Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Kingfisher]

I fail to understand the analogy with Brown, it strikes me you either can't grasp the argument or are deflecting it with illogical reasoning. I can't be bothered playing that game, sorry. Edit - that was a reply to an earlier post by TonyH

Edited October 21, 2013 by Kingfisher

[snowychap]

...if it had been linked to in the first place

To be fair, I think the Huff Post linked to the debate/questions as a whole rather than the exact reply (i.e. it was on their link ).

[MakemineVanilla]

 

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

Power to the people .....

 

 

As you might expect the Germans have plans to shut down their nuclear power plants and are looking to have a 100 000 independent electricity generators using gas-driven engines made by Volkswagen, installed in people's homes (@ E5k), which will generate the equivalent of two nuclear power stations.

 

So while the British are paying a billion pounds price subsidy to the French and the Chinese, the Germans will be using their money to stimulate their car industry and create jobs.

 

It seems we are always one step behind.

[bickster]

it gets better actually

 

so number 10 on the list

 

Tories have axed 5,601 Nurses since May 2010  (evidence) 

 

the evidence takes you to a twitter page  ..of .... Dr Eoin Clarke

 

 

Ok on the facts, lets look at them. That looks about a 1.5 %. Wouldn't you expect about 2.5% to retire each year at least and about another .5% to just leave the profession. So if thats the case, Haven't about 22,000 left the NHS naturally. It very much looks as though no one was sacked as he claims but about 15,000 have been recruited. Now he might not think that is enough but isn't it just sensationalism reporting

He doesn't claim any sackings in that list. He claims there are 5601 less nurses in the NHS, natural wastage has nothing to do with that. So using your figures 22,000 left only 16399 were brought in to replace them.therefore there are 5601 axed nursing positions.

Now this of course might just be down to the incredibly efficient Capita who now recruit for the NHS, proof that privatisation works. I spoke with an ICU nurse the other day who was just starting a new post in our local ICU that day. It took Capita 6 months to get her on the ward from her getting the job. This despite the fact that she only left the same ward and the same job only 18 months before being offered the job back. She also said the unit was still understaffed by 2 positions, that have been filled months previously but they are waiting on Capita to go through the motions.

My partner applied for an admin job in the NHS last November, she finished the interview process and got the job back in April. Only this week she was given her induction date... next January. That's utterly ludicrous but it is a fairly common story. 14 months from applying for the job, she will actually start. She phoned up the trust she'll be working for who basically said they were tearing their hair out, as they needed these staff months and months ago, they even tried to see if they could hurry things up for her... not a hope in hell was the final answer.

Privatisation clearly works... very slowly. I'm also fairly sure its deliberate too, the positions count as filled but no-ones actually doing the work yet.

[Kingfisher]

Re: the nuke deal. I think it fails all the tests, on economics, benefit to the public, environment. It's a bad deal, and the price strike is crazy. We'll regret this one.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Kingfisher

[StigVillan]

The second world war ruined this country.

It bred apathy, poor work ethic and a skewed sense of entitlement.

The Germans had to provide for themselves, protect themselves, haul themselves back to some semblance of a working society again.

That have a pride and a sense of duty now.

We don't.

[Kingfisher]

The second world war ruined this country.

It bred apathy, poor work ethic and a skewed sense of entitlement.

The Germans had to provide for themselves, protect themselves, haul themselves back to some semblance of a working society again.

That have a pride and a sense of duty now.

We don't.

Nonsense. I don't subscribe to that!

[tonyh29]

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

Power to the people .....

As you might expect the Germans have plans to shut down their nuclear power plants and are looking to have a 100 000 independent electricity generators using gas-driven engines made by Volkswagen, installed in people's homes (@ E5k), which will generate the equivalent of two nuclear power stations.

So while the British are paying a billion pounds price subsidy to the French and the Chinese, the Germans will be using their money to stimulate their car industry and create jobs.

It seems we are always one step behind.

German gas reserves are decreasing though aren't they ? Apart from shale gas which they are getting into

[peterms]

 

 

...

Esther McVey: What I will say is that we are putting in place support for those housing associations and local authorities that are finding that they cannot come to terms with the issue, although they have had three years to do something and have failed to do so. I would like to talk about the 1.8 million people on housing

waiting lists and the 250,000 people in overcrowded accommodation, whom nobody had looked after. We are looking after everybody and supporting them as best we can with discretionary housing payments

which may be an abridged version of her reply possibly ??

 

That's an earlier answer given at Work and Pension Questions. Here's a later one:

14th Oct Col 433

Esther McVey: This is something we have to do. I have answered this before: how many people we have to look at who are on waiting lists, how many are in overcrowded housing, and how the bill doubled under Labour. The hon. Gentleman is quite right—we have to get the stock right: the fact that there are three-bedroom houses and why in the last three years they have not been modified into one and two-bedroom houses. Those questions have to be asked. That is what we have to do: get the stock right and support people as best we can.

 

Well that wasn't so hard was it ... Could have saved countless rounds of Irish catchphrase and " say what you don't see " if it had been linked to in the first place

 

 

Dong.  You miss the central point.  If she hadn't elaborated, and helpfully spelt out ("in terms", I think the lawyers like to say) how remarkably silly her idea was, what else could she have meant that wasn't even more stupid?

 

Making the kind of statement she did, should we suspend any judgement until she cares to spell out definitively exactly which stupid option of a range of stupid options she stupidly has in her stupid mind?

 

There's benefit of the doubt, and then there's pointless indulgence of an imbecile.

[peterms]

 

 

 

it gets better actually

 

so number 10 on the list

 

Tories have axed 5,601 Nurses since May 2010  (evidence) 

 

the evidence takes you to a twitter page  ..of .... Dr Eoin Clarke

 

 

Ok on the facts, lets look at them. That looks about a 1.5 %. Wouldn't you expect about 2.5% to retire each year at least and about another .5% to just leave the profession. So if thats the case, Haven't about 22,000 left the NHS naturally. It very much looks as though no one was sacked as he claims but about 15,000 have been recruited. Now he might not think that is enough but isn't it just sensationalism reporting

 

 

 

 

Not sure what that graph proves , unless I'm missing the point. Having tried to compare the NHS stats this eoin bloke used then compared them to your graph its more misleading. Your graph goes back to 2008, but the nhs one only goes back to 2009. So I looked at the 2009 figure and worked from there. I looks like there are 2500 fewer nurses, now from then. which represents about a .7% In that period about 30,000 would have left naturally

 

 

The graph does not address natural turnover.  It only deals with redundancies.  These are quite different things, recorded separately.

[peterms]

1. Tories have axed 576 Sure Start Centres (evidence) The evidence that they do any good is weak.
2. Bankers' Bonuses rise by 64% in just 1 year (evidence) Is this the business of government?
3. Food Bank usage has grown by 700%+ in 3 years (evidence) Is this the result of the recession, gov policy or more foodbanks available?
4. 1 million are now employed on Zero-Hours Contracts (evidence) Is this result of the present gov's employment law or the last?
5. The Disabled have suffered real term cuts of 1.7% this year in benefits (here) Bad but bigger loss through policy of high inflation.
6. 52,701 firms have been declared Insolvent (Q2 2010 to Q2 2013) (evidence) The government have kept int, rates as low as poss.
7. 379,968 persons have been declared Insolvent (Q2 2010 to Q2 2013)  (evidence) Personal debt and recession are a bad combination.
8. Unemployment is 20,000+ higher today than May 2010 (evidence & here) Economy flat, net immigration still very high. 
9. Private Rental Homes costs £9,084 to rent (£1,128 up from Apr 2010) (evidence & here) Property Inflation and increasing population raises rent costs.
10. Tories have axed 5,601 Nurses since May 2010  (evidence) Broken promise not to cut NHS but only 1.6% of total number of nurses.
11. Council Tax rises imposed on the poor & disabled have led to 450,000 being dragged to courts since April (evidence) Nasty
12. 1 million people have had to sell their family home to pay for Elderly Care in the last 5 years (in fairness that include 2 years of a Labour government). Cameron promised no one would have to sell their family home to pay for elderly care (evidence here) Labour policy too.
13. More than 250,000 Disabled people have been forced to take place in the Work Programme unpaid (here) Nasty
14. Water Charges  are up 20% since 1 Apr 2010  (here, here, here) Privatised water companies not remedied by Labour.
15. 20% of Law Firms are facing bankruptcy and 500 shut in 6 months amid Legal Aid cuts (evidence) I can't fee sorry for lawyers.
16. Stamp Prices are up 46-56% since May 2010 (evidence) Fattening up for privatisation - but Labour policy too.
17. Suicide Rates have climbed 8% in just 1 year reaching their highest levels since 2004 (evidence) Causes are too complicated to blame one gov.
18. Number of Children in Class Sizes of more than 30 has doubled in a year (here) Class-size obsession was a political obsession, evidence weak.
19. Free Schools are under-subscribed but they get more money per pupil & freeze out poor kids (here, here & here) Bad waste of money.
20. Tories axed 5,000 Firefighters and hundreds of Fire Stations. Evidence of the impact in London alone (here) Bad

