drat01 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Awol, on 21 Oct 2013 - 10:22 AM, said: drat01, on 21 Oct 2013 - 10:13 AM, said: Re the Hypocrisy statement - another thing to consider is the following comment that was issued re Chinese / EDF etc "However, Dr Paul Dorfman, from the Energy Institute at University College London, said "what it equates to actually is a subsidy and the coalition said they would never subsidise nuclear". He added: "It is essentially a subsidy of between what we calculate to be £800m to £1bn a year that the UK taxpayer and energy consumer will be putting into the deep pockets of Chinese and French corporations, which are essentially their governments." 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. Who on earth would be stupid enough to set such targets ? "Ahhh but Labour ......" - Tony again you set about ruining what is a good debate with that nonsense At least give a viewpoint on what you think is good / bad / indifferent rather than what is a quite tiresome attempt now to move the conversation away from this Gvmt. Do you agree with the setting of the targets - which by the way had nothing to do with the subject being dicussed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 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 ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 "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. 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 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. 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Awol, on 21 Oct 2013 - 10:22 AM, said: drat01, on 21 Oct 2013 - 10:13 AM, said: Re the Hypocrisy statement - another thing to consider is the following comment that was issued re Chinese / EDF etc "However, Dr Paul Dorfman, from the Energy Institute at University College London, said "what it equates to actually is a subsidy and the coalition said they would never subsidise nuclear". He added: "It is essentially a subsidy of between what we calculate to be £800m to £1bn a year that the UK taxpayer and energy consumer will be putting into the deep pockets of Chinese and French corporations, which are essentially their governments." 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. Who on earth would be stupid enough to set such targets ? "Ahhh but Labour ......" - Tony again you set about ruining what is a good debate with that nonsense At least give a viewpoint on what you think is good / bad / indifferent rather than what is a quite tiresome attempt now to move the conversation away from this Gvmt. Do you agree with the setting of the targets - which by the way had nothing to do with the subject being dicussed see that "?" .. that would be a question that would ...as in , Who would be stupid enough to set such unrealistic targets I guess your answers confirms , the who for me though I've made my view on carbon emissions before ..they are all well and good but when consumers still carry on buying cheaper good elsewhere from countries that aren't adhering to any such policy , whilst feeling good about how they have saved the planet , it makes them a bit hypercritical ... We should all do our bit for sure but If carbon emission policies in one country cause a production to shift to other countries without emission policies , it will not reduce global pollution ... not to mention it also create problems such as structural unemployment and a loss of competitiveness. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 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. 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. as said previously these are certainly points that will be leveled against the Gvmt are are ones that should be up there for debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 So to put a simplistic view on this then can I assume that our - how shall I say it Right wing and Tory supporters are saying that the credibility and validity of the points raised in that article - ones that are certain to be raised when looking back at this Gvmt's performance - are to be ignored because a) they don't like the author they reference the Mail and the Telegraph c) they question the performance of the Gvmt and their policies and pledges? I suppose the close your eyes, hands over ears and sing loudly approach maybe the best if you don't want to answer any of the points - can't wait for Cameron and Clegg at the next PMQ's and the run up to the next election Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 "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. 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. Interesting viewpoint you are now stating AWOL, not consistent with previous ones I would say - but I suspect you may not agree. I fail to see the relevance of the Labour reference other than the usual deflection, ahh but Labour but I did think they were championed by someone else :-) . As said I look forward to your maintaining of this view now - especially as you now seem to embrace the idea and notion of trade with countries (and Gvmts) of France and China - subsidised by the UK tax payers - as one we should pursue In regards to thinking that my views are complete nonsense - much appreciated for the constructive feedback, I will file it under "don't give a rats". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 drat01, on 21 Oct 2013 - 10:56 AM, said: So to put a simplistic view on this then can I assume that our - how shall I say it Right wing and Tory supporters are saying that the credibility and validity of the points raised in that article - ones that are certain to be raised when looking back at this Gvmt's performance - are to be ignored because a) they don't like the author they reference the Mail and the Telegraph c) they question the performance of the Gvmt and their policies and pledges? I suppose the close your eyes, hands over ears and sing loudly approach maybe the best if you don't want to answer any of the points - can't wait for Cameron and Clegg at the next PMQ's and the run up to the next election Well C) would be you putting words into peoples mouths (again) , I've held a séance with Norris Mcwhirter and you need to do this once more today to get an entry into the Guinness book of records As Kingfisher so eloquently put it Well, I think we can all agree the daily mail is a shit right wing, homophobic, xenophobic, lying, Tory rag with past links to Nazism. And it is generally read and loved my mindless, scared, sad and pathetic little selfish morons who think Christmas has been banned and political correctness has gone mad. that you then post a link championing an article with stories from the Mail ... forgive me if I don't don't feel the need to respond to the points Dr Clarke quoted 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Interesting viewpoint you are now stating AWOL, not consistent with previous ones I would say - but I suspect you may not agree. I fail to see the relevance of the Labour reference other than the usual deflection, ahh but Labour but I did think they were championed by someone else :-) . As said I look forward to your maintaining of this view now - especially as you now seem to embrace the idea and notion of trade with countries (and Gvmts) of France and China - subsidised by the UK tax payers - as one we should pursue 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? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Interesting viewpoint you are now stating AWOL, not consistent with previous ones I would say - but I suspect you may not agree. I fail to see the relevance of the Labour reference other than the usual deflection, ahh but Labour but I did think they were championed by someone else :-) . As said I look forward to your maintaining of this view now - especially as you now seem to embrace the idea and notion of trade with countries (and Gvmts) of France and China - subsidised by the UK tax payers - as one we should pursue 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? AWOL - again and again you contradict yourself. I did not say it would by hypocritical to do business - I stated that given all of the rhetoric that the Gvmt and it's supporters have spouted recently and in the past about socialism / marxism / communism etc, it seems somewhat hypocritical that in the next few days they are embracing those regimes and actually using subsidies - against previous published policies - to accomplish that. If you can't or wont see that as hypocrisy then so be it, but it's certainly the fact If Labour or any other Gvmt party had done likewise then they should be questioned and in some cases criticised for the approach. You are seemingly trying to justify the Gvmt's change of heart shall we say (or hypocrisy) and your's be stating that Labour might do it also, which is nonsense IMO . I have obviously hit a nerve with you and have no intention of causing any more arguments , so as they say in our newest best buddies "c'est la vie" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 If I could make an ounce of sense out of the post above I'd try to respond. Sadly that is not possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 "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. 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. It is not a matter of not understanding business or international politics, it is a matter of understanding the gradual removal of ethical considerations from global trade. The fact that America still have sanctions against Cuba and that Israel enforces sanctions against the Palestinians, and the fact that sanctions are still in place against Iran, suggests that it is still quite possible to refuse to trade with nations you object to. But lack of democracy, torture and the murder of a country's own citizens, are no longer considered worthy of trade sanctions. There definitely seems to be rather more leeway since sanctions were lifted on South Africa and many African nations are presently rather more serious offenders than Smith's regime. Standards have slipped and it would seem likely that any country which the West deem worthy of offering asylum to their fleeing citizens, should be the subject of trade sanctions, if they were held to the same standards as South Africa was. It would seem likely that under the ever-increasing demands of global capitalism, ethical standards have been sacrificed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 MMV, that's a good post, but to put it mildly it opens a few cans of worms.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post tonyh29 Posted October 21, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted October 21, 2013 Richard, on 21 Oct 2013 - 12:02 PM, said: Not sure there are safety issues either in this day and age to be honest. Fukushima says Hi 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 21, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted October 21, 2013 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.Actually being perfectly serious, I'm not in total objection to Nuclear Power, though 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… 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 21, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted October 21, 2013 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 sideI could write enough Tory Policy in ten minutes to fill three of their manifestosLet them eat cake... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 bickster, on 21 Oct 2013 - 12:26 PM, said: tonyh29, on 21 Oct 2013 - 12:22 PM, said: bickster, on 21 Oct 2013 - 12:20 PM, said: 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 I could write enough Tory Policy in ten minutes to fill three of their manifestos Let them eat cake... I think Eric Pickles got there before you on that one ... OT but there is no evidence to support that she never actually said that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts