| General Election Thread 17:46 - May 22 with 175852 views | loftboy |
This will be the first election that I have no idea who to vote for, will never vote Tory again after the lies during covid where my dad lost his life, don’t trust starmer, would never vote for a bunch of racists like reform , anyone give me a clue?
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| General Election Thread on 06:18 - Jul 11 with 2280 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| General Election Thread on 06:02 - Jul 11 by Wilkinswatercarrier |
Problem is people are living longer, so pressure on state pensions, NHS, care etc is only going to grow. While things like stopping subsidies to fossil fuel companies (WTF) are fine, they can only be done once.
Rather than throwing money at issues like NHS etc, which only encourages waste, we probably need to be a little more creative.
Don't ask me though how it would be done. |
People look at the NHS as a money drain, but when people are healthier they are more productive to the economy.
Aside from that, automation should be embraced. That’s hard for me to say as someone who has been in a trade union his whole life but it’s about what we do with the profit that increases under automation and the people who are displaced.
That’s where UBI and UBS comes in I guess.
I always cite this as an example of good practice when a industry or demographic has to change:
https://www.etuc.org/en/spain-guarantees-just-transition-miners [Post edited 11 Jul 6:22]
|  | | |
| General Election Thread on 07:12 - Jul 11 with 2222 views | Gus_iom |
Leave it out, Baz.
Actually, the concept of offshore tax havens is so fundamentally wrong, I can't disagree.
The person who campaigned hard against the IoM was Margret Hodge, who turned out to be a beneficiary of a tax haven fund. |  | | |
| General Election Thread on 07:23 - Jul 11 with 2208 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| General Election Thread on 07:12 - Jul 11 by Gus_iom |
Leave it out, Baz.
Actually, the concept of offshore tax havens is so fundamentally wrong, I can't disagree.
The person who campaigned hard against the IoM was Margret Hodge, who turned out to be a beneficiary of a tax haven fund. |
Getting mixed messages from you here, and I hope you don’t think I am a fan of Margeret Hodge.
And even if I was, the personal hypocrisy of one individual or another doesn’t render a whole idea defunct does it. | | | |
| General Election Thread on 07:56 - Jul 11 with 2160 views | stevec |
Agree with the principles you put forward, certainly off shore tax havens, but the energy policy you mention is indicative of what I referred to as a good idea that would push the country towards bankruptcy.
Firstly, whilst the subsidy costs aren’t ideal don’t forget that oil and gas produces profits (and tax income) for the country. Renewables don’t and won’t. Becoming self sufficient through renewables is a grand idea but it’s a huge part of why the population is so poor these days. Increase the state pension, great for me in a years time, but the combination of those actions make the young even poorer.
Before someone throws net zero salvation at me, I am talking specifically about the financial impact of socialism if it doesn’t have realistic ways of paying for it. I quite like the way Starmer and his cohorts are talking about growth so far but growth has to relate to profit creating new tax income, otherwise the uk population will quickly find themselves even worse off, if thats imaginable after the previous shower. |  | | |
| General Election Thread on 08:52 - Jul 11 with 2084 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| General Election Thread on 07:56 - Jul 11 by stevec |
Agree with the principles you put forward, certainly off shore tax havens, but the energy policy you mention is indicative of what I referred to as a good idea that would push the country towards bankruptcy.
Firstly, whilst the subsidy costs aren’t ideal don’t forget that oil and gas produces profits (and tax income) for the country. Renewables don’t and won’t. Becoming self sufficient through renewables is a grand idea but it’s a huge part of why the population is so poor these days. Increase the state pension, great for me in a years time, but the combination of those actions make the young even poorer.
Before someone throws net zero salvation at me, I am talking specifically about the financial impact of socialism if it doesn’t have realistic ways of paying for it. I quite like the way Starmer and his cohorts are talking about growth so far but growth has to relate to profit creating new tax income, otherwise the uk population will quickly find themselves even worse off, if thats imaginable after the previous shower. |
Further up the thread there was some discussion about how a green welfare state can be done (and is done), with cited examples, but you didn’t reply so you may not have read it.
Socialism isn’t one huge economic template that can be applied to all countries equally. It’s a set of principles whose execution would have to differ from country to country. | | | |
| General Election Thread on 10:25 - Jul 11 with 1935 views | hubble |
| General Election Thread on 21:06 - Jul 10 by Esox_Lucius |
As Norway have done, become self sufficient in vital services such as water and electricity and fund the infrastructure construction by taxing the global giants operating in the UK on the sales in the UK
No hiding it in layers of shell companies etc. to avoid paying their share. The vast majority of this country have no say in how much tax they have pay so why should the global corporations be allowed to manipulate yheir tax burden.