 

Thanks for taking the time to address it in more detail.

 

It is however too long, and only encourages Tony to do his tiresome quoting 150 lines with the addition of "Me too", so let's deal with it in chunks.

 

Here's the first 20.  Others may wish to take on other chunks (hint)?

 

1.  Whether Sure Start is a good, poor or middling initiative is debatable, like any policy, but was not the point made.  The point was about the cuts made.  I haven't seen that disputed.  Can we take it that the facts are correct?

 

2.  Bankers' bonuses most certainly are the business of government.  Most obviously because they come from taxpayers, either directly (bailouts) or indirectly (the implicit guarantee of bailouts, which allows banks (uniquely|) to operate in ways far, far removed from the idle notions of "market discipline" and "shareholder control".  We pay for these bonuses.   Quite apart from the arithmetic, does government have a role in commenting on the tone and boundaries of public debate on matters of public interest?  I say yes.  The amount of bonuses, the grounds on which they are paid, the level of differential between top and bottom in organisations, are all proper matters of social comment and social view, and of course government should play a part in seeking to reflect that.

 

3.  The recession is itself a result of government policy, as we all know and has been endlessly demonstrated.  The idea that food banks suddenly sprang up for no reason and therefore people just went there for free food is ridiculous on a number of levels, including: they had not done so before, except in times of great hardship; you can't just turn up at a food bank and walk away with goods, you have to be referred; and the people taking the time, trouble and effort to set these things up don't do so lightly.  Actually, the whole argument is offensive, reminiscent of the worst shite uttered by the most odious of the Victorians, preaching about the moral failings of the poor while stuffing themselves with the fruit of their work-free, rentier lifestyles.

 

4.  It's the result of giving firms ever more leeway to exploit people.  The last government certainly did some of that - this does not make it ok, unless you're T. Blair.  But both the extent and the depth of exploitation are getting worse.  It seems the current government are just fine with that.

 

5.  No, disabled people have suffered more.  Check out the tales about Atos and bedroom tax.  Even energy costs hit disabled people harder (more likely to be housebound, more likely to need more warmth because of their condition).  I suspect the government didn't set out to hurt disabled people more, they're just collateral damage in the class war.

 

6.  Interest rates are not a function of this government's policies.  You may have noticed they're not so different in other countries.  It's more a function of the global economy, with local variations.  Insolvency rates are not a function of interest rates.  SMEs are facing difficulty in getting loans on reasonable terms (it's not the interest rates, it's the terms that's the problem).  They are suffering from the lack of demand which is the hallmark of this government-prolonged recession.  Your point has no relation to the stat quoted.

 

7.  Yes, personal debt and recession are a bad combination.  But government policy is to increase personal debt, not least through trying to reinflate the housing bubble.  This is both mad, and criminally irresponsible.

 

8.  Yes, employment is very flat.  Immigration is a net economic benefit, so would be even flatter without it.  It shouldn't be like this, coming out of a recession.  There is usually far more of a bounce.  It is the slowest recovery on record, with the economy suppressed by stupid policies.

 

9.  No.  The reason for rising private rents is the combination of rising population and inadequate new housebuilding; massive drop in numbers of social housing; end of fair rent controls, so lots of HB to landlords; promotion of the "rentier economy", where making money from exploitation and being sat on your arse instead of working became seen as entrepreneurship rather than sloth and usury.

