General Election 2015

[kwsaint]

why is it?

why should our money help fund India's space programme?

 

I agree that it shouldn't be used to fund India's space programme but surely this is just a mismanagement of where our foreign aid goes rather than the concept of it in the first place. So instead of cutting it, we should either say what we want it spent on or, even better, buy the resources we want it spent on (teaching, food, building constituents) and then we know exactly where it's going. If you were in an ebola-sufferers position, would you want a rich, wealthy country to not spend on making them better? Surely if we don't we're saying we are superior to them?

 

You realise the lib dems support an elected House of Lords right?

 

Tbf Ex Lion Tamer I didn't. See this is the problem? There is no one party that stands for my views? I am strongly against an elected house of lords but am for a review of how peers get elected. I feel the best solution would be a house full of experts from every field (science, medicine, economics etc.) who can advise on whether what the government want to make law is a good solution or not?

[BlakeySFC]

I'll be voting Green again.

 

UKIP are racist, homophobic, sexist, ignorant morons, Labour are incredibly weak and have no clear policies as well as having Ed 'Not fit to be PM' Miliband in charge, and the Tories can go f**k themselves.

[Ludwig]

Do all the votes declared on this thread count towards the election?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

David Miliband was established as a major player long before Ed came on the scene and had been groomed for the top job for years. He was Blair's head of policy before he was 30 and was made one of the youngest ever foreign secretaries in history. Then just when it was all set for him, his younger brother politicks his way in on the leadership contest for his own ends, using the unions and living off his family name.

 

The man literally cosied up to the unions to win the leadership contest, then set about distancing himself from them in his victory speech. He isn't completely unelectable because he looks like Wallace, he's completely unelectable because he was so utterly transparent from day one.

 

You're underplaying how important "being slicker PR-wise" is and would have been over the last four years.

 

David Milliband was already a global statesman, chummying up to Hillary Clinton and just carrying himself like a leader, someone electable.

 

Even if all other things were equal, the fact that David Milliband looks like he could actually be Prime Minister would be worth a decent few points in the polls.

 

Beyond the PR stuff I think he would have been better at the actual "doing" anyway, and at least bring some genuine opposition to Cameron.

 

Ed is just a bumbling gimp with no human touch and a dismal profile and can't see him laying a glove on Cameron next year, in what could have been a winnable election for Labour.

 

Haven't been on a great deal over the weekend. Sorry for delayed response.

 

These are both fair points, well made. Perhaps I did underestimate it. I stand corrected.

 

Edit: I think I explained poorly to start with - I get why David has his advantages, I do think he would definitely have been tarred by the New Labour association though, and how close he was to Blair. Please don't read that as me trying to wriggle out though. Jackanory and CB do indeed both make good points.

[SuperMikey]

Tories will win a minority, Labour at the moment pose absolutely zero threat because of their leadership (although tbf most of the ShadCab are w4nk as well). Will be interesting to see how the newly-popular parties like UKIP and the Greens fare too. I'll probably be voting Green as it stands, and i'm fuming that they've not been included in the debates. It's explained better than in my words here:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/10/bbc-tv-election-debates-greens-snp-plaid-cymru-ukip

[JackFrost]

"Tories 'to match Labour spending'"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

 

I'd match my neighbour's spending if we both bought an identical brand new car. If he uses a huge loan from wonga to pay for it and I use savings only one of us will be up **** creek without a paddle in the near future.

 

The situation would have been better if we had been running a surplus. The main issue though was deregulating the banks. Unfortunately both the major parties were caught up in international neo-liberal groupthink.

 

Agree entirely

[The Cat]

One of the Greens problems is they don't have enough candidates. As far as I'm aware they've never stood in Eastleigh since I've been voting in this constituency which is slightly strange. Hopefully this time they will because I'd imagine they'd hoover up a lot votes from hacked off Lib Dems.

[JackFrost]

You're underplaying how important "being slicker PR-wise" is and would have been over the last four years.

 

David Milliband was already a global statesman, chummying up to Hillary Clinton and just carrying himself like a leader, someone electable.

 

Even if all other things were equal, the fact that David Milliband looks like he could actually be Prime Minister would be worth a decent few points in the polls.

 

[TopGun]

Normally a Labour voter but won't go near it under Ed Miliband.

 

No great ideas at all. Just responsive stuff to general gripers and UKIP.