We are an island nation and wave power alone could provide more than the country needs, coupled with existing wind and solar farms would permit exporting power to boost the coffers.
The biggest stumbling blocks are people behind bribing our elected MP's to force their agendas away from doing what is best for the country. There is no need for fossil fuel but some powerful bribers have convinced successive governments not to do anything about it.
I don't expect you to have any empathy for my ideas as they veer away from well entrenched thinking but it isn't a stream of consciousness dreaming with no idea of how to fund it. |
No need for fossil fuel? You're living in cloud cuckoo land Esox!
By the way, how did Norway manage to become so self-sufficient? Because of their vast oil and gas reserves! What they did right, and what this country utterly failed to do, under successive governments, Labour as much as Tory, was to invest the surplus revenues from their oil and gas reserves. Here, the UK governments allowed private multinationals to suck it all up. So we're in agreement on that aspect; there needs to be a far more joined-up approach to our fossil fuel production and supply that includes an element of public ownership.
But we've got a long way to go before we can become energy self-sufficient, and until then, we need fossil fuels. Indeed, it's absolutely crazy that this new administration has apparently put the kibosh on any new exploration and drilling, and instead is opening up our countryside willy-nilly to the blight of wind turbines. With a lifespan of about 20 years and an energy conversion rate of about 20%-40% this is a costly and not especially environmentally friendly way of producing electricty, especially on our small land mass.
Tidal energy, on the other hand, something we have in abundance, is absolutely the way forward, and I think we're in agreement here too. [Post edited 11 Jul 10:34]
|  |
| |
| General Election Thread on 10:55 - Jul 11 with 1882 views | QPR_Jim |
| General Election Thread on 07:56 - Jul 11 by stevec |
Agree with the principles you put forward, certainly off shore tax havens, but the energy policy you mention is indicative of what I referred to as a good idea that would push the country towards bankruptcy.
Firstly, whilst the subsidy costs aren’t ideal don’t forget that oil and gas produces profits (and tax income) for the country. Renewables don’t and won’t. Becoming self sufficient through renewables is a grand idea but it’s a huge part of why the population is so poor these days. Increase the state pension, great for me in a years time, but the combination of those actions make the young even poorer.
Before someone throws net zero salvation at me, I am talking specifically about the financial impact of socialism if it doesn’t have realistic ways of paying for it. I quite like the way Starmer and his cohorts are talking about growth so far but growth has to relate to profit creating new tax income, otherwise the uk population will quickly find themselves even worse off, if thats imaginable after the previous shower. |
So the companies with wind farms and solar farms are running with no profits?
As others have said, tidal is a great opportunity for the UK. If we were to borrow money to develop and build our own tidal energy source it would be a good long term investment but I'm sure some media and politicians would be quick to bash the government for borrowing money and increasing national debt rather than focusing on the financial benefit over the long term. |  | | |
| General Election Thread on 12:44 - Jul 11 with 1788 views | Esox_Lucius |
| General Election Thread on 10:25 - Jul 11 by hubble |
No need for fossil fuel? You're living in cloud cuckoo land Esox!
By the way, how did Norway manage to become so self-sufficient? Because of their vast oil and gas reserves! What they did right, and what this country utterly failed to do, under successive governments, Labour as much as Tory, was to invest the surplus revenues from their oil and gas reserves. Here, the UK governments allowed private multinationals to suck it all up. So we're in agreement on that aspect; there needs to be a far more joined-up approach to our fossil fuel production and supply that includes an element of public ownership.
But we've got a long way to go before we can become energy self-sufficient, and until then, we need fossil fuels. Indeed, it's absolutely crazy that this new administration has apparently put the kibosh on any new exploration and drilling, and instead is opening up our countryside willy-nilly to the blight of wind turbines. With a lifespan of about 20 years and an energy conversion rate of about 20%-40% this is a costly and not especially environmentally friendly way of producing electricty, especially on our small land mass.
Tidal energy, on the other hand, something we have in abundance, is absolutely the way forward, and I think we're in agreement here too. [Post edited 11 Jul 10:34]
|
OK, I wasn't clear about my comment re Fossil fuel. In the short term it is very necessary as the resources to abandon it will require it in their production and installation. Analogous to Steam boats and trains still in use whilst other alternatives were introduced.
