CornwallFox

Gordon brown signed off in nuclear reactors years ago so they could have been built by now. Whatever the whys and wherefores we finally have a government pushing forward on it which should go in the positive column for them. Google's AI search gives the following information: In 2025, the UK government's nuclear build strategy has advanced significantly with major financial commitments and planning changes for large-scale and small modular reactors (SMRs). The key developments include: Sizewell C Go-ahead and Funding: On June 10, 2025, the UK government committed over £14 billion to the construction of Sizewell C in Suffolk. Investment: In July 2025, the government secured private investment from partners including EDF and Centrica, unlocking further funding for the project. Progress: Pre-construction work is ongoing as of mid-2025, with the project using the Hinkley Point C plant as a blueprint. Timeline: Construction is expected to take nine to twelve years, with the earliest possible commissioning date in the mid-2030s. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) Planning Reforms: In February 2025, the government announced plans to cut planning red tape to facilitate the building of SMRs on more sites across the country. Competition Winner: Rolls-Royce was named the winning bidder for the UK's SMR competition in June 2025. Site Selection: The public body Great British Nuclear aims to announce a preferred site for an SMR by the end of 2025. Potential locations are likely to be old industrial sites like former nuclear plants or coal mines. A final investment decision for the Rolls-Royce design is expected in 2029, with the goal of the first one being operational by the mid-2030s. Private Deals: In September 2025, commercial deals were announced, including plans by EDF and US firm Holtec to build SMR-powered data centres and a partnership between X-Energy and Centrica to build up to 12 advanced modular reactors (AMRs) in Hartlepool. Other Initiatives Hinkley Point C: Construction on the UK's first new nuclear power station in decades continues. The first reactor is progressing, but the project has faced significant delays and cost overruns, with completion now expected by 2031 and an estimated cost of up to £57 billion. Fuel Production: The government has committed £300 million to produce a new type of nuclear reactor fuel (HALEU) in the UK to reduce reliance on Russian supply and improve energy security. Future Sites: The government is exploring a new National Policy Statement for further large-scale nuclear plants beyond Sizewell C, with Wylfa and Moorside being leading candidate sites. The overall strategy, as outlined in the government's Civil Nuclear Roadmap, is to significantly expand the sector and quadruple nuclear generation by 2050 to bolster energy independence.

They're getting behind small modular nuclear reactors to provide base energy, something that should have been done many years ago. You don't hear about any of it but away from the same few talking points, they are actually doing a few decent things.

The NHS pay rises last year were already agreed under the Tories but not paid and they hadn't set aside any budget to pay them. Gross incompetence at best, intentional salting of the earth, party before country nonsense at worst. With GB energy, it's our best chance of getting bills down. Privatised energy companies are allowed to charge all energy based on the cost of the most expensive segment they use. So if they use 1% gas and 99% wind, they can charge based on gas price even though wind is 9x cheaper to produce. GB energy will be able to charge based on actual cost which should be much lower. Obviously to get there they need to buy up capacity so there's a fair old lead in time. They have started by buying solar panels for schools and NHS buildings which is a good way to reduce government energy costs beyond the initial capital spend.

GB Energy and a huge uplift in NHS budgets to support it's improvement are long term benefits.

If they don't get rid of him it'll come down to delivery. Probably not so much in terms of NHS appointments and the like, as they've already delivered on that and it's been ignored, but in terms of cost of living and immigration.

I think he's saying reform aren't a viable option and there's no other parties in position. Within labour there's a few I like.

I haven't been down here that long but there's a couple of Cornish artists I rather like so far: John Dyer has a childlike quality to his pictures but I love his work. I'll be buying a bunch of his paintings I'm sure as I love lots of them: Julia Prior does atmosphere really well, again can see me buying one of hers:

Lack of streetlights. There's no bloody streetlights down here 😂 And pheasants. Can't move for pheasants.

.

Without the BBC trying to be impartial - even if it gets it wrong sometimes then holds itself account to a degree no other broadcaster does - then it's a field day for the others. The BBC is needed.

No, labour clearly aren't doing well in this regard. Labour not doing well now and the Tories being absolutely awful over 14 years can both be true.

I think a decent head of recruitment or whatever they're called is more important than Rudkin. When we had Macia we were picking winners most of the time. Since then it's been a downhill spiral and all of the recruitment heads we've had have done appalling jobs at identifying players within budget and with potential. For every Jordan James there's a Woyo Coulibaly, Skipp, Ayew and BDCR. We must have about a 10% success rate over the last few years. Rudkin may well ultimately be to blame as overall DOF but we've brought in some well thought of recruitment leads who have utterly failed.

