The General Election - Who Are You Voting For?

[coale39]

What they actually said about nuclear power plants are that they are extremely expensive to build and maintain therefore looking at alternative sources of power would be something that they'd want to do.

And as for the Lib Dems not saying what they're going to do, I think from laying out all their plans as I stated above, they clearly do. The only thing that the Conservatives have said is that they'll set up a cap on immigrants. Now, you said they want a Border Police Force,

(Sounds like you havnt read up as much on Conservative policies as you have Lib Deb?)

but that again is only making sure more don't come in... they aren't saying anything about what they'll do with those already here and the problems we already have with trafficking. Seems that the Conservatives are all too wooly on their policies...

What's more is that the Lib Dems want to set up an independent agency to control asylum seekers too, reducing amounts of decisions being overturned on appeal and meaning less people coming in.

Ha you cant get anymore woolly policies then the Lib dems!

Newer nuclear power stations are far more cleaner and safer then ones of the previous generations and are what other countries in the EU are doing. By all means we need to increase our renewable energy percentage, however the forms it comes in (wind etc) are too variable a source and too costly per watt to make it viable on a big scale. A combination of clean nuclear with the aid of renewal-ables is best and more realistic target to meet our increasing energy demands into the future IMO.

I agree to some extent some of the Lib dem policies, I however doubt there ability to implement them. How are they going to break up the banking system?

Just noticed something else. For the umpteenth time, just in case anyone didn't read it the first time I posted it, or if you're just ignoring the fact because you don't like it

THE UK HAS A POINTS BASED IMMIGRATION POLICY IN PLACE

Link...

Ah yes I forgot its now points. Is it as robust as the Australian system? I just feel I dont trust Labour on immigration anymore.

[MC Prussian]

For instance the Lib dems plan to not build anymore nuclear power plants or coal plants.

Well, there are alternatives.

You have heard of solar and wind power, haven't you?

Also, trusting a political party during the election race because it states exactly what it is going to do once placed in power is like buying a vehicle straight off a dubious car dealer who's just coerced you into the purchase with a ton of arse-licking promises without you having done a prior testing tour.

At best, either Labour or Tories will implement maybe a meagre ten percent of what they have you believe they'd do.

The rest is just empty, shallow words.

Which is why I think the Lib Dems go the right, clever and honest way by not wanting to come up with any or not enough clear statements as of right now. It probably has a lot of citizens irritated and unsure - and I'm convinced loads of voters will fall for the Leftist promises or Conservative propaganda, only to smash their heads against the wall later on, because of the broken promises, the delay and/or failure in implementing those promises and simply because (suddenly, I have to point out) they come to the scandalous conclusion that "them politicians are all the same, seducing the general public with lie after lie".

Labour will pretend to stand in for the workers (whilst cashing in on the taxpayers' and party members' money themselves, them vultures) whilst the Conservatives come across as particularely hapless and helpless whilst facing an economic crisis (or rather the consequences of a crisis, as the economy is actually back on a rise) - but of course, they'll tell you they always knew better about job safety and "keeping Britain British" without fishing in the BMPs or DUPs waters, afraid of the consequences.

They'd rather spend their precious time (your time as a voter) smashing everything that only remotely smells and looks like Labour, and propagate values of times past. Oh, and the party leaders do follow their own interests - not that of the Brits or their respective voters.

Remember, you do have a smart choice.

[coale39]

Well, there are alternatives.

You have heard of solar and wind power, haven't you?

Also, trusting a political party during the election race because it states exactly what it is going to do once placed in power is like buying a vehicle straight off a dubious car dealer who's just coerced you into the purchase with a ton of arse-licking promises without you having done a prior testing tour.

At best, either Labour or Tories will implement maybe a meagre ten percent of what they have you believe they'd do.

The rest is just empty, shallow words.

Which is why I think the Lib Dems go the right, clever and honest way by not wanting to come up with any or not enough clear statements as of right now. It probably has a lot of citizens irritated and unsure - and I'm convinced loads of voters will fall for the Leftist promises or Conservative propaganda, only to smash their heads against the wall later on, because of the broken promises, the delay in implementing those promies and simply because "them politicians are all the same, seducing the general public with lie after lie".

