The General Election - Who Are You Voting For?

[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.

Don't suppose you're watching the Daily Politics are you? To quote Ed Milliband, "it's not possible to cut emissions without nuclear power stations".

Not tory ramblings afterall...

Although, the lack of subsidies by the torys is equally dumbfounding, they will have to.

The Green and Lib Dem's are clueless, scary policies at times.

[l444ry]

Don't suppose you're watching the Daily Politics are you? To quote Ed Milliband, "it's not possible to cut emissions without nuclear power stations".

Not tory ramblings afterall...

Although, the lack of subsidies by the torys is equally dumbfounding, they will have to.

The Green and Lib Dem's are clueless, scary policies at times.

Most of the gas we use is for heating and hot water and for industrial purposes. Nuclear power cannot replace that energy. And it's a similar case for oil as it's virtually all used for transport - nuclear power can't take its place.

In fact, around 85 per cent of our oil and gas consumption is for purposes other than producing electricity. So nuclear power, which can only generate electricity, is almost irrelevant.

BTW - to all those who think nuclear is a convenient solution - would you rather have a nuclear reactor less than 20 miles from your house or a bunch of windmills? Would you rather cut down on your consumption or store nuclear waste in your local landfill?

[Benji]

Most of the gas we use is for heating and hot water and for industrial purposes. Nuclear power cannot replace that energy. And it's a similar case for oil as it's virtually all used for transport - nuclear power can't take its place.

In fact, around 85 per cent of our oil and gas consumption is for purposes other than producing electricity. So nuclear power, which can only generate electricity, is almost irrelevant.

BTW - to all those who think nuclear is a convenient solution - would you rather have a nuclear reactor less than 20 miles from your house or a bunch of windmills? Would you rather cut down on your consumption or store nuclear waste in your local landfill?

If nuclear power is almost irrelevant because it can only generate electricity, does that mean that on the same logic renewable energy is almost irrelevant? Talking about the "great saviour" that is renewable energy has no impact on the use of oil and gas, not unless you replace oil and gas usage by electricity in which case supply will massively increase and nuclear power WILL be important. Transport is moving more and more towards electric power and once the world's oil reserves go we'll be forced to generate all our power through electricity, and if you think renewable energy can meet this demand without nuclear or more "clean coal" power stations, then let's hope you have a wind-up laptop, kettle, oven, fridge etc etc

Cutting emissions is easily achieved, the difficulty is cutting emissions without risk of huge consumer price increases and meeting the demand of the country. If we had a pot of gold that never ended, sure we could build renewable stations left right and centre. The fact is we rely heavily on oil and gas supplied from countries that could turn around one day and tell us where to go. Without enough home-generated electricity the country would go into total blackouts, our demand is just way too high for renewables witohut help from coal and nuclear. But then should I just believe some emission-free enthusiasts who have no idea of demand in the country? Major power companies in our country know we need it.

When we buy resources from other countries estimations are made as to our usage and this is often done 6 months in advance, hence why when gas prices fall, electricity companies don't pass on the drop straight the way. In say a cold winter where we run out of our own supply, we have to fall back on our gas reserves to produce extra electricity. The day we run out of the reserves, be it Russia closing the gas pipeline or resources running out, we will rue the day we don't have great enough production in our own country.

At the end of the day, if someone pointed a gun at your head and made you choose between a wind farm and a nuclear reactor near your house, of course you'd choose the former. But human nature is to look after number 1, and when a proposal is made near your personal home, the majority of people will say "not on my watch". Until, as Jon hinted, Government makes some form of procedure compelling certain areas to accept certain green developments, power of the people will push away green energy.

Regardless of anything else, listening to Ed Milliband actually shows that Labour are actually the biggest proclaiments of nuclear, which is originally why I questioned you, because you seem to think its the Tory's scaremongering.