 

Latest interview with Nick Robinson.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30032168

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Party leaders always come under intense scrutiny in this country - especial Labour leaders from what is a largely hostile press. Some have what it takes to repulse these attacks, 'teflon' Tony Blair for instance, and some just don't. The current Labour leader may well fall into the latter category - or at least that is the narrative the voters seem to have been successfully sold. I can't help but think that his brother would have made a better leader but - FWIW - I don't personally 'buy' the story that Ed Miliband is anywhere near as a poor a politician as he has been portrayed as. This of course is of no importance.

 

Despite Ed Milliband's unpopularity, the polls are showing a consistent Labour lead which must make them favourites to win next year I suppose. My (very unscientific) opinion however is that the British people tend to only vote standing Prime Ministers out of office when they are either bored to death with them, or they have seriously ferked-up. Additionally the Labour Party has I feel failed to provide a convincing reason why this nation should trust them again with our economy - surely the principle battleground of any UK General Election.

 

So I wouldn't be the least surprised to see the Tory's overturn the Labour lead and win in 2015 - or a least become the largest party at Westminster again.

 

As for the Liberal Democrats ... well methinks they should return to their constituencies and prepare for unemployment.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

I thought you'd all be excited to read the email I had from Ed today:

People sometimes say that they don't know what we — what I — stand for, so I'll put this in the simplest terms I can. This country is too unequal, and we need to change it.

So here are the promises I'm making to you about the kind of Britain I will lead:

First, I will undo the damage the Tories have done to our country:

I will scrap the Bedroom Tax, which unfairly punishes the disabled and the vulnerable

I will scrap the Health and Social Care Act, which damages and undermines our NHS

I will scrap the gagging law, which limits our freedom of speech and right to campaign

I will reverse the Tories' £3bn tax cut for millionaires, so we get the deficit down but do it fairly

Second, I will take on the powerful vested interests that hold millions back:

I will force energy companies to freeze gas and electricity bills until 2017

I will give power back to those who rent their homes, by scrapping letting fees and stabilising tenancy agreements

I will raise money from tobacco companies, tax avoiders, and a mansion tax to fund doctors, nurses, careworkers and midwives for our NHS

I will reform our banks so that they properly support small businesses

I will stop recruitment agencies hiring only from abroad

Third, I will start to rebuild a fairer, better Britain:

I will raise the minimum wage, to ensure that everyone that does a hard day's work is properly rewarded

I will promote the living wage by giving tax breaks to companies that pay it

I will ban the damaging zero-hours contracts that exploit British workers

I will bring in a lower 10p income tax rate, cutting taxes for 24 million workers

I will support working parents with 25 hours of free childcare for three- and four-year-olds

I will help more young people get on the housing ladder by getting 200,000 homes built every year

[TopGun]

I'll be voting Green again.

 

UKIP are racist, homophobic, sexist, ignorant morons, Labour are incredibly weak and have no clear policies as well as having Ed 'Not fit to be PM' Miliband in charge, and the Tories can go f**k themselves.

 

But the Greens are anti progress and idealisticly unrealistic. If you want to have blackouts and chaos vote for the Greens (or UKIP but for different reasons).

[hypochondriac]

But the Greens are anti progress and idealisticly unrealistic. If you want to have blackouts and chaos vote for the Greens (or UKIP but for different reasons).

 

There will be lots of blacks out if you vote ukip

[SuperMikey]

But the Greens are anti progress and idealisticly unrealistic. If you want to have blackouts and chaos vote for the Greens (or UKIP but for different reasons).

How do you square that? Surely their commitment to renewable energy would count as huge progress compared to the ticking time bomb of our fossil fuel reliance?

[TopGun]

How do you square that? Surely their commitment to renewable energy would count as huge progress compared to the ticking time bomb of our fossil fuel reliance?

 

Because they want to phase coal-fired electricity generation out immediately, halt new nuclear build, ban fracking (which could provide gas for new gas-fired power stations to replace more polluting coal) and are opposed to any form of biomass energy generation. They say that they support onshore and offshore wind, solar, tidal and wave, all of which are intermittent generators.

 

This site gives you the exact current energy demand on the National Grid and what is supplying the demand in terms of energy make up - http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

 

As I look at it now the following energy generation is occurring:

 

Total demand - 41 giga watts (41GW)

 

Coal 33%

Nuclear 11%

Gas 36% (CCGT)

Wind 8.5% (which is good compared to usual)

Hydro 0.7%

Biomass 1%

French and Dutch imports 7%

 

Not too difficult to work out that the Green's energy policies would cause blackouts! I am pro-renewables but recognise that the current technology is intermittent and cannot replace conventional fossil fuel electricity generation completely right now.