 

10.  Yes, broken promise.  But more significant than the number of nurses is the change in their role.  So many of them describe not being able to spend time caring for patients.  No doubt when this filters though into sad horror stories, it will be presented as the moral failings of individuals rather than predictable systemic collapse.  Tell, me, who ever went into nursing to make money, or for an easy life, rather than because they were principally motivated by caring values?  Actually, I think that the contempt and utter disrespect routinely shown to caring professionals makes me angrier than almost anything else this corrupt bunch of scumbags has done.

 

11.  Yes, nasty.

 

12.  All 3 larger parties have tried to find a way to fund continually increasing care costs without large tax rises or confiscation of assets.  None so far has managed to find an answer.

 

13.  Yes, nasty. 

 

14.  Agree, Labour should have dealt with it, by renationalising and sequestering previous profits.  And sending shareholders to the gulag as a disincentive for future carpetbaggers, of course.

 

15.  Your answer, "I can't fee sorry for lawyers." is an excellent typo, or else Freudian slip.  I can only agree.  However, the legal aid cuts are a harsh and unjust tool to push the interests of employers against staff (to name only one arena of conflict).  It's unfair, illiberal, and serves the interests of the rich and powerful.  Another sewer through which money flows into the pockets of the tories and their backers.  Shocking that the Libs would let them get away with it.

 

16.  Yes, Labour policy on Royal Mail was dreadful, and tory.  But then, Mandelson was running it, and he's the biggest tory in the Labour party.

 

17.  Causes of suicide are always complex, and generally inappropriate as political propaganda.  However, there is a substantial number of people (I can't quote the number, perhaps someone can) who have directly linked their suicide notes with their feelings of distress at the hardship they have recently been caused by changes in the benefit system. 

 

18.  There are many obsessions in education.  A recent complaint is that we are too subject to the personal fetishes of the Pinocchio figure who currently struts our educational stage.  Isn't class sizes, other things being equal, regarded as a useful indicator?  Isn't that why we have guidelines, limits, helpers?

 

19.  Yes, bad waste of money.

 

20.  Yes, bad.

[colhint]

 

 

it gets better actually

 

so number 10 on the list

 

Tories have axed 5,601 Nurses since May 2010  (evidence) 

 

the evidence takes you to a twitter page  ..of .... Dr Eoin Clarke

 

 

Ok on the facts, lets look at them. That looks about a 1.5 %. Wouldn't you expect about 2.5% to retire each year at least and about another .5% to just leave the profession. So if thats the case, Haven't about 22,000 left the NHS naturally. It very much looks as though no one was sacked as he claims but about 15,000 have been recruited. Now he might not think that is enough but isn't it just sensationalism reporting

 

He doesn't claim any sackings in that list. He claims there are 5601 less nurses in the NHS, natural wastage has nothing to do with that. So using your figures 22,000 left only 16399 were brought in to replace them.therefore there are 5601 axed nursing positions.

Now this of course might just be down to the incredibly efficient Capita who now recruit for the NHS, proof that privatisation works. I spoke with an ICU nurse the other day who was just starting a new post in our local ICU that day. It took Capita 6 months to get her on the ward from her getting the job. This despite the fact that she only left the same ward and the same job only 18 months before being offered the job back. She also said the unit was still understaffed by 2 positions, that have been filled months previously but they are waiting on Capita to go through the motions.

My partner applied for an admin job in the NHS last November, she finished the interview process and got the job back in April. Only this week she was given her induction date... next January. That's utterly ludicrous but it is a fairly common story. 14 months from applying for the job, she will actually start. She phoned up the trust she'll be working for who basically said they were tearing their hair out, as they needed these staff months and months ago, they even tried to see if they could hurry things up for her... not a hope in hell was the final answer.

Privatisation clearly works... very slowly. I'm also fairly sure its deliberate too, the positions count as filled but no-ones actually doing the work yet.

