Off Topic Why you MUST vote Tory!
- Thread starter canary-dave
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I didn't say renewables were ****, I said wind farms were **** and a waste of time and money, which in their current form they are, anyone who thinks wind power is an answer seriously needs to ask themselves why we gave it up 2-3 centuries ago, it has the same inherent problems then as it does now. The technology involved hasn't moved on much since then either, strip the metallic coating off and the inside is the same as a 17th century mill but with a generator where the millstone would be. The generation is intermittent like the wind, meaning you still have to keep the fossil fuel stations generating to keep the supply up just in case the wind drops because it cannot be relied upon. We can't store the power it provides, and if the wind is blowing in the wrong direction, or is too strong, they are useless or dangerous. Then you how much environmental damage has been done, and how much carbon has been released through their construction, not just making them, but preparing the ground and, possibly most important of all in the carbon emissions stakes, where they do it. Doing it on peat-land and releasing all the carbon there was sheer stupidity, but then again, if you consider it's actually about the £ and the land was cheap, maybe not stupid at all.
the people involved have made a ****load of £ from this 17th century technology, as have all those who took the backhanders to promote this as an actual solution when there are plenty of better, cheaper and far less environmentally destructive ways of doing it.
As any person who actually has studied the problems involved knows, the environmental answer is to build nuclear stations, but most people can't see it because it's counter-intuitive to what propaganda tells them
Okay, wind 'may' be better than nothing, but personally I'm glad the tories have cut that particular cash cow.
Wind is far from perfect, but what is needed is a mix of technologies not just one! Wind is a good option for some areas, it works perfectly on remote islands or for smaller communities and offshore wind is not a bad option. Intermittent generation is an issue experienced by several technologies, however with the development of storage batteries this can be countered which would make them very viable options.
"any person who actually has studied the problems involved knows, the environmental answer is to build nuclear stations" REALLY? As I said you need a mixture and you must concentrate on both supply and demand side. Nuclear has huge problems as well, it is far far from a perfect technology. Especially in a densely populated nation, where do you dispose of waste? And nuclear is also heavily subsidised, no different to other energy sources.
Not sure whether this is sarcastic, or whether to launch into quite a rant... This is kind of my field.
On the nuclear vs renewables debate, I would say Miggins' opinion is about 5 or so years out of date. Nuclear technology has stagnated whilst renewables have progressed significantly. We're probably at the tipping point now where the educated gamble moving forwards is to go renewable, rather than start building nuclear power stations that will take 20 years to come online.
Obviously we'd need a blend of energy sources, and likely some investment in energy storage, but I think it's the way we have to be looking. Tidal power is something we could really exploit more. For the price of a nuclear power station (or HS2...), we could generate enough tidal power from the Severn to meet 5% of current energy demand. The project could open up further transport links, and operate for a comfortable 100 years, rather than the 30 year lifespan of current nuclear designs.
A new Thames barrier is likely to be needed by 2070, and the last one took about 30 years to build. Suggested plans for an upgrade could power 76,000 homes, so that could be brought forward.
Insulation is certainly an area where the country needs to do more.
On FPTP vs PR, I saw someone had worked out the other day that it's possible to have a majority in the house of commons with just 11% of the vote. Unlikely, but mad that it's even mathematically possible.
11% is nonsense mathematically.. You have to win 50% of the seats and I think what they have done is this: They have said there are 5 parties involved so theoretically you could win every other seat with 20.1% of the vote - as long as the other four all take 19.975% Clearly that is bollocks.
True - it's bollocks.
But it does rather illustrate the point by taking the most extreme scenario
I think what they're saying is only 11% of the overall electorate could vote for you but it goes in such a way that you scrape 50% of the seats. Don't know if that's true, just the way I assume Rob's colleague was looking at it.
Obviously wind couldn't provide for all our demands but as Tipsy said, it's about combining them. We could probably generate 100% of our energy needs with Solar, Wind, Thermal and Tidal. The issue is that we need to invest now because it'll be too late before long. I also agree that we shouldn't scrap our nuclear stations, that'd be pointless now they are in production, or atleast well past planning. But there are just as many issues there.
I believe the logic in that 11% was that you only needed to stand in 326 constituencies, and if you targeted the ones with the smallest number of voters, and won by a single vote where the vote was well split, you'd become the ruling party.
Obviously it's reductio ad absurdum, but I thought it was interesting just how far you can push FPTP.
Obviously it's reductio ad absurdum, but I thought it was interesting just how far you can push FPTP.
While it's ridiculous at that extreme, when you consider that less than 25% of those who can vote voted for our government, that means less than one in four actively wanted David Cameron in power I find worrisomely undemocratic
Non-voters are an odd one, does compulsory voting actually force them to engage with politics, or just mean the outcome of elections are more easily swayed by media coverage, and cult of personality?
I'd rather consider it as 34% of the general public have absolutely no opinion on the running of the country.
I'd rather consider it as 34% of the general public have absolutely no opinion on the running of the country.
Or they just c
Do you know how much radioactive waste there is? HLW, the stuff that is only produced in Nuclear reactors which gets people ****ting their pants, amounts to 1000m3 in total for the UK since we started on the road. The worst **** we have is from the dawn of the era when we didn't know as much, disposing of it isn't as hard as you think, you could store a years worth of waste from a nuclear reactor in a portaloo.
No one has a clue what would happen under compulsory voting although some people pretend they do.
The effect of increasing the level of vote by 50%would be huge and massively unpredictable it would also be the deciding factor in most elections - if everyone who didn't vote this year had their vote allocated to the voter apathy party then they would win a clear majority.
I can't be bothered to check but I suspect it's the same with most if not all general elections going back to the 1970's.
The effect of increasing the level of vote by 50%would be huge and massively unpredictable it would also be the deciding factor in most elections - if everyone who didn't vote this year had their vote allocated to the voter apathy party then they would win a clear majority.
I can't be bothered to check but I suspect it's the same with most if not all general elections going back to the 1970's.
Even with compulsory voting I'm not sure the result in Scotland would have been much different. It will be interesting to see what happens to turnout in 5 years time (If the conservatives last that long) if there is a referendum on Europe.
My own view is that making people vote wouldn't make much difference. It might possibly boost the "protest" parties. My main concern now,maybe paradoxically is the collapse of the Lib Dems and the effect on the non Right vote. If they are going to reform then Labour really needs to withdraw candidates from all the seats that they lost this time in a deal that allows them a clear run in return for them doing the same. That is my worry,combined with the paucity of candidates for the Labour leadership. Candidates like Liz Kendall are a joke.
On a personal note I had my house valued yesterday and if I sell I intend jumping ship to France. It's an idea I've had for a while now and this is the push I need. I'll probably arrive just as the FN take over!
On a personal note I had my house valued yesterday and if I sell I intend jumping ship to France. It's an idea I've had for a while now and this is the push I need. I'll probably arrive just as the FN take over!
It will be interesting to see what happens to turnout in 5 years time (If the conservatives last that long) if there is a referendum on Europe.[/QUOTE]
That's still the Tory fault line isn't it?. The EU won't give Cameron the steam off their pish and he will have to sell that deal to his right wing. I am also unconvinced on the economy.
That's still the Tory fault line isn't it?. The EU won't give Cameron the steam off their pish and he will have to sell that deal to his right wing. I am also unconvinced on the economy.
It's not going to be all plain sailing for Cameron & the Conservatives. I wonder if he may have prefered a further five years of coalition rather then the mayhem he's almost certainly going to get when some of his back benchers get the bit between their teeth.
Can see UKIP ending this parliament with more MP's than they started with.
Can see UKIP ending this parliament with more MP's than they started with.