 

Electricity generation is a pragmatic balance between climate change and security of supply.

Edited 14 November, 2014 by TopGun

[buctootim]

Because they want to phase coal-fired electricity generation out immediately, halt new nuclear build, ban fracking (which could provide gas for new gas-fired power stations to replace more polluting coal) and are opposed to any form of biomass energy generation.

 

 

 

Actually they don't and that is a massive misrepresentation of their policy - which is stated here. http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ey.html.

 

Increase clean low carbon energy generation from renewable sources

Policy

 

EN210 A Green government will accelerate production of electricity from renewable and low carbon sources. We will rapidly develop new renewable energy capacity to meet reducing final energy demand, (see EN110), primarily through clean electricity generation (see EN211-215 below). We will mandate a target to reduce carbon intensity of power generation to a maximum of 25gCO2 e/kWh by 2030 and to implement an emissions performance standard reducing in regular intervals to that level by 2030, with flexibility to adjust the carbon intensity target towards an average of 10gCO2e by 2030. Wind will provide the main source of power by 2030, followed later by wave and tidal power. Solar thermal, photovoltaics and hydropower will be important because of their potential for local and small-scale generation.

 

EN211 We will aim for a largely electricity-based energy system in the UK to match a total final demand of about 900TWh/ year by 2030, which reduces to 600-650TWh /year by 2050. To meet this demand, average capacity for renewables is planned to be 40 GW by 2020, rising to 70 GW by 2030, excluding power for demand balancing and load shifting. This capacity will be provided by the range of renewables set out below (all figures are average capacities).

 

EN212 We will accelerate the deployment of both onshore and offshore wind power generation at rates sufficient to ensure the change to a stable electricity-based energy system of 87GW by 2030, but stabilising thereafter. This will require a rapid build of onshore wind to 2030 to provide an average capacity of 12GWe by 2030, and off-shore wind generation capacity will be increased to 17 GWe providing a total average capacity of 29GWe (including existing and currently planned capacity).

 

EN213 We will support the rapid commercialisation of tidal stream and wave-powered generators to ensure they are able to contribute at least 5GW each by 2030, and a combined input of at least 20GW by 2050.

 

EN214 Rapid deployment of solar photovoltaics will be fully supported, as a key source of decentralised generation, making full use of domestic, commercial and industrial roofspace and limited deployment of ‘solar farms’. We will review legislation and planning guidance to facilitate the potential for leasing roof and site space for local energy generation by third parties. We will target 8GW from PVs by 2030 and 10 GW by 2050.

 

EN215 We will urgently review UK potential for hydropower and will support in particular medium and small-scale installations in order to provide 3GW (average) by 2030. We will develop the capacity of pumped storage for demand balancing, subject to stringent environmental safeguards.

 

EN216 We will keep under review the relative contributions of all renewable sources in order to assess the potential for replacement or enhancement of the different technologies, in particular as demand reduces further beyond 2030 due to increasing efficiency.

 

EN220 A Green government would also accelerate the development of heat production from low carbon renewable sources through the deployment of renewable heat sources including heat pumps (air and ground source) and solar thermal as well as heat from decentralised biomass/biogas generation. We consider solar thermal can produce 20GWth (thermal GW) by 2030, and 25GWth by 2050.

 

EN221 We will ensure energy produced from biomass, including biogas, yields reductions in greenhouse gas emissions using sustainable wastes and domestic feedstocks for which indirect substitution emissions can be shown to be minimal. We will ensure that biomass generation, uses sustainably-sourced fuels produced according to stringent sustainability standards and is as far as possible carbon neutral.

 

EN222 We will develop the use of biomass for heat supply through co-generation and for balancing power; new biomass power stations will be built as combined heat and power systems and if needed with carbon capture and storage capability.

 

EN230 We will ensure the development of heat networks using waste heat and seasonally stored heat for building heating and low temperature heat use.

 

EN231 We will give local councils responsibility for heat planning as part of their energy planning powers. They will plan and commission new heat networks using low or zero carbon heat sources, funded through discounted loans from an energy efficiency fund (see EN910 below). Networks will include heat storage capacity to even out seasonal variations. Buildings that could be served from the heating network will be liable to pay charges for network access once it is built and available for connection. Local authorities may directly operate heat networks or energy service companies, or assist local co-operative or private organisations to do the same. They will be given powers to introduce incentives and bylaws to phase out the use of natural gas boilers.