 

 

 

oh yes he does claim they were sacked, this is his link

 

User Actions

  Follow

Éoin Clarke‏@DrEoinCl

#NHS staff sacked by the Tories climbs to 35,811. This includes 5,601 Nursing Staff. No wonder we have an A&E Crisis pic.twitter.com/u5B2KSxqWk

[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

Yes, % of gdp (since the point is not the cash total, but the ease or otherwise with which it can be repaid - therefore also see the other graph on the page you link, showing interest payments as % of gdp). Looking at the line for 50% of gdp as an easy reference mark, for 170 straight years it was above that. Last century it was above that line for 60 straight years. Immediately before the bankers' financial crisis, it was at one of the lowest points ever, probably only four short periods of a few years when it had ever been lower. Yet when you read the paper or turn on the tv, you'd think it's at a historic high and spiralling out of control.

So the hysteria about the level of national debt is quite misinformed, even at the level of basic fact.

The next question is "Does it matter?". We have to realise that the national debt is in another sense the national savings - all those pension funds that are owed money for their ultra-safe investments, paying our pensions from investments with zero risk of default. Would it be better, or worse, if we repaid all the debt and let them turn to complete reliance on the markets to pay our pensions, because there wasn't safe government debt to buy?

Then there's the point that at the national level, if you try to achieve a government surplus, you are in effect trying to create a private sector deficit (unless the balance of foreign trade is so great it outweighs both, which is extremely unlikely if you're not Norway). Why would that be good?

The view that we should have government surpluses and a massively reduced government debt works if and only if you mistakenly believe a government to be just a big household, and if you also don't understand about sectoral balances. Or of course if you want to use a superficially plausible story to create a smokescreen for ideologically driven and wholly unnecessary cuts, to take money from the poor and give it to the rich.

 

 

Just a couple of points here, that 170 years period covered the war of spanish succesion, seven years war, American independance , Napoeonic wars (which cost far more then either of the 20th century wars)  the Crimea.  and the boer wars. I think the longest period between conflict was about 30 years. The 60 years in the last century began in 1910 and ended in 1970, obviously covering the 2 world wars. If you look at the graph, the debt rises significantly just prior to major conflict and reduces  after a period. 

 

So I would suggest our debt is by far the largest it has been given it is 74 years since our last major conflict

[peterms]

 

 

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

Yes, % of gdp (since the point is not the cash total, but the ease or otherwise with which it can be repaid - therefore also see the other graph on the page you link, showing interest payments as % of gdp). Looking at the line for 50% of gdp as an easy reference mark, for 170 straight years it was above that. Last century it was above that line for 60 straight years. Immediately before the bankers' financial crisis, it was at one of the lowest points ever, probably only four short periods of a few years when it had ever been lower. Yet when you read the paper or turn on the tv, you'd think it's at a historic high and spiralling out of control.

So the hysteria about the level of national debt is quite misinformed, even at the level of basic fact.

The next question is "Does it matter?". We have to realise that the national debt is in another sense the national savings - all those pension funds that are owed money for their ultra-safe investments, paying our pensions from investments with zero risk of default. Would it be better, or worse, if we repaid all the debt and let them turn to complete reliance on the markets to pay our pensions, because there wasn't safe government debt to buy?

Then there's the point that at the national level, if you try to achieve a government surplus, you are in effect trying to create a private sector deficit (unless the balance of foreign trade is so great it outweighs both, which is extremely unlikely if you're not Norway). Why would that be good?

The view that we should have government surpluses and a massively reduced government debt works if and only if you mistakenly believe a government to be just a big household, and if you also don't understand about sectoral balances. Or of course if you want to use a superficially plausible story to create a smokescreen for ideologically driven and wholly unnecessary cuts, to take money from the poor and give it to the rich.

 

 

Just a couple of points here, that 170 years period covered the war of spanish succesion, seven years war, American independance , Napoeonic wars (which cost far more then either of the 20th century wars)  the Crimea.  and the boer wars. I think the longest period between conflict was about 30 years. The 60 years in the last century began in 1910 and ended in 1970, obviously covering the 2 world wars. If you look at the graph, the debt rises significantly just prior to major conflict and reduces  after a period. 

 

So I would suggest our debt is by far the largest it has been given it is 74 years since our last major conflict

 

 

But - so what?  The debt was accrued to build things like an industrial base, the national infrastructure, the NHS.  If it was only to pay off chitties for knapsacks and bandoliers, I imagine we'd be less sanguine about it.