Notwithstanding the report is by a company with a vested interest; this report gives a fairly up to date view on where technology is with marine power generation and some speculative costings.
https://ore.catapult.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/new-industry-leading-rep
Wind turbine life is varied between 20-30 years dependent on a number of factors but at the end of their life they are recycled and the UK already is installing recycled wind turbines. It may not be a perfect solution but there is no nuclear waste disposal issues and environmental impact is less than that of a coal fired power station.
I believe it will take a strong government to fully capitalise on the move to cleaner power but I have little faith that we will ever have a government in my lifetime who will spurn the bribery and make such a change.
As a slight aside in the lifespan of wind turbines there is research taking place to make it more ecologically viable wrt the actual turbine blades themselves.
https://www.ucdavis.edu/climate/news/a-sustainable-solution-wind-turbine-blades# [Post edited 11 Jul 12:47]
|  |
| The grass is always greener. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| General Election Thread on 14:03 - Jul 11 with 1698 views | hubble |
I take your points about wind trubines Ees, but I think they're minimal differences in the long term. The bigger issue is where do you put them? We seem to agree on most of the rest.
But as for wondering whether any government will ever enact a full-blown anti-fossil fuel agenda, you need wait no longer: that absolute raving lunatic Miliband has started already. Bear in mind what I posted much earlier in this thread about New Zealand having to row back on their disastrous decision to ban any further oil and gas development, despite having huge reserves, and now you have this idiotic zealot doing exactly the same thing. Very dangerous times now lie ahead for the UK's energy security.
"Ed Miliband has ordered an immediate ban on new drilling in the North Sea in a decision that overrules his own officials and risks triggering a wave of legal action.
In an unusual intervention into what is typically an apolitical process, the Energy Secretary has told regulators not to approve a new round of drilling that was slated for confirmation in the coming weeks.
His decision to block the licences means that companies will have wasted millions of pounds on preparing their bids, with experts warning they are likely to take legal action as a result.
The decision followed crisis meetings yesterday between Mr Miliband and his aides after The Telegraph asked for updates on outstanding drilling licence applications.
The applications, from companies seeking to exploit up to 35 new North Sea areas, were submitted as part of the 33rd offshore oil and gas licensing round initiated by the last government in autumn 2023.
It saw 76 oil and gas companies submitting 115 bids to drill for oil and gas across 257 “blocks” of the North Sea, Irish Sea and East Atlantic. The NSTA said these would boost UK oil output by 600 million barrels.
Bids for up to 35 areas were still awaiting a decision from the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), the regulator, when the election was called.
On Wednesday afternoon the NSTA said that applications were still being considered, despite the change in Government. A spokesman reiterated the NSTA’s pre-election statement that: “Further consideration is being given to a small number of remaining applications and a few more may be offered at a later date.”
However, Mr Miliband subsequently instructed the NSTA to block them all.
In a terse statement issued late on Wednesday, his spokesman said: “We will not issue new licences to explore new fields, and will not revoke existing oil and gas licences. We will manage existing fields for the entirety of their lifespan.”
Full article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/11/miliband-overrules-officials-imm | |
| |
| General Election Thread on 14:11 - Jul 11 with 1680 views | Sonofpugwash |
You need oil to lubricate wind turbines so where is that going to come from?Ditto bitumen for filling in potholes for super heavy EVs and trucks to deliver your food.
Nearly 65pc of gas consumption occurs in commerce and industry .Shutting down gas use will lead to the effective closure of most of the remaining manufacturing industry in the UK. (Professor Gordon Hughes is a retired Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh, former senior adviser on energy and environmental policy at the World Bank).
The ‘net zero’ policy (or should that be lunacy) adopted by successive British governments and now under the control of a Year Zero Zealot in a government that would like Britain to be weak so it more easily can hand the remains iover to the EU) will cost more than £3 trillion, according to Professor Kelly, a Cambridge University engineer. This is because a net zero, low cost electricity supply largely based on wind and solar power is unachievable. Wind power is becoming more and more expensive and offshore wind farm projects are being abandoned as uneconomic. Operation and maintenance costs are much higher than expected. Many manufacturers are losing money and some have very serious ongoing maintenance problems.
Hey,maybe we can grease EV axles with animal grease like the Romans did with their carts.
Never any mention of nuclear in these analyses - crazy. [Post edited 11 Jul 14:14]
|  |
| |
| General Election Thread on 14:37 - Jul 11 with 1636 views | Juzzie |
There are already synthetic oils made for car engines and synthetic greases too and "synthetic bitumen is used in roads, bicycle lanes, bus lanes, pedestrian areas and motorway tunnels. The clear binder can be pigmented for aesthetic or safety reasons". |  | | |
| General Election Thread on 18:21 - Jul 11 with 1412 views | Esox_Lucius |
| General Election Thread on 14:11 - Jul 11 by Sonofpugwash |
You need oil to lubricate wind turbines so where is that going to come from?Ditto bitumen for filling in potholes for super heavy EVs and trucks to deliver your food.