 

EN232 We will support the development of a low-carbon heat market for the heating of homes and other buildings where there is sufficient density of demand to support the creation of a hot water network. Local authorities will be responsible for the planning of the network (see EN231). The heat network will be treated as a regulated asset and investors will be assured a regulated rate of return paid for by owners of buildings connected to the network.

 

EN240 The Green Party will ensure the urgent preparation of sea use planning frameworks, in consultation with relevant agencies, to guide the development of marine renewable energy systems. We will review land and marine planning guidance and establish a clear presumption in favour of renewable energy sources - in particular mid-scale community-owned renewables - but within the context of environmental impact legislation to ensure protected areas are not harmed, biodiversity is safeguarded and the needs of people and wildlife are considered. We will require local councils to integrate their energy plans with national land and sea use planning guidance.

 

EN250 We will assist in making carbon capture and storage (CCS) a reality by investing in the testing of commercial-scale CCS technology and will encourage bids for EU funding (such as NER300) to ensure that the UK secures a leadership position and competitive advantage in both the development and deployment of CCS technology.

 

EN251 If CCS is proven at a commercial scale, we will support deployment of the technology, on a specifically transitional basis, to existing sustainable biomass and gas power stations and existing incineration plant. We will support deployment on a long term basis for sustainable biogas generating plant.

 

EN260 A green government will phase out polluting and unsustainable power sources.

 

EN261 We will cancel construction of new nuclear stations and nuclear power will not be eligible for government subsidy; the Green Party opposes all nuclear power generation and is particularly opposed to the construction of new nuclear power stations, electricity from which is likely to be significantly more expensive per unit supplied than other low-carbon energy sources, and too slow to deploy to meet our pressing energy needs. Cancellation will avoid the costs and dangers of nuclear energy and waste being passed on to future generations long after any benefits have been exhausted.

 

EN262 Money earmarked for new nuclear plant research, development and construction will be reallocated to energy efficiency measures and renewable energy infrastructure, but sufficient funding for decommissioning redundant power stations, and for research into the safe storage or disposal of existing radioactive waste stockpiles will be retained.

 

EN264 We will halt the development of coal-bed methane, shale gas and similar hydrocarbon exploitation since it is not needed to meet UK energy demands, is environmentally destructive, and will lead to increasing GHG emissions.

 

EN265 Incineration of municipal, commercial and industrial waste is not required for energy generation, therefore all existing waste incineration stations will be phased out as soon as possible.

Edited 14 November, 2014 by buctootim

[Minty]

They don't say they would phase it out before replacement sources are in place - they simply say they would gradually phase it out, which is sensible IMO. They have very pragmatic solutions and policies for the advancement of renewable technology and research - which for me, is the very essence of 'progress' in this particular area - if just a fraction more money went into renewables research rather than continuing to look for fossil fuel reserves, I believe a lot of progress would be made.

 

If you think someone is 'anti-progress' then that would suggest you simply have a different idea of what 'progress' is... I'm not saying you/they are right or wrong, but progress is a relative concept.

 

[Edit - tims quoting of their policies helps...]

[Minty]

And indeed they go on to say:

 

Ensure secure, reliable and resilient energy supply

Policy

 

EN310 A Green government will ensure demand management and load balancing capacity: security of energy supply will be achieved as power generation changes to UK-based renewables. We will ensure that the transmission and distribution of energy keeps pace with the change to renewable energy production, as well as the restructuring of supply resulting from policies in EN 410 et seq. below, and as the increasing amount of decentralisation due to local and microgeneration impacts on the system. We will ensure the changing requirements for demand management and load balancing are accommodated and reliable energy supply guaranteed.

 

EN311 Local system operators will be given the responsibility for managing local storage and incentivising provision of local demand management techniques to manage the fluctuations in supply and demand of energy in their areas. We will support the installation of genuinely smart meters in all buildings linked to smart appliances (such as smart fridges and air conditioning) that will automatically respond to fluctuations in supply and demand to minimise energy use and align periods of heavy usage with times of low cost, according to user preference.

 

EN312 We will ensure the development of energy storage capacity through investment in development and deployment of the energy storage capacity needed to balance daily and seasonal demand fluctuations.

