Jump to content
Geoffrey Settle

Candidate General Election Question

Recommended Posts

 

On ‎23‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 2:11 AM, Davy51 said:

All this talk of building on greenbelt & a nuclear facility called EMMA  which may at some time get pmt along with her friend PAMELA  & i am surprised the Nimby party aren't fielding a candidate.

 

5 hours ago, Freeborn John said:

There are a lot of these micro issues which would be more appropriate for local election campaigning being dragged out, this is a General Election to decide who runs the UK during the difficult next few years, after all. 

 

MICRO ISSUES?  These are issues which will seriously affect people’s lives and their children's and grand-children's lives well into the future!

Once green fields are lost they can never be replaced - our green fields and woodlands protect against life threatening pollution. Ensuring a healthy living environment, increases lifespan whilst keeping people healthier longer and additionally would do more to cut NHS costs than anything else could.  The assault on our green fields has been caused by changes in legislation by central Government. - a Tory initiative.

  The Northern Powerhouse Project is also government led, this will turn the North into an industrial ****hole, whilst keeping the South cleaner and greener.  There are reservations by some of the world's top nuclear scientists re the safety of the EMMA project. Not wanting a nuclear waste plant on your doorstep is certainly not being 'nimby'.

You say, " this is a General Election to decide who runs the UK during the difficult next few years, after all." – obviously, you mean the Brexit negotiations.  Brexit is not life threatening! and the outcome of the negotiations will merely decide which group of fat cats will gain the most profit. What actual effect will that have on ordinary people?      We are supposedly at present the 5th best economy in the world yet ordinary people are living under austerity measures, we have mass homelessness and people having to go to food banks, will a change in which fat cats make the most profit change any of that?

The really important issue in this election is who we TRUST to be PM, not just for Brexit but for what they will actually do to improve the quality of our lives. It is a two-horse race between Corbyn and May. Theresa May likens herself to thatcher, and is a true-blue Tory.  Corbyn, running as a labour candidate is thankfully of an entirely different mould to Blair and something quite unusual in PM candidates, is a man with a moral conscience.

So, as I see it, it's a choice between the Tory party who have progressed a programme of fake 'austerity' to enable them to rip off ordinary people whilst ensuring fat cats profit - without any concern for the hardship they have caused - their leader the political careerist, inflated egoist Theresa May,

Or, Jeremy Corbyn, a man with a conscience and a genuinely fair and caring nature.  Not the type of man who would allow such things as has happened during previous Tory governments - such as knowingly and without qualms feeding the population JCD infected beef!  Not the type of man who would allow such things as has happened during previous Blairite Labour governments - such as dragging us into needless wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think you need to get some of your arguments in sinc Shah:   Whilst I agree with the sanctity of the "green belt", I think you need to be clear as to what exactly is "green belt" and what has been identified has (ex-New Town land) scheduled for future release. You also complain of a lack of housing, again I agree, but this carries a responsibility as how to provide this, without building on green field sites; and poses the dilemma of either building out from or building up in brown field sites. High rise got a bad name in the 60s, but with increasing demand and changing demographics, it appears the only option imo.    The nuclear **** has been travelling through Warrington for years from Windscale, so not a new risk, but still a risk, that could be resolved by moving the operation close to the source at Windscale.   As for this election, I've no doubt that Jeremy is a sincere and a rare example of a politician with convictions; but it's clear that he would be walked all over in negotiations with the EU; in fact, the Labour manifesto has already given the game away. IE: That if no deal is reached, Labour will revoke article 50 and keep us in the EU. Thus giving the EU the incentive NOT to reach a deal. Labour still labours under the illusion that they can still be members of the single market without accepting free movement from the EU. In fact, Jeremy finds it hard to promise anything on controlling immigration, unlike the rest of the spending spree in his manifesto, which will no doubt sky rocket the national debt, as I doubt the ability of legislators or HMRC to trawl in the tax funds required. Brexit is the defining issue of this election, as the electorate has to decide whether to confirm their referendum decision or not.  Once that is done, I'm sure all the other issues being raised at this election will become relevant in four or five years time.     :ph34r:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really don't do tongue in cheek Sha.

 

As for Mr Corbyn,i too don't doubt his sincerity but i think he is just a puppet for the unions,who would leave us deeply in debt by 2022 & without,if he had his way a nuclear shield, all of which i disagree with.

As for Mrs M., as i've have stated previously on these forums, needs to focus on getting British nationals back into full time work & off benefits...it is no use paying 24 hours benefit to bolster 16 hours of work while immigrants work for less than the legal minimum wage. A workforce propped up by benefits is the road to economic ruin because,as hard as it sounds,someone has to pay taxes & provide revenue to run the country. Pensioners cannot be made a scapegoat for the ills of this country's economy & May will target them at her peril.

As for green power, as mentioned in previous posts, the UK has a wealth of buildings such as offices,warehouses,factories & house rooftops which can take solar panels on an industrial scale to provide a massive boost to our energy needs & all from the same sun in the same sky without the need to provide any type of generating equipment or power source. Why are all new houses not sold with fitted solar power with the incentive to buyers of zero energy bills ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps 'local issues' would have been more appropriate but the post wouldn't have scanned, but micro issues; yes indeed, intentionally muddying the water with these specifically local issues during a General Election campaign is just a NuMilitant ruse to divert attention away from the total unsuitability of the doddering old communist they support for the role of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

I'm no fan of May and I'm also aware that she didn't back Brexit in the first place, but as the most hard nosed of the lot of them and with Article 50 triggered I think it's a case of right time right place for her.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davy51,

Solar panels may seem wonderful but we should remember that in the UK, as opposed to Germany, maximum electricity demand is in winter in the hours of darkness. Without batteries with greater capacity than currently available with vastly improved energy densities; at a price which is less than the solar panels they support the use of solar generation is as useful as the proverbial chocolate fireguard unless you are off-grid or in the middle-of-nowhere.