Labour will pretend to stand in for the workers (whilst cashing in on the taxpayers' and party members' money themselves, them vultures) whilst the Conservatives come across as particularely hapless and helpless whilst facing an economic crisis (or rather the consequences of a crisis, as the economy is actually back on a rise) - but of course, they'll tell you they always knew better about job safety and "keeping Britain British" without fishing in the BMPs or DUPs waters, afraid of the consequences.

They'd rather spend their precious time (your time as a voter) smashing everything that only remotely smells and looks like Labour, and propagate values of times past. Oh, and the party leaders do follow their own interests - not that of the Brits or their respective voters.

Remember, you do have a smart choice.

Yes, I have heard of other sources as I have said above. But wind and solar are not consistent enough to supply most of our power.

And i'm not a tory "supporter" as such. They are just the best of a bad bunch.

[Daggers]

Yes, I have heard of other sources as I have said above. But wind and solar are not consistent enough to supply most of our power.

Source?

I only ask because the Germans seem to have no problem with the sun at Waldpolenz.

[Daggers]

...and we seem to be doing OK for wind too...

[coale39]

Source?

I only ask because the Germans seem to have no problem with the sun at Waldpolenz.

Yeah the Germans are going for it, critics are worried for the medium term though. It helps that they have the Green party in power.

How much of the time do wind turbines produce electricity?

A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time, but it generates different outputs dependent on wind speed. Over the course of a year, it will generate about 30% of the theoretical maximum output. This is known as its load factor. The load factor of conventional power stations is on average 50%.

http://www.windturbinesuk.co.uk/aboutwindenergy.htm

You see the difference is nearly half the output of a conventional powerplant. And you need lots of wind turbines to equal output of coal power plant which basically boils down to cash.

I cant remember where i saw/read it, think it was the bbc or maybe independent, that to get levels of consistent power that we use now from wind would cost an astronomical amount and would equal thousands of wind turbines.

My argument is for the medium term when there will be a gap in power generated due to old nuclear planets being decommissioned. I mean, we could just import more for in that period, however we dont know what the market will be like at that time. The Lib dems policy of not building any more nuclear power stations is risky and could mean energy prices will shoot up in the future. A mixture of energy sources with a steady increase in renewables has the lowest risk attached.

[FoxyPV]

Why not harness tidal energy? I think it's expensive but effective.

http://www.reuk.co.uk/Severn-Barrage-Tidal-Power.htm

There was talk of building a generator at Strangford Lough due to the strength of its tide but I think the cost was too high

Does anyone else think Clegg is doing the wrong thing by hinting at a tory coalition this early?

[BoneDog]

I'd take anything over nuclear. Surely if most homes were fitted with solar stuff then wind and other methods would be enough for other needs

[Guest DavidJCW]

So this means that if, for example, there is a need for an immigrant’s skills in Inverness or Bognor Regis, the immigrant will be allowed into the country on the basis, presumably, that he may work only in Inverness or Bognor Regis.

Sounds reasonable at first David, but what would happen if the job in Inverness or Bognor disappeared? Would the immigrant be allowed to move to London, or would he be sent home? Would there be an internal passport system that applied to immigrants only, with an appropriate bureaucracy to enforce it? Has Vince Fable costed this?

You'll need these Border Police on every motorway in the country!!!

Like many Lib Dem bright ideas, the policy is incoherent.

You're asking me more than I can tell you unfortunately... I only know so much about their policies but from what I've heard and read of all of the 3 main parties, the Lib Dems seem to be the only ones with at least a half credible attempt at trying to deal with the problem.

I'm sure there is a clear plan of how they'd deal with that scenario and I think I heard Nick Clegg say something on it, but I can't remember what he said at all...

[Guest DavidJCW]

Ha you cant get anymore woolly policies then the Lib dems!

Newer nuclear power stations are far more cleaner and safer then ones of the previous generations and are what other countries in the EU are doing. By all means we need to increase our renewable energy percentage, however the forms it comes in (wind etc) are too variable a source and too costly per watt to make it viable on a big scale. A combination of clean nuclear with the aid of renewal-ables is best and more realistic target to meet our increasing energy demands into the future IMO.

I agree to some extent some of the Lib dem policies, I however doubt there ability to implement them. How are they going to break up the banking system?

Ah yes I forgot its now points. Is it as robust as the Australian system? I just feel I dont trust Labour on immigration anymore.