 

EN313 We will consider electricity and heat storage in a separate subsidy or investment category from generation, transmission, distribution and supply in order to ensure rapid deployment and will adapt market mechanisms to ensure storage at the distribution level is valued both for its role in network reinforcement and in electricity trading.

 

EN320 A green government will develop power interconnectors with European partners and will invest in the electricity interconnectors needed to provide international flows of renewable power for balancing fluctuating energy demand, in cooperation with countries such as Iceland (with substantial geothermal power resources), Norway (with considerable pumped storage capacity and hydropower supply) and Ireland (with substantial wind power potential)

[TopGun]

Sorry guys. If you think that the phase in of 40GW of renewable energy generation by 2020 is practical I'll leave you to it! Also to add that because of intermittency, 40GW installed is about 10GW average (if you use a 25% capacity load figure which is about right for onshore wind). Nice ideas, thoroughly impractical.

[Minty]

Sorry guys. If you think that the phase in of 40GW of renewable energy generation by 2020 is practical I'll leave you to it! Also to add that because of intermittency, 40GW installed is about 10GW average (if you use a 25% capacity load figure which is about right for onshore wind). Nice ideas, thoroughly impractical.

 

I'm not going to debate the specifics of it because I clearly don't have as much knowledge as you about the industry in general and respect the fact that you *might* be correct. I would briefly counter however with the fact that the Green Party are thorough in their research and have significant technological experts on their side, so I would be amazed if they came up with a policy that was 'thoroughly impractical'.

 

However what I would say is more important is that this apparently black and white approach is more detrimental than any *current* technological shortfall. My previous sentence remains crucial IMO:

 

if just a fraction more money went into renewables research rather than continuing to look for fossil fuel reserves, I believe a lot of progress would be made.

[TopGun]

I'm not going to debate the specifics of it because I clearly don't have as much knowledge as you about the industry in general and respect the fact that you *might* be correct. I would briefly counter however with the fact that the Green Party are thorough in their research and have significant technological experts on their side, so I would be amazed if they came up with a policy that was 'thoroughly impractical'.

 

However what I would say is more important is that this apparently black and white approach is more detrimental than any *current* technological shortfall. My previous sentence remains crucial IMO:

 

Some fair points Minty.

 

I'll just add that 40GW of installed capacity of onshore wind (theoretical I realise) is 20,000 new 2MW turbines. At the moment there are about 4,000 turbines generating power and consented, most of which are less than 2MW each. Look at the hassle it has taken to get that far with opposition from the anti-wind brigade. Offshore could provide some substitute but is 3x as expensive to generate.

 

Finally, it needs to be recognized that what Green Party policy says is often very different to membership and activist views and those would inevitably impinge on manifesto policy in the real world. It's exactly the same reason why NGOs like Greenpeace and FOE are staying quiet on potentially helpful technology like carbon capture. If they back it in their policies they fear internecine arguments, losing membership numbers and attendant revenue turnover.

Edited 14 November, 2014 by TopGun

[Minty]

Finally, it needs to be recognized that what Green Party policy says is often very different to membership and activist views and those would inevitably impinge on manifesto policy in the real world. It's exactly the same reason why NGOs like Greenpeace and FOE are staying quiet on potentially helpful technology like carbon capture. If they back it in their policies they fear losing membership numbers and attendant revenue turnover.

Agreed - I am a party member and don't agree with all the policies myself. However the shared core belief is there that we need to invest more in sustainable energy and do whatever we can to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, as quickly and as safely as possible.

[buctootim]

...

Edited 14 November, 2014 by buctootim

[buctootim]

Im surprised at your apparent lack of knowledge given you work in the industry. 24GW is already installed and is growing by around 4GW pa.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/337684/chapter_6.pdf

Edited 14 November, 2014 by buctootim

[TopGun]

...

 

I'm afraid you don't see the realities of the situation if you think that getting to 40MW of renewables by 2020 is going to happen. I can read documents as well as anyone, but I can also analyse them too!

[TopGun]

DECC's latest renewable energy figures are interesting and can be viewed at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-trends-june-2014-special-feature-articles-renewable-energy-in-2013

 

They are up to date to end of 2013. They state that:

 

Total installed renewable capacity - 19.6MW

 

Onshore wind - 7.5MW

Offshore wind - 3.7GW

Solar - 2.7GW

Hydro - 1.7GW

Landfill gas - 1GW

Energy from Waste - 0.5GW

Plant biomass - 2GW

Others - the rest

 

My conclusions are:

 

* Onshore wind is unlikely to provide much more in medium term because of limited suitable site availability now and increased activist opposition. 25% efficiency.

