Nuclear is the way to go

Now you can blame Maggie for many things, but not making an infinate amount of gas under the North Sea wasnt really her fault was it?

 

No but you can blame her for closing pits that were still producing coal just to smash the unions. You can blame her for thinking that it was better to buy cheap coal from countries like Poland rather than invest in renewable resources. You can blame her for handing over the energy industry to listed companies who need to maximise profits for their shareholders. Her policies have indirectly led to the problems we're now facing. State funeral my arse!

Say again in English?

 

Well, you seem to be suggesting that the government should run its own gas/coal/oil production, then be a monopoly for the supply of power, and that this would somehow magically reduce energy prices.

 

There are so many reasons this is twaddle, but the easiest to explain is that, if you idea that whether production is domestic or international matters, then the government would already be able to "subsidise" (read - stop taxing) domestic energy by reducing the 75% tax rate on natural gas production - something it clearly does not and will not do.

 

 

As for Maggie closing the pits; if anyone seriously wants to argue that was bad for anyone in the world other than the people who lost their jobs, and their family, then i'm just going to give up.

As for Maggie closing the pits; if anyone seriously wants to argue that was bad for anyone in the world other than the people who lost their jobs, and their family, then i'm just going to give up.

Sadly, people will bleat on about it for years to come.

 

Persomally it didn't affect me or my family, so I don't give a toss

Eleccy bill came through yesterday.....?55 for two months....and I don't have gas either

 

Enjoy the credit crunch people

 

Living on yer own, no kids or responsibilities....marvellous

Well, you seem to be suggesting that the government should run its own gas/coal/oil production, then be a monopoly for the supply of power, and that this would somehow magically reduce energy prices.

 

There are so many reasons this is twaddle, but the easiest to explain is that, if you idea that whether production is domestic or international matters, then the government would already be able to "subsidise" (read - stop taxing) domestic energy by reducing the 75% tax rate on natural gas production - something it clearly does not and will not do.

 

 

As for Maggie closing the pits; if anyone seriously wants to argue that was bad for anyone in the world other than the people who lost their jobs, and their family, then i'm just going to give up.

 

 

I think only a real left wing looney would say that closing the pits was a bad idea for the economics of the country as a whole in the long term. What people take issue with is the fact she closed them with no real short or indeed long term provision in the affected areas and the repercussions of this are still being felt today in certain areas of the country. Its a little thing called society, of which I recall, she didn't actually believe in.

 

On another note its now been 10 years since new labour brought in the minimum wage something that Mr Cameron was arguing against at the time saying that the minimum wage "would send unemployment straight back up". Of course it did, Dave, of course it did.

Living on yer own, no kids or responsibilities....marvellous

 

 

For some maybe. Not for me.

 

Anyhow, Satans reet again. Has to be nuclear. Fook the tree huggers. They should be pro fossil fuels. How else can they circumnavigate Britain in a shagged out, flea ridden charabanc?

"would send unemployment straight back up". Of course it did, Dave, of course it did.

 

Hopefully, Dave will soon be consigning Gay Gordon and his cronies to the unemployment scrapheap.

For some maybe. Not for me.

 

Anyhow, Satans reet again. Has to be nuclear. Fook the tree huggers. They should be pro fossil fuels. How else can they circumnavigate Britain in a shagged out, flea ridden charabanc?

 

Well OAP's do get very lonely sometimes.....

Eleccy bill came through yesterday.....?55 for two months....and I don't have gas either

 

Enjoy the credit crunch people

 

Living on yer own, no kids or responsibilities....marvellous

 

 

?55 sounds pricey for a couple of light bulbs to light your bachelor pad!

Well OAP's do get very lonely sometimes.....

 

You're not an OAP yet son. Still time to find a good woman.

?55 sounds pricey for a couple of light bulbs to light your bachelor pad!

 

as, i thought the Sally Army let you stay free of charge ?

Hopefully, Dave will soon be consigning Gay Gordon and his cronies to the unemployment scrapheap.

 

 

Course the Conservatives will win, but Dave hasn't done anything, we've fcuked things up for 12 months now. Its the end of what started in 97, and it was always going to end this way. Its about building for the future and not becoming the hopeless mess that the Tories did in 97 for 10 years. That's why Milliband made a decision to look like a leader in waiting now to rally those in the party who are down, Purnell has been making the same noises in the left wing broadsheets. Its the last days of Rome. We are tearing oursleves apart (mainly becasue there are those - like my good self) who never wanted GB as leader and find it difficult to back him when listen to the wards where you live and see great chucks of traditional labour support vanishing.

 

We will be left with a traditional left wing rump of the party which will be bad in the short term unless Milliband or Purnell and become a becon to those of us who occupy a middle ground than we can rebuild.

?55 sounds pricey for a couple of light bulbs to light your bachelor pad!

 

Yawn

 

Your missus lost the puppy fat yet?

 

Arf!

as, i thought the Sally Army let you stay free of charge ?

 

Shhhhh...don't tell Crawley!!!

Course the Conservatives will win, but Dave hasn't done anything, we've fcuked things up for 12 months now. Its the end of what started in 97, and it was always going to end this way. Its about building for the future and not becoming the hopeless mess that the Tories did in 97 for 10 years. That's why Milliband made a decision to look like a leader in waiting now to rally those in the party who are down, Purnell has been making the same noises in the left wing broadsheets. Its the last days of Rome. We are tearing oursleves apart (mainly becasue there are those - like my good self) who never wanted GB as leader and find it difficult to back him when listen to the wards where you live and see great chucks of traditional labour support vanishing.

 

We will be left with a traditional left wing rump of the party which will be bad in the short term unless Milliband or Purnell and become a becon to those of us who occupy a middle ground than we can rebuild.