Nearly 65pc of gas consumption occurs in commerce and industry .Shutting down gas use will lead to the effective closure of most of the remaining manufacturing industry in the UK. (Professor Gordon Hughes is a retired Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh, former senior adviser on energy and environmental policy at the World Bank).
The ‘net zero’ policy (or should that be lunacy) adopted by successive British governments and now under the control of a Year Zero Zealot in a government that would like Britain to be weak so it more easily can hand the remains iover to the EU) will cost more than £3 trillion, according to Professor Kelly, a Cambridge University engineer. This is because a net zero, low cost electricity supply largely based on wind and solar power is unachievable. Wind power is becoming more and more expensive and offshore wind farm projects are being abandoned as uneconomic. Operation and maintenance costs are much higher than expected. Many manufacturers are losing money and some have very serious ongoing maintenance problems.
Hey,maybe we can grease EV axles with animal grease like the Romans did with their carts.
Never any mention of nuclear in these analyses - crazy. [Post edited 11 Jul 14:14]
|
There have been synthetic oils and lubricants for decades. You also neatly avoided including marine power generation.
Low cost energy supply based on solar and wind is already a thing. You only have to look at Octopus rates to see this happening. This month my energy bill was £2,38 and that was due to the standing charges and last month my energy bill was £13.18. My highest bill (January) was £87.14. I only have a 10kWh storage system but it has been worth every penny. | |
| The grass is always greener. |
| |
| General Election Thread on 19:07 - Jul 11 with 1364 views | Gus_iom |
| General Election Thread on 07:23 - Jul 11 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Getting mixed messages from you here, and I hope you don’t think I am a fan of Margeret Hodge.
And even if I was, the personal hypocrisy of one individual or another doesn’t render a whole idea defunct does it. |
No mixed message, the leave it out was in jest, I agree with you, the margret hodge comments were solely about margret hodge. | | | |
| General Election Thread on 21:10 - Jul 11 with 1279 views | Wilkinswatercarrier |
| General Election Thread on 06:18 - Jul 11 by BazzaInTheLoft |
People look at the NHS as a money drain, but when people are healthier they are more productive to the economy.
Aside from that, automation should be embraced. That’s hard for me to say as someone who has been in a trade union his whole life but it’s about what we do with the profit that increases under automation and the people who are displaced.
That’s where UBI and UBS comes in I guess.
I always cite this as an example of good practice when a industry or demographic has to change:
https://www.etuc.org/en/spain-guarantees-just-transition-miners [Post edited 11 Jul 6:22]
|
Don't you only use the NHS when your unhealthy? People are leading healthier lives and living longer due to vaccinations, antibiotics, reduced smoking and drinking and generally being more aware of our health.
This is very little to do with the NHS, rather successive government policies by all parties in power.
The NHS and state pension came about in a different time. Life expectancy in 1945 was 64, its now 80, that is some increase.
With that increase comes more numerous, complicated, but crucially treatable ailments which cost a lot of money.
Either the state pension can't kick in until 78 years old to bring it back in line with 1945 ratio. Or look at some kind of means testing for using the NHS. | | | |
| General Election Thread on 23:22 - Jul 11 with 1186 views | ChrisNW6 |
Biden just got Zelensky and Putin names mixed up, sadly I don't think there's anyway back for him now. | | | |
| General Election Thread on 09:41 - Jul 12 with 1024 views | Juzzie |
| General Election Thread on 23:22 - Jul 11 by ChrisNW6 |
Biden just got Zelensky and Putin names mixed up, sadly I don't think there's anyway back for him now. |
He also said "Vice President Trump". Not looking good. | | | |
| General Election Thread on 10:07 - Jul 12 with 985 views | QPR_John |
We've only had a labour government for a week and already growth figures at 0.4% are higher that expected. | | | |
| General Election Thread on 11:17 - Jul 12 with 876 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| General Election Thread on 06:18 - Jul 11 by BazzaInTheLoft |
People look at the NHS as a money drain, but when people are healthier they are more productive to the economy.
Aside from that, automation should be embraced. That’s hard for me to say as someone who has been in a trade union his whole life but it’s about what we do with the profit that increases under automation and the people who are displaced.
That’s where UBI and UBS comes in I guess.