The Lib Dems aren't questioning the cleanliness of nuclear power but the cost of building and running them. You talk of other EU countries doing that, and by other I presume you mean France and Germany, however, what you fail to remember is their finances aren't anywhere near as crippled as ours is. I agree that we need a stable source of self made power along with trying to work with the renewables but as the Lib Dems are saying, they are worried about the cost, hence why they said they might look to other ways of powering the nation. There was no clear cut rejection of nuclear power though, from my recollection anyway.

[Jordan]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-21-2010/united-kingdom-general-election

[Jon the Hat]

The Lib Dems aren't questioning the cleanliness of nuclear power but the cost of building and running them. You talk of other EU countries doing that, and by other I presume you mean France and Germany, however, what you fail to remember is their finances aren't anywhere near as crippled as ours is. I agree that we need a stable source of self made power along with trying to work with the renewables but as the Lib Dems are saying, they are worried about the cost, hence why they said they might look to other ways of powering the nation. There was no clear cut rejection of nuclear power though, from my recollection anyway.

It will be much cheaper in the end to build our own nuclear power stations than import electricity from those with the foresight to build themsleves. Wind and Solar are delierving less than expected, and we cannot waste any more time hoping other technologies will deliver in the next 10-20 years. Unless you want to buy into the myth of clean coal, nuclear is the only reliable option. We know it is expensive, but we at least know how expensive, which reduces risk and hence makes it a safer bet. We wouldn't want to spend the same on wind, wave and solar energy and find it was delivering half what we expected.

Clegg knows all this, but as the Lib Dem activists are in la la land he cannot say it.

I am however increasingly confident the Tories will win the election. People will vote tactically to oust Labour. Lib Dems will benefit but not enough.

[coale39]

The Lib Dems aren't questioning the cleanliness of nuclear power but the cost of building and running them. You talk of other EU countries doing that, and by other I presume you mean France and Germany, however, what you fail to remember is their finances aren't anywhere near as crippled as ours is. I agree that we need a stable source of self made power along with trying to work with the renewables but as the Lib Dems are saying, they are worried about the cost, hence why they said they might look to other ways of powering the nation. There was no clear cut rejection of nuclear power though, from my recollection anyway.

I'm sorry, but wind power is far more expensive per watt then Nuclear. (Capacity factor)

[Benji]

Not only that, the private energy sector is crying out for development of the sites and what people seem to forget is that the main "big bad" companies put vasts amounts of money into the investment of such energy sites. (I'm sure someone will point out that indirectly paying the energy bills is how the companies get their money but remember the majority of our companies are european based with mere subsidiaries operating here and the prices we pay only reflect the price of resources 6 months previous, companies for obvious reasons have to buy in advance).

Obviously the government has to help with grants and the like but it's not as if the public is paying outright for these sites. Set-up costs are clearly going to be massive, but we really will struggle if proposed nuclear sites don't go ahead, and on the plus side think of the jobs created in a sector where the main companies have had to make redundancies recently.

And when the Lib Dems talk about how long it will take to get these sites up and running, I know for a fact that at least one of the large companies has been ready to build a site down south for years now, it was only because Labour gave in to the demands of green protestors and pulled out financial aid that we aren't a fair way through development of the site already.

This isnt to say we can't one day make the shift to majority renewable energy sources, but it is just not feasible at the moment. Not only that, while the average person seems happy in principle to have said green alternative supplying the energy, they're not so welcoming when a big farm is proposed near their land. I'd be interested to know how many wind farms and wave generators we'd need to supply the same amount of energy as one nuclear plant? They also say solar power in a usually wet Britain is still one of the greatest generators of energy, but can you imagine the average house in places like Middlesbrough, Coventry and run-down parts of London forking out the money for Solar panelling? And if the Government is going to finance it, the whole reason for not going ahead with nuclear development in the first place is ignored.

[l444ry]

Myth: The pledge to cut electricity emissions cannot be met without new nuclear power stations.

The truth: the UK is required by a mandatory EU regulation to achieve at least 40% electricity generation from renewable sources of energy by 2020, and that would make the building of more nuclear stations superfluous.

Myth: The Tories state they will build new nuclear reactors without public subsidy.

The truth: None of the big electricity generators will build any more nuclear without some (large) hidden or indirect subsidy from the taxpayer.

Myth: The Tories say they favour an expansion in renewables.