 

Question - Why are your tearing your sleeves apart?

Observation - 'left wing rump of a party' is a good description.

Yawn

 

Your missus lost the puppy fat yet?

 

Arf!

 

 

Yep, you still got a ginger afro?

Question - Why are your tearing your sleeves apart?

Observation - 'left wing rump of a party' is a good description.

 

 

They itch.

Course the Conservatives will win, but Dave hasn't done anything, we've fcuked things up for 12 months now. Its the end of what started in 97, and it was always going to end this way. Its about building for the future and not becoming the hopeless mess that the Tories did in 97 for 10 years.

 

I think you should be very careful if you think you can avoid the 1997 scenario. The reality is Brown is in a far bigger hole than Major was. When you factor in the rise of the SNP, Tory shares of the vote are above Labour levels in 1995 (comparable stage in the election cycle), and the Tories never dreamt of the levels of support Labour have now sunk to.

 

Equally, in 1997 the economy was growing strongly and had been for 4 years. Gordon's unlikely to have any such fillip to shake people out of pure boredom with the ruling party.

I think you should be very careful if you think you can avoid the 1997 scenario. The reality is Brown is in a far bigger hole than Major was. When you factor in the rise of the SNP, Tory shares of the vote are above Labour levels in 1995 (comparable stage in the election cycle), and the Tories never dreamt of the levels of support Labour have now sunk to.

 

Equally, in 1997 the economy was growing strongly and had been for 4 years. Gordon's unlikely to have any such fillip to shake people out of pure boredom with the ruling party.

 

 

I don't disagree, but I don't think the divisions within the party are as deep as with the conversatives in 97 when we came along and stole the centre ground. This, i believe , is the first step into building us into an electable party again. That and waiting for Cameron's honeymoon to fade when the hoary old tory spilts over education, europe and the NHS raise their ugly heads. Won't happen for a while thought, they been out of government too long to cause any splits yet.

 

The SNP is more worrying, I can't believe they have stolen the spin machine, making Labour policies look like their own and giving them credibility. We're not even putting up a fight up there - maybe its because we never had to and currently lack the will for a battle.

Nationalised industries plough their profits back into their services. Privatised companies hand them to their shareholders in the form of dividends. We now import most of our fuel from abroad in part because of Thatcher's short-sighted policies and as a consequence we are at the mercy of foreign-owned companies whos first duty is to their shareholders and not to the British public.

2 years ago fuel prices were actually going down and we had some of the cheapest prices in Europe. Blair and Brown were quick to to take the credit with their 'never had it so good' rhetoric. Now we have the highest fuel prices in Europe its all Maggies fault!

Is it not this governments failure to provide suitable storage facilities for gas that we are suffering more than others?

The private/public ownership debate is an awkward one. On the one hand the privatistation of BT and allowing competition was totally right and now allows converged markets to compete with each other keeping the prices extremely low.

 

However, with the energy companies I don't think it is that simple, Maggie went to far with the miners and should have kept the mines open that still had lots of coal left, of which there were many, but she didn't as she wanted to shaft the unions. That now makes us completely vulnerable to external pressures in the energy market. The other option would have been to privatise these companies but any large scale price increases above inflation have to be agreed with Ofgem, who are also part of the problem as they seem to have very few powers to intervene ion the current debacle?

Edited August 1, 200818 yr by JimmyRiddle

Energy suppliers owned by PLC's make profit because they are efficient. The proof is in the pudding. If they were not, they would ebe losing money. Godzillions is and has been spent on improving infrastructure, billions repaid in tax.

 

Now their profits might seem huge, but it is a very small %age of turnover.

 

We also know how ineffiecient most State services are, from the binmen to the hospitals, vast empty backholes of money wasted through countless quangos, commitees, teirs of inefficient middle management etc all part controlled by bone idle shithouse union men.

 

So, if anyone can convince me that the State could run the energy companies any more efficiently than they are, and still make 2%, then away you go.

Energy suppliers owned by PLC's make profit because they are efficient. The proof is in the pudding. If they were not, they would ebe losing money. Godzillions is and has been spent on improving infrastructure, billions repaid in tax.

 

Now their profits might seem huge, but it is a very small %age of turnover.

 

We also know how ineffiecient most State services are, from the binmen to the hospitals, vast empty backholes of money wasted through countless quangos, commitees, teirs of inefficient middle management etc all part controlled by bone idle shithouse union men.

 

So, if anyone can convince me that the State could run the energy companies any more efficiently than they are, and still make 2%, then away you go.

Very well put, pretty much everything that is state run, has money p?ssing through it. I think the NHS is the perfect example, the sooner it is fully privatised the better..........but I suppose that's for another thread all of it's own

Very well put, pretty much everything that is state run, has money p?ssing through it. I think the NHS is the perfect example, the sooner it is fully privatised the better..........but I suppose that's for another thread all of it's own

 

 

Its not the answer if customers don't have choice. Privatising the railways has been a disater, I can't choose if I want to go on NER if I live in Surrey and my provider doesn't offer me a service I deem acceptable AND is more beholden to profits for the shareholders than making the 8.15 to Waterloo run on time with enough carriages.

 

Connex were a perfect example of this. French firm running one of the busiest routes in Britain from Kent to Victoria. made a total balls up, was nationalised to steady the ship and low and behold the service got better. One company running the tracks, another the trains, bloody joke.

 

Privitisation without consumer choice is a farce. Also now there is the total cock up of patients being able to choose their hospital and the specialist they choose to see, now sorry if I defer here but I believe that my GP is in a better position than me to know which is the best for my healthcare. Generally people want help and advice not the free for all.