Southern Australia inadvertently lost service on their only spinning generator because of an over reliance on solar, they had taken too much conventional capacity out. The whole network collapsed as the timing source was lost as for safety reasons the slave generators had to shut down. It may be that we are not ready for the brave new world yet!

Today's network economics make the conventional plant have the standby capacity for wind and solar and load the costs of it onto their own prices which is the reason why renewables are claimed (untruthfully) to be inexpensive. To add insult to injury we then subsidise the renewables and guarantee they are used before all other generation including Nuclear. That is why the price of Nuclear went so high because there is a crazy rigged market that just rips off consumers. It can be changed if common sense prevails so let us hope that is what Mrs May has in mind to cap energy prices  along with not allowing fracked natural gas to be sold to Europe when we leave the EU.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no reason why solar panels couldn't run in tandem throughout the year instead of using fully generated electricity, after all they only need daylight.Surely it would be a clean & reliable boost to the UK energy needs without the use of expensive turbines that can only operate in certain weather conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

solar panels may save money, but until they can make them look like roof tiles, I'll stick to paying my bills thanks....Damned ugly things and a blight on the landscape

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in Cornwall last week near the airport and there were solar farms in the fields as well as wind farms. The field of solar panels looked a bit like a lake so it blended in nicely.

There were going to be both in Warrington some years ago but they never got the go ahead or backing. A great shame.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody have any idea how much maintenance is involved in a so called "solar farm", or its projected life? On paper it looks like a wonderful idea, something for nothing, which unfortunately overlooks the age old problem of "you don't get ought for nought". Without a reliable means of power storage, and continuous standby backup (coal, nuclear or gas) solar and wind will only ever appear to be competitive with fossil fuel and nuclear power when given massive subsidies. And beware the wonderful smart meter idea, which is only being pushed because it will give the PTB the ability to control your power usage i.e. shut you down when the sun and the wind aren't playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you are showing there is that solar power is a good investment for the money men. It doesn't follow that they are good for the consumer who has to pay twice (through their power bills and also the tax they pay to subsidise this form of energy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take is that solar power is the best ancilliary form of green energy production ,but the ultimate Big Daddy has to be nuclear produced power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, asperity said:

So what you are showing there is that solar power is a good investment for the money men. It doesn't follow that they are good for the consumer who has to pay twice (through their power bills and also the tax they pay to subsidise this form of energy).

Look ASP I'm not going to write a thesis on the subject or do a full cost and benefit analysis you wanted some information and in a quick search I found these links.

I think that they are a good balance and Warrington has got good returns on the GG roof tops - today the flow into the grid must be great but even on cloudy days it's not bad and showing good returns for the investments made - Linton Green WBC has the stats.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Geoff, a good return for those who can afford to invest, subsidised by everyone else. Nice money if you can get it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think your right Asp, smoke and mirrors at work here; any energy source that hides the real costs through tax-payer subsidies needs to be questioned. The same can be said of Nuclear, where the commissioning and de-commissioning costs are astronomical. Also find it amusing, in an era where we need every scrap of land for housing or agriculture, that they can plant a field with solar panels !     :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was about to make the same point about farmland being covered with solar panels Obs (with the landowner being well paid for its use with taxpayers money) while at the same time the usual suspects wail and moan if any suggestion is made to change the use of such land to housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Geoffrey Settle said:

I imagine that each planning application stands or falls on it's merits and you and Obs are miffed that you haven't got a plot of land :) 

So you do at least admit that it's those that have the money (and/or land) that are managing to skew the system and screw the taxpayer for the subsidies :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps these people with unfulfilled land are already being paid handsomely by the CAP from the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought and getting back to campaign issues.

Are there any local parties in this General Election Campaign that are championing RENEWABLES, admitting that climate change and global warming is an issue or for that matter they give a jot about the environment and biodiversity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate is always changing Geoff, it's the result of the earth's atmosphere being a chaotic system, and the variables introduced by the sun's varying radiation and the earth's varying distance from the sun amongst a host of other effects. Global warming is a myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Donald you don't have to tell me that I studied it on me Geography and Economics degree course - you are describing the base level and climatic variation - global warming is what man has added to the equation. It will be some time before we reach the next Ice Age under normal conditions but due to man's intervention he won't be around to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, asperity said:

So you do at least admit that it's those that have the money (and/or land) that are managing to skew the system and screw the taxpayer for the subsidies :D

I never said anything else - hence the reason I speak at planning meetings and campaign to get the environmental damage that some of them do penalised and reversed. The problem is catching the buggers before they chop down the trees, plough up the land - these guys do it ahead of seeking permission and in Warrington quite often get away with it e.g. the Rixton Clay Pigeon Shoot fiasco, peel hall, tyre man at Kingsway, the Latchford Embankment felling etc etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...