* Offshore has far more potential but cost implications. One big scheme withdrawn a couple of weeks ago. 35% efficiency.

* Solar took a huge leap with favourable subsidies which have now been reduced. Also policy change with government now opposed to turning agricultural land over to solar.

* Hydro. Only so many viable mountains and hills and rivers.

* Landfill gas. Likely to reduce as landfill continues to fall with higher recycling and reuse.

* EfW. Opposed by most greens anyway for perceived air quality / public safety concerns. Top of the NIMBY hates.

* Plant biomass - most of that is generated in one place, Drax Power Station (a client of mine btw) and not viewed as renewable by many who oppose.

 

All I am trying to point out is that a transition to renewables is not going to occur as easily as supposed by the most progressive-thinking of Greens! Just sticking with the onshore turbine point, you'd need 80,000 of them at 2MW capacity working at 25% to generate enough energy for today @ c. 40GW demand. Drax Power Station produces 10% of that same national demand on its own!

Edited 14 November, 2014 by TopGun

[buctootim]

DECC's latest renewable energy figures are interesting and can be viewed at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-trends-june-2014-special-feature-articles-renewable-energy-in-2013

 

Up to date to end of 2013 ....rotal installed renewable capacity - 19.6MW

 

All I am trying to point out is that a transition to renewables is not going to occur as easily as supposed by the most progressive-thinking of Greens!

 

Well thats a big turnaround. Two posts ago it was 'impossible' not 'its not going to be easy'. 19.6GW in 2013, an estimated 24GW currently, 4GW being added annually and six years to go before 2020 when the Greens said wed have 40GW. Hmm.

[TopGun]

Well thats a big turnaround. Two posts ago it was 'impossible' not 'its not going to be easy'. 19.6GW in 2013, an estimated 24GW currently, 4GW being added annually and six years to go before 2020 when the Greens said wed have 40GW. Hmm.

 

No, get me straight and don't misquote me. I am saying it is impossible. I know what I am talking about. I've explained why above.

[buctootim]

I'm afraid you don't see the realities of the situation if you think that getting to 40MW of renewables by 2020 is going to happen.

 

No, get me straight and don't misquote me. I am saying it is impossible. I know what I am talking about. I've explained why above.

 

Wheres the inaccuracy in my quote? The industry think its going to happen, the Government think its going to happen, but you think its not going to happen because of reasons unquantified.

 

The Government have made a legally binding commitment to supplying 15% of the UK's energy requirements from renewable sources by 2020, up from only 3% in 2009 when the commitment was made. If they dont do it they will be fined massively by the EU. In the red corner the EU, UK Government and industry who have committed billions in venture capital versus in the blue corner, Top Gun. Place your bets.

[TopGun]

Wheres the inaccuracy in my quote? The industry think its going to happen, the Government think its going to happen, but you think its not going to happen because of reasons unquantified.

 

The Government have made a legally binding commitment to supplying 15% of the UK's energy requirements from renewable sources by 2020, up from only 3% in 2009 when the commitment was made. If they dont do it they will be fined massively by the EU. In the red corner the EU, UK Government and industry who have committed billions in venture capital versus in the blue corner, Top Gun. Place your bets.

 

In post 77 you misquote me in post 76. It's clear that I refer to the Greens, not myself. You choose to misquote and then attempt to justify incorrectly. My stance had not altered.

 

I have qualified - if not quantified - my reasons in the list in post 76 also. They are in a clear list that highlights reasons for slowdown and importance of understanding intermittency.

 

Energy is also not the same as electricity.

Edited 14 November, 2014 by TopGun

[Lord Duckhunter]

During Red Ed's 6th relaunch yesterday he said he was going to take on UKIP, said that it was time somebody stood up to them, " we must debate them " he said, before adding he was going to take them apart.

 

Nigel is obviously up for it, what's the betting Ed will bottle it. If you're going to call someone out and say you're going to debate them, that's what you need to do.

 

[buctootim]

In post 77 you misquote me in post 76. It's clear that I refer to the Greens, not myself. You choose to misquote and then attempt to justify incorrectly. My stance had not altered.

 

I have quantified my reasons in the list in post 76 also. They are in a clear list that highlights reasons for slowdown and importance of understanding intermittency.

 

Energy is also not the same as electricity.