Having said all of this, one visit to America is enough to prove what a droplet in an ocean all this emission talk has in actual effect on the world. We could stop emitting harmful substances all together and they'd still take the whole world down, I still think we should do our bit, but in reality... meh

[l444ry]

If nuclear power is almost irrelevant because it can only generate electricity, does that mean that on the same logic renewable energy is almost irrelevant? Talking about the "great saviour" that is renewable energy has no impact on the use of oil and gas, not unless you replace oil and gas usage by electricity in which case supply will massively increase and nuclear power WILL be important. Transport is moving more and more towards electric power and once the world's oil reserves go we'll be forced to generate all our power through electricity, and if you think renewable energy can meet this demand without nuclear or more "clean coal" power stations, then let's hope you have a wind-up laptop, kettle, oven, fridge etc etc

Cutting emissions is easily achieved, the difficulty is cutting emissions without risk of huge consumer price increases and meeting the demand of the country. If we had a pot of gold that never ended, sure we could build renewable stations left right and centre. The fact is we rely heavily on oil and gas supplied from countries that could turn around one day and tell us where to go. Without enough home-generated electricity the country would go into total blackouts, our demand is just way too high for renewables witohut help from coal and nuclear. But then should I just believe some emission-free enthusiasts who have no idea of demand in the country? Major power companies in our country know we need it.

At the end of the day, if someone pointed a gun at your head and made you choose between a wind farm and a nuclear reactor near your house, of course you'd choose the former. But human nature is to look after number 1, and when a proposal is made near your personal home, the majority of people will say "not on my watch". Until, as Jon hinted, Government makes some form of procedure compelling certain areas to accept certain green developments, power of the people will push away green energy.

Regardless of anything else, listening to Ed Milliband actually shows that Labour are actually the biggest proclaiments of nuclear, which is originally why I questioned you, because you seem to think its the Tory's scaremongering.

To be honest, Benji, I couldn't give a minkey's what Ed Millipede says. I don't take the New Labour hook, line and sinker. My original post was an attempt to highlight Tory hypocrisy on green issues.

[Benji]

To be honest, Benji, I couldn't give a minkey's what Ed Millipede says. I don't take the New Labour hook, line and sinker. My original post was an attempt to highlight Tory hypocrisy on green issues.

That's fair enough, equally it seems quite ridiculous to me that the tories seem to think energy companies wont demand subsidies for such enhancements when at the end of the day it will probably have little effect on their profits as a private company and its seen purely as a "keep the lights on" public benefit.

The more I read the policies of each party the more I seem to disagree with the one I was going to vote for. I find myself agreeing with the Tories and Labour equally recently on completely different issues. All I will say is that everytime I hear a Lib Dem it scares me.

[BoneDog]

Just had my BNP leaflet throught the door. It has a picture of Winston Churchill on the front and is very snazzy.

[Tilley]

Drove past a house earlier on the way back from work with a Union Jack hanging from the window with BNP in the middle.

[coale39]

That's fair enough, equally it seems quite ridiculous to me that the tories seem to think energy companies wont demand subsidies for such enhancements when at the end of the day it will probably have little effect on their profits as a private company and its seen purely as a "keep the lights on" public benefit.

The more I read the policies of each party the more I seem to disagree with the one I was going to vote for. I find myself agreeing with the Tories and Labour equally recently on completely different issues. All I will say is that everytime I hear a Lib Dem it scares me.

Agreed, im sure the Torys would subsidies if they came to power. Hopefully anyway, wont happened without it. Read somewhere that Germany has to subsidies loads?

[Jon the Hat]

Agreed, im sure the Torys would subsidies if they came to power. Hopefully anyway, wont happened without it. Read somewhere that Germany has to subsidies loads?

There will be a Government loan scheme to fund nuclear development I would imagine.

[Jon the Hat]

Clegg is showing his true colours today - he witters on about change, and now he is stating clearly that he would form a coalition with Labour if they get rid of brown. So you vote for change and end up with mostly the same idiots in charge. Shame on your Mr Clegg. If you want a new Government there is only one choice.

[BoneDog]

Clegg is showing his true colours today - he witters on about change, and now he is stating clearly that he would form a coalition with Labour if they get rid of brown. So you vote for change and end up with mostly the same idiots in charge. Shame on your Mr Clegg. If you want a new Government there is only one choice.