None of the players etc expiring contracts will leave in January without being offered silly money at they can sign pre contract agreements for free transfers. That said, how many of them will actually be wanted by anybody else is another question. Just praying we don't start giving them contracts thinking we're locking in some imaginary value.

Much like last year with a 25 point total

I'll say this again as you've refused to read it every other time I've written it. The BBC has got it wrong. I don't think it's a big issue, in fact I think it's tiny, but you disagree and think it's a big issue. Fine. Let's agree to disagree about the scale of the issue. Separately, the threat to the BBC is from a right wing political class and media that want to end unbiased reporting so that they can dominate with their right wing opinion pieces. Seperately again, I'm not sure why you keep saying the BBC is done. At the moment the entire country is being dragged rightwards by GB news, online troll farms, and a media discourse pushing the overton window ever rightwards. The BBC has been under attack from that quarter for decades for supposed left wing bias (despite independent studies showing the bias is the other way if anything). Social media has had commentators talking about not paying the licence fee for years, it's no different now. The BBC is certainly under threat from the right, but the idea it's suddenly broken due to this issue is fanciful imo.

I understand that, we come from different sides of the political coin. I can accept and understand you thinking that the BBC has erred and that you may view it more seriously than I do. All fair. But on the flip side I'd invite you to perhaps accept that compared to those other media outlets I've listed, the BBC is clearly less biased.

It's a tiny issue. The telegraph, mail etc prints complete lies day after day. GB News is utterly biased. Yet you think the BBC accepting a badly spliced video is a huge major catastrophe. Id suggest this simply says more about your politics than anything else.

Trust hasn't gone for anybody that didn't already dislike the BBC. It's an incredibly minor issue.

It's a really minor thing being blown up as part of trump's anti news agenda. Hysterical people are cancelling paying over it. People look for any excuse, they'd have to have a particular mindset to claim that in the first place.

We're really not. We have some of the harshest sentencing in Europe. Sentences have been getting ever longer and the prison population has grown to fill all available space.

I accept both of those answers TBF

As a leftie, the gender thing was a pet of a small group on the left that were allowed to be very noisy. Most of us want people to be allowed to live how they want but see no reason for a spectrum of pronouns etc. The right doesn't want rid of the BBC because it's biased or exposing them. It wants rid of the BBC because it has a large audience and providing as unbiased information as it can - mistakes excepted - means it challenges the outright lies printed by mail, express, telegraph etc. Trump has been attacking the BBC throughout the year. I'm the summer his press secretary spent an entire press conference ripping into the BBC for it's coverage of Israel/Gaza when she was incorrect throughout. This is part of a coordinated attack on the truth by trump and across much of right wing media.

You won't get an answer. Just a lot of noise about how offensive the BBC is. It's nonsense. News broadcasts routinely splice together bits of speeches to give a general sense of them. Trump absolutely did cause the January 6th riots. David Yelland, former editor of the Sun wrote on X: “What has happened today at the BBC is nothing short of a coup, a national disgrace, the corporation’s board has effectively been undermined and elements close to it have worked with hostile newspaper editors, a former PM and enemies of public service broadcasting. The only honourable players here are Tim Davie and Deborah Turness.” Journalist and environmental activist George Monbiot said: “Once every 20 years or so, the director-general of the BBC is forced to resign for being insufficiently rightwing. Alastair Milne in 1987. Greg Dyke in 2004. Tim Davie in 2025. The great irony is that the BBC was in all cases profoundly biased towards established power. But just not biased enough…”. Journalist Ian Dunt said: “This is the most abysmal, pathetic thing. The BBC head resigning because the corporation is not supine *enough* to the far-right.” Political editor of Byline Times, Adam Bienkov, wrote on Bluesky: “The BBC’s senior leadership resigning en masse over one dodgy edit in one programme, simply because the right wing press demands it, tells you everything you need to know about where the power really lies in that relationship.”

Audacity? Why are you taking so much personal affront. I'm not denying the BBC has made an error in this case. I still think the BBC is needed and important. These are two separate things. Why are you incapable of reading responses without finding some sort of offence you can take?

Instead of accusing me of trying to defend them maybe read what I wrote. I wasn't defending them and also don't have the detail you've given here. Fair enough but whether way no defence was offered. The BBC is a great British institution that needs to be saved from its attackers who simply want right wing media hegemony. I don't agree.