 

Actually I'm genuinely not clear what your point is. First you accuse the Greens of setting an unrealistic, impossible renewables target when all they were doing was quoting the current Government / EU target. Then you appeared to back away from that and now you say you haven't. Which is it?

 

Do you think the Government will reach the EU wide agreed final use target of 15% by 2020, which requires at least 40GW e installed capacity (depending on exact energy mix, economic and population growth, energy saving measures and weather) or do you think they are also "anti progress and idealisticly unrealistic" who will bring about "blackouts and chaos"?

 

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/11/will-the-uk-meet-its-2020-renewables-target/

http://www.nationalgridconnecting.com/hitting-the-renewables-goal/

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/increasing-the-use-of-low-carbon-technologies

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17837303

Edited 14 November, 2014 by buctootim

[Batman]

During Red Ed's 6th relaunch yesterday he said he was going to take on UKIP, said that it was time somebody stood up to them, " we must debate them " he said, before adding he was going to take them apart.

 

Nigel is obviously up for it, what's the betting Ed will bottle it. If you're going to call someone out and say you're going to debate them, that's what you need to do.

 

 

Farage will would verbally tear him apart

[TopGun]

Actually I'm genuinely not clear what your point is. First you accuse the Greens of setting an unrealistic, impossible renewables target when all they were doing was quoting the current Government / EU target. Then you appeared to back away from that and now you say you haven't. Which is it?

 

Do you think the Government will reach the EU wide agreed final use target of 15% by 2020, which requires at least 40GW installed generating capacity (depending on exact energy mix, economic and population growth, energy saving measures and weather) or do you think they are also "anti progress and idealisticly unrealistic" who will bring about "blackouts and chaos"?

 

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/11/will-the-uk-meet-its-2020-renewables-target/

http://www.nationalgridconnecting.com/hitting-the-renewables-goal/

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/increasing-the-use-of-low-carbon-technologies

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17837303

 

Final answer is still the same. I do not believe that there will be 40MW of installed renewable capacity online by 2020. My reasons are set out in post 76. Others are entitled to have their own alternate views. My view remains the same that the Green party manifesto aspiration (EN211) is not practically achievable and therefore impossible. The NG document you cite is an interesting and well known one. It represents one of three different scenarios and is called Gone Green. It is the most ambitious scenario that they consider. The other documents that you cite offer no hard evidence that 40MW of renewables will be installed by 2020.

 

Rather than further tit for tat, put this in your favourites and bring it up again in 2020 for the answer!

Edited 14 November, 2014 by TopGun

[buctootim]

Final answer is still the same. I do not believe that there will be 40MW of installed renewable capacity online by 2020. My reasons are set out in post 76. Others are entitled to have their own alternate views. My view remains the same that the Green party manifesto aspiration (EN211) is not practically achievable and therefore impossible. The NG document you cite is an interesting and well known one. It represents one of three different scenarios and is called Gone Green. It is the most ambitious scenario that they consider. The other documents that you cite offer no hard evidence that 40MW of renewables will be installed by 2020.

 

Rather than further tit for tat, put this in your favourites and bring it up again in 2020 for the answer!

 

Ultimately whether we hit this target or any other is down to political will and levels of subsidies of renewables / penalties for carbon pollution.

[pap]

Ultimately whether we hit this target or any other is down to political will and levels of subsidies of renewables / penalties for carbon pollution.

 

The political will isn't there because there's still so much dosh to be creamed from fossil fuels, at every stage of the process.

 

It'll end up being one of these "necessity is the mother of invention" things, probably after the shít has already hit the fan.

[TopGun]

Ultimately whether we hit this target or any other is down to political will and levels of subsidies of renewables / penalties for carbon pollution.

 

And the planning system!

[Ex Lion Tamer]

I would briefly counter however with the fact that the Green Party are thorough in their research and have significant technological experts on their side, so I would be amazed if they came up with a policy that was 'thoroughly impractical'.

Different issue, but here's why I think the Greens aren't that thorough. They're in favour of a compulsory living wage, but the trouble is that NIESR research suggests it would cost 160,000 jobs. That's why labour isn't doing it even though could probably get loads more support on the left if they made the easy promise.

