Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Richard]

 

On the nuclear power station,  it seems that many old stations will be closing in the next decade.  This coupled with the years of neglect and underinvestment we have seen means that an agreement like this which is 16BN investment and 25,000 jobs providing energy for 6 million homes is a positive in my opinion.

 

Not sure there are safety issues either in this day and age to be honest. It seems this will be clean and cut emissions too.

Yes its all as if Fukushima never happened. Its perfectly safe.

 

Admittedly an accident after a major earthquake hit the area to a plan which was built in the late 1960's and commissioned in 1971.

[MakemineVanilla]

It seems unlikely that China offers much of an ideological problem to the West.

 

It is just state controlled Capitalism where the state enforces low wages to keep consumption low, discourage imports and exports cheap, not exactly the opposite to what the West has been doing themselves over the last few decades.

 

The West tends to find political philosophies which promise freedom and liberation as the bigger threats.

 

America's crimes in South America and the Caribbean were all about crushing such political philosophies, they didn't worry too much about democracy, torture or the thousands of disappearances. There problem with Islam is almost certainly driven by the same values.

 

While China substantiates the glories of capitalisms it seems unlikely that they will ever be seen as an ideological problem for the West.

 

After all, the vast amounts of capital which China has at its disposal has been generated by the slave-labour of Chinese industry and while the media are happy enough to refuse to make that connection, the government will continue to present it as a good thing.

 

There is definitely a connection between the suicides at Foxxconn and the capital Cameron and co are trying to utilise.

Edited October 21, 2013 by MakemineVanilla

[bickster]

On the nuclear power station,  it seems that many old stations will be closing in the next decade.  This coupled with the years of neglect and underinvestment we have seen means that an agreement like this which is 16BN investment and 25,000 jobs providing energy for 6 million homes is a positive in my opinion.

 

Not sure there are safety issues either in this day and age to be honest. It seems this will be clean and cut emissions too.

Yes its all as if Fukushima never happened. Its perfectly safe.

Admittedly an accident after a major earthquake hit the area to a plan which was built in the late 1960's and commissioned in 1971.

Fukushima survived the earthquake as it happens. Fukushima was caused by the subsequent Tsunami which breached the plants totally inadequate sea defence wall and flooded the ground level which contained the vital electricity generators. The was a regulatory failure to spot the problem and an unwillingness of the private company whose plant it was to invest in making it safer despite a report stating that the plant was vulnerable to exposure to a large tsunami only a few years earlier.

[blandy]

 

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.

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.

[TrentVilla]

 

bickster, on 21 Oct 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

 

I wouldn't trust this government not to build a new power station on strata underlain by a huge shale deposits and then allow fracking in the vicinity…

 

 

I knew you were a Tory policy writer on the side

 

 

They write policies? I thought they made it up as they went along

[MakemineVanilla]

 

 

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.

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.

 

...., 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.

 

 

 

It is hard to believe a government is entirely sincere about wanting energy prices to fall or level out, when they are simultaneously negotiating a deal which depends on the price doubling, as the words come out of their gobs.

 

I am sure we will wait in vain for the media to point out that guaranteeing the price of energy is a far more drastic interventionist measure than anything Labour had dreamt up.

 

But it certainly looks like the sort of government intervention which Tories and Republicans love.

 

The next question is at what price does British coal suddenly become viable?

 

It surely can't be much higher than that of nuclear.

[blandy]

 

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.

Is there perhaps a difference between "doing trade with" and "handing over control of"

 

Between, for example, buying and selling cars and other goods (industrial quantities of smelly cheese/red wine or selling unfathomable amounts of M&S sandwiches) and handing over control and responsibility for (and guaranteed profits from)  a fair part of the UK energy generation capacity to foreign governments, just because you made a few soundbite pledges and don't want to be overly exposed as a shallow gibbon

[peterms]

Taken from http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2013/10/list-100-failures-by-david-camerons.html

 

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.

That's nonsense. Public debt is not at a particularly high level compared to most of the last 250 years, and the cost of borrowing has probably never been lower. The cuts which are being made are the result of political choice, not some objective necessity. The debt problem he have is one of private debt, and government policies are ensuring that more people are becoming indebted (generally the ones who can least afford it).

The big tory lie is the same one Thatcher used, "There is no alternative". It was a lie then, and it's a lie now. Pretending it's forces out of their control is absurd.

 

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.

"Many"? You've identified one (which isn't actually contradictory). I suspect the idea that most jobs have gone to foreign workers is wrong, but even if it were right, surely the point being made is that the claim of a "million jobs" is intended to create the idea that far more people are in work and far fewer unemployed, but if in fact job creation has barely kept pace with population growth, that's a false conclusion. In fact it would be better to attack the "million jobs" claim by discussing how many are temporary, part-time, unpaid, internships or other "not real jobs", or involuntary "self-employment". That's a far stronger case. However, the claim made is not contradictory, unless you think it depends on the Ukip "they're taking our jobs" line. But if you criticise the list for lack of rigour, then stating "many" and quoting one is pretty weak.

 

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.

That's quite wrong. The point being made when quoting the massive rise is eg energy bills compared to wages is not to say we should have a low-inflation or high-inflation economic policy, but to show that living standards are getting worse.

 

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.

Such a claim would look less wild are exaggerated if you gave a little more reasoning. Simply making sweeeping and untrue claims like "natural consequences of managing the deficit" really doesn't wash. It's no more than a wholly uncritical acceptance of government spin.

[blandy]

 

 

 

So Tony - you still wont discuss the points being made? - Interesting - why is that?

 

 

I replied to the list almost straight away saying the bloke lacked credibility  , what is their to discuss  ? shall we discuss the merits of David Icke and lizard people  whilst we are at it ?