I always cite this as an example of good practice when a industry or demographic has to change:
https://www.etuc.org/en/spain-guarantees-just-transition-miners [Post edited 11 Jul 6:22]
|
"People look at the NHS as a money drain, but when people are healthier they are more productive to the economy."
That's only true of those willing and able to work. Those who choose not to will never be productive to the economy yet have the same, if not better, access to NHS services. |  | | |
| General Election Thread on 11:35 - Jul 12 with 840 views | nadera78 |
Yes, actually, I am. Russia is a fascist state (run by real, actual, genuine, fascists, not the nonsense that gets spouted by some students and online larpers) that has invaded a neighbouring country and would happily do the same to numerous others in the vicinity. Take a look at their behaviour in every Ukrainian town and city they've conquered - the rape, torture and murder they dish out as a matter of course. I am delighted that we are doing something to help the poor buggers defending themselves against these monsters. | | | |
| General Election Thread on 11:43 - Jul 12 with 810 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| General Election Thread on 11:17 - Jul 12 by Benny_the_Ball |
"People look at the NHS as a money drain, but when people are healthier they are more productive to the economy."
That's only true of those willing and able to work. Those who choose not to will never be productive to the economy yet have the same, if not better, access to NHS services. |
Small price to pay for a great system IMO. | | | |
| General Election Thread on 12:01 - Jul 12 with 770 views | Watford_Ranger |
| General Election Thread on 11:43 - Jul 12 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Small price to pay for a great system IMO. |
Making people healthier in general is a great investment even ignoring the non-financial reasons for doing so. Fewer beds taken up in hospitals, less work absence, better productivity, smaller waiting lists meaning problems don’t worsen as much and become more expensive to treat if they can be treated at all. All that guff about whether or not to fund school meals but that small investment saves a fortune down the line in avoiding malnourishment. Health really is wealth. | | | |
| General Election Thread on 12:22 - Jul 12 with 724 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| General Election Thread on 12:01 - Jul 12 by Watford_Ranger |
Making people healthier in general is a great investment even ignoring the non-financial reasons for doing so. Fewer beds taken up in hospitals, less work absence, better productivity, smaller waiting lists meaning problems don’t worsen as much and become more expensive to treat if they can be treated at all. All that guff about whether or not to fund school meals but that small investment saves a fortune down the line in avoiding malnourishment. Health really is wealth. |
The NHS is a failure!! Odd thing to say given how reliant I have been of it, and the excellent service it provided both my parents.
However, it is a failure and the reason is that everyone has forgotten what it was set up for after WW2. The realisation that Britain was unhealthy became apparent, and it was set up to improve the health of the nation. As I understand it: It was seen as a short-term boost, and was not meant to be a long-term institution.
Whether that is true or not, the reality is that Britain is extremely unhealthy and the NHS has become too focused on 'reacting' to health issues, and not being 'proactive' as say, Finland. The NHS and thus, the public purse, is bogged down in lifestyle related illnesses/treatments, and frankly, it, the government, and people in general, need to get on the front foot and shift focus.
But, as long as big pharma rule the roost, prescribing expensive medicines will be the order of the day. But as we get older, less fit and healthy as a nation, there will be an exponential cost to keeping the NHS operating to the incredibly high levels it has. Plus, we're in a race with many other western nations for healthcare workers from developing nations, at the same time as we continue to resist developing our own recruits because it's cheaper to bring in then train and develop your own nationals. Which is what Finland has been doing: being proactive, encouraging wellness, and reducing the burden on the health system, especially in terms of needing healthcare workers.
However, recruiting from overseas is not sustainable. Britain, like mostly all western nations, need to get on the front foot, and become more proactive in their approach, and get people to be more healthy from the outset. Ultimately, it will allow people to live better lives, and save them and the country a 'kin lot of wedge.
Finally, having visited an old friend at Northwick Park when I returned following my mum's passing, I was saying to my wife as we strolled up to the hospital, how, the last time I was here with my mum about 10 years earlier, there were a few patients outside, on drips, smoking. Well guess what: there were more of them outside smoking away...I mean FFS!!! |  |
| |
| General Election Thread on 12:38 - Jul 12 with 678 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| General Election Thread on 12:01 - Jul 12 by Watford_Ranger |
Making people healthier in general is a great investment even ignoring the non-financial reasons for doing so. Fewer beds taken up in hospitals, less work absence, better productivity, smaller waiting lists meaning problems don’t worsen as much and become more expensive to treat if they can be treated at all. All that guff about whether or not to fund school meals but that small investment saves a fortune down the line in avoiding malnourishment. Health really is wealth. |
Exactly. It is a moral obligation. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