The truth: Dozens and dozens of applications for wind farms have been turned down by Tory Councils.

More Tory dissembling........

[Benji]

EDIT: wrong button

[Benji]

Myth: The pledge to cut electricity emissions cannot be met without new nuclear power stations.

The truth: the UK is required by a mandatory EU regulation to achieve at least 40% electricity generation from renewable sources of energy by 2020, and that would make the building of more nuclear stations superfluous.

Isn't the pledge of nuclear power stations to guarentee that we can supply the country with enough energy, I'd be surprised if it was used as an argument to cut emissions considering the fact that even the most enhanced power station will still be "not very green". I'd be very surprised if 10 years of Labour managed to get us to 40%.

Myth: The Tories state they will build new nuclear reactors without public subsidy.

The truth: None of the big electricity generators will build any more nuclear without some (large) hidden or indirect subsidy from the taxpayer.

And your problem being what exactly? Energy is a privatised sector and so the companies involved have every right to do whatever they see fit, within government regulations, to make a profit. If you were a shareholder in say EDF or E.ON would you be happy to see them commit to a multi-billion pound project without any financial aid from the respective countries government when the development is purely for the benefit of the public? At the end of the day, if we build more nuclear plants, people wont start using more energy, there is a limit to the amount of energy that will be used and all the companies need to do is meet the the demand of the country. Having home-generated energy is a benefit for the country in not having to rely on countries like Russia. I dread to think where we'd be if the public sector had for all these years been left with the obligation of keeping the sector up to date, Thatcher knew we couldn't afford it.

As I said previous, I think you'll find that your own Labour government actually agreed with the above sentiments and were all for building a new proposed nuclear and "clean coal" site, including financial help, they just gave in to the protests last minute.

Myth: The Tories say they favour an expansion in renewables.

The truth: Dozens and dozens of applications for wind farms have been turned down by Tory Councils.

The whole point of a democratic society is to have representatives that speak the mind of the constituents. The Tory councils reject plans because the people don't want such sites near their homes. I know recently a "green village" was rejected or at least given mass protest to not to far from me. As I say, everyone likes the idea of green energy, just not on their back door.

[Jon the Hat]

Myth: The pledge to cut electricity emissions cannot be met without new nuclear power stations.

The truth: the UK is required by a mandatory EU regulation to achieve at least 40% electricity generation from renewable sources of energy by 2020, and that would make the building of more nuclear stations superfluous.

Myth: The Tories state they will build new nuclear reactors without public subsidy.

The truth: None of the big electricity generators will build any more nuclear without some (large) hidden or indirect subsidy from the taxpayer.

Myth: The Tories say they favour an expansion in renewables.

The truth: Dozens and dozens of applications for wind farms have been turned down by Tory Councils.

More Tory dissembling........

It is all a conspiracy to piss you off mate. Is it working?

[Jon the Hat]

The whole point of a democratic society is to have representatives that speak the mind of the constituents. The Tory councils reject plans because the people don't want such sites near their homes. I know recently a "green village" was rejected or at least given mass protest to not to far from me. As I say, everyone likes the idea of green energy, just not on their back door.

I would be seriously annoyed if my local council approved an application for a wind farm if the people who voted them in opposed. Apparently this is a bad thing in Labour mentality. Where the national interest requires it, there needs to be a national framework to approve these projects. I think everyone sees that.

[l444ry]

It is all a conspiracy to piss you off mate. Is it working?

People who feel the need to boost their own egos by putting others down usually have a personality disorder you know. Your superiority complex is showing, Jon!!

[Alexikokopops]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-21-2010/united-kingdom-general-election

Annoyingly we can't view the videos from the site because we're UK. What day was that on? I've got the Daily Show on series record at home so I always have them to watch.

[coale39]

Annoyingly we can't view the videos from the site because we're UK. What day was that on? I've got the Daily Show on series record at home so I always have them to watch.

Use a free and simple to use program called Hotspot Shield.

[Alexikokopops]

Use a free and simple to use program called Hotspot Shield.

I'll have a look when I'm not on the work computer. Does it work on Macs?

[coale39]

I'll have a look when I'm not on the work computer. Does it work on Macs?

Spoke to Daggers about this, I don't think it does unfortunately.

[Alexikokopops]

Spoke to Daggers about this, I don't think it does unfortunately.

Nightmare! Cheers anyway