 

It's a shame when people dismiss (in this case) a whole series of linked and argued points with an ad hominem, response - the bloke who wrote them has from time to time had to apologise to someone about something unrelated, so he lacks credibility

 

I've seen better efforts.

[peterms]

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.

Another PFI scheme. Only costlier, for longer, with added toxic waste.

And why would handing control of our energy supplies to foreign governments not fall under the definition of treason? Bad enough to find yourself having to import energy through lack of choice. Worse to knowingly fail to create alternative energy supplies to prevent dependency on other countries. But choosing to hand control of the most critical resource to foreign powers? Which politician has done anything in the last 300 years which more directly subverts the national interest? (As usual, Tony Blair and the Iraq war stands in a class of its own here - other comparisons, please).

[peterms]

I seem to be having trouble spelling words like "we", "if", and "and" today. Hopefully you can supply your own translations.

[drat01]

 

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.

Another PFI scheme. Only costlier, for longer, with added toxic waste.

And why would handing control of our energy supplies to foreign governments not fall under the definition of treason? Bad enough to find yourself having to import energy through lack of choice. Worse to knowingly fail to create alternative energy supplies to prevent dependency on other countries. But choosing to hand control of the most critical resource to foreign powers? Which politician has done anything in the last 300 years which more directly subverts the national interest? (As usual, Tony Blair and the Iraq war stands in a class of its own here - other comparisons, please).

 

Pete - I would imagine that many replying to this would concentrate on the wording and treason in particular rather than the sentiment. I agree the whole handing over key areas of society to foreign investment and especially state sponsored ones is particularly worrying and surely worthy of debate by a bigger audience

[drat01]

I seem to be having trouble spelling words like "we", "if", and "and" today. Hopefully you can supply your own translations.

If we only knew that and more - Ctrl C and V - my pleasure :-) 

[TrentVilla]

I seem to be having trouble spelling words like "we", "if", and "and" today. Hopefully you can supply your own translations.

 

I would but I've outsourced this function to a student in China.

[tonyh29]

TrentVilla, on 21 Oct 2013 - 2:26 PM, said:

 

peterms, on 21 Oct 2013 - 2:17 PM, said:

I seem to be having trouble spelling words like "we", "if", and "and" today. Hopefully you can supply your own translations.

 

I would but I've outsourced this function to a student in Communist  China.

 

fixed for you

[colhint]

just wondering Pete how you are measuring public debt? Is it as a % of gdp. Looking at the History of that, are the higher peaks all around the times of major wars. I know we are in Afghanistan now, but that is nothing like the scale of wars previously. I mean the national debt was all started for the British Empire, and from then on we were pretty much at war every decade from then on in, whether it be the 7 years war right through to the Napoleonic war. Obviously there was a drawing down of the debt in each case only for it to hike up again at the next outbreak. Obviously it had massive peaks with the 2 world wars in the last century. Now given that we haven't been in major conflict since then (obviously I wouldn't be disrespectful to those who died in the Falklands, the gulf or Afghanistan) but the number who died suggest the were not major wars. So our debt looks about the same now as the 60's when we had been paying for the second world war for getting on for 20 years. It also looks like the highest peace time debt, given the time since conflict

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_debt

[tonyh29]

 

 

 

 

So Tony - you still wont discuss the points being made? - Interesting - why is that?

 

 

I replied to the list almost straight away saying the bloke lacked credibility  , what is their to discuss  ? shall we discuss the merits of David Icke and lizard people  whilst we are at it ?

 

It's a shame when people dismiss (in this case) a whole series of linked and argued points with an ad hominem, response - the bloke who wrote them has from time to time had to apologise to someone about something unrelated, so he lacks credibility

 

I've seen better efforts.

 

 

The article is from a biased source  (Labour Think tank) which the poster sorta forgot to mention   .. and then citing "evidence" from the Daily Mail hardly enhances his "facts"  .. ( tbh with the poster himself being a long term member of the Daily Mail insult club and I'm surprised he would then link to articles from said establishment to support his case  )

 

but  whilst someone else is happy to use a man who said  "Irish travellers are gypsies" and "The white man will be extinct in this country eventually"  as a source for debate , I personally I don't think Eoin Clarke deserves the publicity

[drat01]

 

 

 

 

 

So Tony - you still wont discuss the points being made? - Interesting - why is that?

 

 

I replied to the list almost straight away saying the bloke lacked credibility  , what is their to discuss  ? shall we discuss the merits of David Icke and lizard people  whilst we are at it ?

 

It's a shame when people dismiss (in this case) a whole series of linked and argued points with an ad hominem, response - the bloke who wrote them has from time to time had to apologise to someone about something unrelated, so he lacks credibility

 

I've seen better efforts.

 

 

The article is from a biased source  (Labour Think tank) which the poster sorta forgot to mention   .. and then citing "evidence" from the Daily Mail hardly enhances his "facts"  .. ( tbh with the poster himself being a long term member of the Daily Mail insult club and I'm surprised he would then link to articles from said establishment to support his case  )

 

but  whilst someone else is happy to use a man who said  "Irish travellers are gypsies" and "The white man will be extinct in this country eventually"  as a source for debate , I personally I don't think Eoin Clarke deserves the publicity

 

Tony - please stop - I stated exactly where the article was from

 

What are you talking about re "facts" - I did not write the article, this is getting very annoying again

 

And your concentration on the person who collated the list rather than the subjects that it highlights certainly shows that you are again trying to deflect from the topics 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

OMG we're giving money to the French!>"£$%?>!>!>!! Out of the EU NOW¬!!!! British Power Stations for British People1!!!!121

[drat01]

OMG we're giving money to the French!>"£$%?>!>!>!! Out of the EU NOW¬!!!! British Power Stations for British People1!!!!121

Power to the people .....