Who would be Labour leader if Brown did go? I was wondering this earlier and hoping it wouldn't be Mandelson.

[coale39]

Who would be Labour leader if Brown did go? I was wondering this earlier and hoping it wouldn't be Mandelson.

Haha that would be hilarious!

[Guest DavidJCW]

Clegg is showing his true colours today - he witters on about change, and now he is stating clearly that he would form a coalition with Labour if they get rid of brown. So you vote for change and end up with mostly the same idiots in charge. Shame on your Mr Clegg. If you want a new Government there is only one choice.

You've completely missed his point.

All he was saying is that in the event of a hung parliament where Labour somehow hold the majority of the seats but not enough to win outright, he'd be willing to form a coalition with them as long as Brown left... he can't help it if Labour are still in power because of the electoral system!!!

If people want CHANGE, then they have to vote for the party they think best and best to bring about change. As I already said, there was a poll where 49% of the people when asked whether they'd vote Lib Dem if they though they could win, said they'd vote Lib Dem... well if 49% of the public did vote for them, they'd win by miles!!! I can't get my head around why people feel the need to vote tactically... if people just voted Lib Dem if they want the Lib Dems in, they'd probably win!

[BoneDog]

49% of the people when asked whether they'd vote Lib Dem if they though they could win, said they'd vote Lib Dem... well if 49% of the public did vote for them, they'd win by miles!!! I can't get my head around why people feel the need to vote tactically... if people just voted Lib Dem if they want the Lib Dems in, they'd probably win!

Exactly, just vote for who you want to win the fricker and hope for the best! That's what I'll be doing anyway

[coale39]

You've completely missed his point.

All he was saying is that in the event of a hung parliament where Labour somehow hold the majority of the seats but not enough to win outright, he'd be willing to form a coalition with them as long as Brown left... he can't help it if Labour are still in power because of the electoral system!!!

If people want CHANGE, then they have to vote for the party they think best and best to bring about change. As I already said, there was a poll where 49% of the people when asked whether they'd vote Lib Dem if they though they could win, said they'd vote Lib Dem... well if 49% of the public did vote for them, they'd win by miles!!! I can't get my head around why people feel the need to vote tactically... if people just voted Lib Dem if they want the Lib Dems in, they'd probably win!

Basically, lib dem are very unlikely to get a majority. So if you vote for lib dem, labour will still have 50% power. Which, as stated by Jon, isnt change.

[BoneDog]

Haha that would be hilarious!

It wouldn't be hilarious, it'd literally be a nightmare - he's The Dark Lord you know!

[Daggers]

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

Try Vidalia - which uses tors in order to pretend to be American...or there's a host of paid-for anonymiser providors (if you do a search).

Not got Vidalia up and running at the moment though, having advocated it, as I've not had the time to tinker. In theory the job's a good'un though.

[FoxyPV]

Who would be Labour leader if Brown did go? I was wondering this earlier and hoping it wouldn't be Mandelson.

Mandelson is a legend.

This is what he sees when he looks in the mirror

[Guest DavidJCW]

Basically, lib dem are very unlikely to get a majority. So if you vote for lib dem, labour will still have 50% power. Which, as stated by Jon, isnt change.

However, as the poll I quoted suggested, nearly 50% of the public WOULD vote Lib Dem if they stood a chance of winning in their eyes... what they all seem to fail to realise is that if they all did vote Lib Dem, the Lib Dems WOULD win and have a very large majority.

If people really wanted change then they'd vote Lib Dem and not start trying to vote tactically as it'll get us nowhere.

[Head Honcho]

Clegg is showing his true colours today - he witters on about change, and now he is stating clearly that he would form a coalition with Labour if they get rid of brown. So you vote for change and end up with mostly the same idiots in charge. Shame on your Mr Clegg. If you want a new Government there is only one choice.

Ha ha looks like the tories are getting worried.

A Lib/Lab pact is the only option for Clegg with or without Brown.

