pound at the same time, are mutually exclusive. So if all the cuts which are the natural consequences of managing the deficit and the demands which are mutually exclusive are removed, then you are just left with governments failings plus their ideological meddlings. Which would probably leave less than 20 valid criticisms - after a quick count I got it down to 16. This is not to let the government off the hook but it would sure make these actual failings easier to defend. Good post by the way. I suppose the nature of the political mess we find ourselves in is that we need to scrutinise the actions and then look against what are the motives, necessary actions and what alternatives there are / were. There are a lot of facts that certainly back up the initial accusations in the article, IMO, and it certainly is the Gvmt's responsibility t justify them with a lot more than a glib "ahhh but Labour ..." response and why they did what they did / or didn't despite saying they would etc. I think the article gives enough sticks to certainly give the Gvmt a headache So an article presents 100 points, 10-15% of which may be reasonable, which means it is a good article. Allrightythen. Sounds more like an utterly carp attempt at *ahem* "journalism".

"Eh" back at you, Drat. I think your "argument" is that France has a socialist government so because the Tories have a different political ideology it is hypocritical of them to make deals with a French energy company? I'm sure I've got that wrong because such an argument is childish to the point of being farcical. Similarly with the Chinese are you suggesting that the government are hypocritical to encourage their investment because the government is communist? Really??! If that's the basis of the "hypocrisy" allegation it's, well.... laughable, frankly.

Sorry I'm not seeing the link between new nuclear power, socialism and making deals with EDF?

Finally, an actual subject to discuss. Not sure where the hypocrisy comes in but new nuclear is a decidedly good thing providing clean, sustainable and long term energy. If the problem is that the money to build and operate is coming from abroad I'm not sure why it's an issue? We don't have the money to build them ourselves at the moment and thanks to a two decade hiatus in serious energy policy planning, we urgently need the investment in energy infrastructure. Subsidising ever more wind farms won't keep the lights on so this seems like the only practical alternative that fits with de-carbonisation targets.

Like the streets of Erdington, call it conditioning. That's my almost-manor you're talking about there! Leave off, you ruffian, or else I shall challenge you to a duel, sir! That's more Royal Sutton Coldfield, in Erdington they'll just stab you.

Like the streets of Erdington, call it conditioning.

Leave it to Dr Pangloss, he's funnier Believe it or not, you are even more amusing than he - although the good Dr Pangloss sets a high bar.

Quite obviously mocking myself, well obvious if you're not a....

Strange but I always thought you were white. @racist_tory

Excellent. There hasn't been enough of this kind of comment on VT in my view, it should help raise the tone of bollitics threads. I trust you teach the kids that not voting Labour should be considered a criminal offence?

How does Gove have time to write short stories?

Maybe the gas companies think Labour will get elected in 2015 so are hiking up their prices in advance of Miliband's big move? I don't think the market price has shifted significantly of late so it can't be that.

I thought it was just a not very funny post but obviously not serious, until VillaAjax posted this to clarify: Not that I care, it's a just a pretty stupid thing to say.