 

The same goes for renationalising the railways, it's a populist choice but I'm not convinced that a return to BR is really what we want

Edited 14 November, 2014 by Ex Lion Tamer

[pap]

I do find it amazing that the Tories are beating Labour in some polls. Slash and burn government dismantling the NHS against manifesto in front of our very eyes, and Ed can't muster a lead over them. The UKIP thing is a huge wildcard. It's going to be as, if not more significant than Cleggmania

 

We all remember Cleggmania, don't we?

Edited 14 November, 2014 by pap

[buctootim]

Different issue, but here's why I think the Greens aren't that thorough. They're in favour of a compulsory living wage, but the trouble is that NIESR research suggests it would cost 160,000 jobs.

 

That is also a misrepresentation. NIESR found that the benefits would hugely outweigh the costs with 27.2% of UK workers currently paid less than the living wage - ie some 7.5 million people would gain income. The 160,000 jobs would be lost primarily amongst the young if the living wage were not graduated to the full amount for the under 21s as the minimum wage is. Its also likely that many of those 160,000 jobs lost would go at the crap end of the market but employers already paying more would benefit as the price differential of their products was eroded - eg people wouldnt go to KFC for a crap coffee any more because Costa coffee would be almost the same price

Edited 15 November, 2014 by buctootim

[Ex Lion Tamer]

That is also a misrepresentation. NIESR found that the benefits would hugely outweigh the costs with 27.2% of UK workers currently paid less than the living wage - ie some 7.5 million people would gain income. The 160,000 jobs would be lost primarily amongst the young if the living wage were not graduated to the full amount for the under 21s as the minimum wage is. Its also likely that many of those 160,000 jobs lost would go at the crap end of the market but employers already paying more would benefit as the price differential of their products was eroded - eg people wouldnt go to KFC for a crap coffee any more because Costa coffee would be almost the same price

Interesting, I'll have to check it out - I admit my source was just an article in the New Statesman

 

Edit: I've had a quick look at the paper and cant see anything about graduating for under 21s - can you provide an exact quote?

Edited 15 November, 2014 by Ex Lion Tamer

[pap]

Ed Miliband destroyed by Myleene Klass, of all people.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11237414/Singer-Myleene-Klass-wipes-the-floor-with-Ed-Miliband-over-mansion-tax.html

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Ed Miliband destroyed by Myleene Klass, of all people.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11237414/Singer-Myleene-Klass-wipes-the-floor-with-Ed-Miliband-over-mansion-tax.html

 

 

Oh Ed

[pap]

Soz. I can't resist a pun....

 

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Soz. I can't resist a pun....

 

 

Lot of time for that Pap. Good work.

 

 

I don't want to inflate your ego, but you've been on point with these of late. Keep it up.

[pap]

Lot of time for that Pap. Good work.

 

 

I don't want to inflate your ego, but you've been on point with these of late. Keep it up.

 

Thanks for the kind words, KRG - but it's too late for ego inflation. Stage one is when people retweet you. Stage two is when they outright rip you off and tweet it as their own

 

I'm between web hosts, so I debut all my stuff on Twitter these days.

 

https://twitter.com/papingu

[trousers]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/poll-bombshell-ed-milliband-shows-4646014

 

THE full depth of the crisis facing Ed Miliband in Scotland is laid bare today in a stark poll showing only two per cent of voters completely trust him.

 

The exclusive Survation survey for the Daily Record also suggests Labour are set to lose all but five of their 40 Scottish MPs in May’s Westminster election.

In contrast, the SNP have rocketed in popularity despite their defeat in the referendum and could go from six seats in 2010 to an astonishing 52 next year.

Such a result would effectively make it impossible for Labour to beat the Tories across the UK and kick David Cameron out of Downing Street.

[pap]

Love this. Not mine

 

[Wade Garrett]

I do find it amazing that the Tories are beating Labour in some polls. Slash and burn government dismantling the NHS against manifesto in front of our very eyes, and Ed can't muster a lead over them. The UKIP thing is a huge wildcard. It's going to be as, if not more significant than Cleggmania

 

We all remember Cleggmania, don't we?

 

Milliband should take Farage up on his offer and there and then commit to a manifesto pledge for an in/out referendum in his first year of government. Job done.

 

He won't though, because he has the political nous of a brick wall. Worst political leader in living memory.

[pap]

Milliband should take Farage up on his offer and there and then commit to a manifesto pledge for an in/out referendum in his first year of government. Job done.

 

He won't though, because he has the political nous of a brick wall. Worst political leader in living memory.

 

Completely agree. I don't know how he expects people to spend time and money doorstepping houses without an EU referendum in the locker.