If Clegg was ever to get into bed with Cameron it would be the end of the Lib dems and he knows it.

Clegg has a reasonable chance of being our next Prime Minister but he'll need to beat Labour into 2nd place to do this if he doesn't then Brown will without doubt remain PM.

[Jon the Hat]

Ha ha looks like the tories are getting worried.

A Lib/Lab pact is the only option for Clegg with or without Brown.

If Clegg was ever to get into bed with Cameron it would be the end of the Lib dems and he knows it.

Clegg has a reasonable chance of being our next Prime Minister but he'll need to beat Labour into 2nd place to do this if he doesn't then Brown will without doubt remain PM.

I am worried about another 4 years of the kind of profligate incompetence that Labour have shown over the last 13 years.

Clegg is as bad as the rest of them. He is basically saying that he thinks it is terrible that the party who comes third in the popular vote could be the party to provide the Prime Minister, but apparently thinks it would be acceptable for the party who come second in the popular vote to provide it in coalition with the party which comes third. You either believe in the popular vote as the mandate to govern or you don't. If you do and the Tories get the most votes then you should form a Government with them. If you don't then stop being a hypocritical w@nker and shut up about it. Clegg is starting to come across as a arrogant fool.

[sw_fox]

I am worried about another 4 years of the kind of profligate incompetence that Labour have shown over the last 13 years.

Clegg is as bad as the rest of them. He is basically saying that he thinks it is terrible that the party who comes third in the popular vote could be the party to provide the Prime Minister, but apparently thinks it would be acceptable for the party who come second in the popular vote to provide it in coalition with the party which comes third. You either believe in the popular vote as the mandate to govern or you don't. If you do and the Tories get the most votes then you should form a Government with them. If you don't then stop being a hypocritical w@nker and shut up about it. Clegg is starting to come across as a arrogant fool.

Yes but the point is that we are in totally unchartered waters when it comes to a hung parliament at the moment. Even in the 1970s, with the Lib/Lab pact, it was still a 2 party system in terms of the national vote, and even when there was a Lib/Lab pact it was still a minority government. Something between 85-90% of the votes were still cast for the 2 main parties in that election.

Because we have an unwritten constitution that relies on convention, because we have never been in a situation where all three parties are on 30% of the vote (as most polls show, as there is a 3% margin of error from their sample size, therefore effectively every poll shows them as equal), and because our electoral system is so bias towards strong concentrations of votes in small geographical areas, our politicians have no idea what to do in this situation. Normally we have a constitutional convention that will decide what happens as to who will make up the government, whether its the party with most votes, most seats, or a combination that takes most votes/seats.

And you are missing the point- if Liberals/Labour between them get more votes and seats than the Tories then that is a majority of public support for that government. Ask yourself this- would it be right for the tories to govern in a minority government if they come first in the national vote but more people didn't vote for them than did (i.e. the figures stayed about the same at about 30/30/30, meaning 70% of people DIDNT want the tories in)?

[Jon the Hat]

And you are missing the point- if Liberals/Labour between them get more votes and seats than the Tories then that is a majority of public support for that government. Ask yourself this- would it be right for the tories to govern in a minority government if they come first in the national vote but more people didn't vote for them than did (i.e. the figures stayed about the same at about 30/30/30, meaning 70% of people DIDNT want the tories in)?

You could argue the same thing for a Con/Lib coaliton though couldn't you? If the Tories come first in the popular vote, then that would be a larger majority of public support for that Government than a Lib/Lab one. Clegg can decide who to form a Government with, and he is trying to argue that share of the vote = mandate, which should mean he supports the largest party regardless of whether he comes first or second, but in fact he will do what gives him the most power, so he is a hypocrite, and we can be confident that in fact he only wants PR becuase it will give him and his party more power.

[Guest Bilo]

Who would be Labour leader if Brown did go? I was wondering this earlier and hoping it wouldn't be Mandelson.

One of the Miliband brothers would be a good bet. More likely David.

[Fosse Boy]

Just got my postal vote card through this morning.