 

The debt was greatest at the times of our greatest investment in our greatest endeavours.  Don't be scared of it.  See it as an inspiration.

[drat01]

 

 

...

Esther McVey: What I will say is that we are putting in place support for those housing associations and local authorities that are finding that they cannot come to terms with the issue, although they have had three years to do something and have failed to do so. I would like to talk about the 1.8 million people on housing

waiting lists and the 250,000 people in overcrowded accommodation, whom nobody had looked after. We are looking after everybody and supporting them as best we can with discretionary housing payments

which may be an abridged version of her reply possibly ??

 

That's an earlier answer given at Work and Pension Questions. Here's a later one:

14th Oct Col 433

Esther McVey: This is something we have to do. I have answered this before: how many people we have to look at who are on waiting lists, how many are in overcrowded housing, and how the bill doubled under Labour. The hon. Gentleman is quite right—we have to get the stock right: the fact that there are three-bedroom houses and why in the last three years they have not been modified into one and two-bedroom houses. Those questions have to be asked. That is what we have to do: get the stock right and support people as best we can.

 

Well that wasn't so hard was it ... Could have saved countless rounds of Irish catchphrase and " say what you don't see " if it had been linked to in the first place

 

 

 

It would be interesting now to see those that "went off on one" (and those that liked the posts) to hear what the response was to the stupidity of her comments and the policy in general?

Edited October 22, 2013 by drat01

[Awol]

 

 

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.

 

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.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Awol

[tonyh29]

MakemineVanilla, on 21 Oct 2013 - 5:11 PM, said:

 

1. Bankers' Bonuses rise by 64% in just 1 year (evidence) Is this the business of government?

 

 

There's actually no measure of bonuses for "the City " The closest we can get is for "Finance and Business Activities"   ... the 64% rise figure came about because Some businesses responding to the Monthly Wages & Salaries Survey have reported that they paid bonuses in March last year but in April this year."  .. i.e 2 lots of bonuses in the same financial year  ... it's also misleading because more than banking is being covered here. 'Finance and Business Services' includes anything from real estate, to scientific or technical activities, to administrative services.

 

2007 /2008 was the peak of banking bonuses ( shhhhh mustn't talk about events prior to 2010 )  and since then bonuses have actually been in decline  ... In 2008 a total of £11.6 billion was estimated to have been paid out, compared to forecasts of just £1.6 billion in 2013.

 

Source :http://fullfact.org/factchecks/cameron_miliband_bankers_bonuses_PMQs-29008

[chrisp65]

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

Personally, I’m not a fan of nuclear as it’s currently sold to us.

I’m unclear as to why, 67 years after we started using it and announcing its awesome clean energy benefits, we still haven’t quite worked out how to turn one off.

[MakemineVanilla]

 

 

 

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

Power to the people .....

 

As you might expect the Germans have plans to shut down their nuclear power plants and are looking to have a 100 000 independent electricity generators using gas-driven engines made by Volkswagen, installed in people's homes (@ E5k), which will generate the equivalent of two nuclear power stations.

So while the British are paying a billion pounds price subsidy to the French and the Chinese, the Germans will be using their money to stimulate their car industry and create jobs.

It seems we are always one step behind.

 

German gas reserves are decreasing though aren't they ? Apart from shale gas which they are getting into

 

 

Germany are still producing brown coal which is the dirtiest coal there is.

 

Brown coal is opencast and villages are disappearing as the diggers close in around them.

 

The interesting thing is how the Germans get a Swedish company to mine the coal which is a very politically sensitive issue.

 

The price of energy became a huge issue in the latest General Election in Germany, where it is even more expensive than the UK.

 

Famously, the Germans have invested €80 bn in Green energy generation, which it is said (Bjorn Lomborg) will delay global warming by 37 hours.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2013 by MakemineVanilla

[Jon]

 

 

 

 

 

Famously, the Germans have invested €80 bn in Green energy generation, which it is said (Bjorn Lomborg) will delay global warming by 37 hours.

 

 

 

Sounds worth it then.