When wil this austerity madness end!

[alumni]

There is a simple answer to this problem.
Kick out all the highly qualified economic and experienced financial experts in the civil service and government, and replace them with the experts on this forum who obviously have all the answers.
Do you lot not think that they have already considered, discussed and taken into account all the factors relevant to the matter.
Stick to what you no best.
Whats that old saying, "its usually best to keep your mouth shut and let everybody think your a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt"

And then we have that clown Nick Clegg stepping forward today telling us how to get the construction industry moving - by relaxing planning regs.

And you would have us believe those in charge know what they are doing???

How can it hurt the building industry?
It might help to get council tax rates down by getting rid of thousands in planning departments.

Large, unsightly extensions appearing everywhere. Fancy one next to you? thought not.

His insightful comment when pushed was
"we've got to try something, what harm can it do?" (or words to that effect.

 

[libby lou lou]

Us folk in northern ireland can feed ourselves. Argiculture here is booming. Just in from work from a 300 head beef farm and find you lot arguing as usual.
Hard working protestants you see with a good work ethic plus were not over run with a large population.

Hope you've got some spuds to go with that roast!

my thoughts exactly.

 

[EB1caneyeB]

So all the highly qualified economic and financial experts are the ones we need to put our faith and trust in huh ?
They have already taken into account and considered all the relevant matters huh ?

No problem then huh ?

Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.....right.

Cos they're looking out for 'our' best interests.

 

[ellal]

So coal is uneconomical to mine because Thatcher stopped the subsidies, what twisted logic is that?

Not 'twisted logic'...The mines are now flooded, and uneconomical to re-open!

Not sure what you mean by your second comment

That figures...
But just so you comprende, how many will be able to afford £3+/litre?

Plenty of rich industrialised nations are net importers of fuel, plenty of poor countries produce fuel, what's your point.

When the sh*t hits the fan the tables are turned and the lights go off!...remember the '70's even when we had coal?

As to food, of course we import, we don't want to live on what we can grow here but want more exotic and non seasonal foods, we could feed ourselves, if we had to and wanted to live on a much boring seasonal diet.

Funnily enough most third world countries can 'feed themselves' in the manner you suggest...but how long do you reckon people would put up with it here?

And since you obviously can't find the trade balance figures, Let me show you how

 

[Norcon]

Aaron. Our (UKs) customers are going bust too, they have no money. Do you work for a living?

He's either a public servant or claiming benefits. Either way he's milking it.
Most of them seem to have a view through rose tinted spectacles on here..

 

[chapeau]

Not sure how 8 metre extensions are going to make any difference. People don't have the money to build them now when you can do four. Not sure I'd want my neighbours putting one in either.

 

[AronSearle]

Not 'twisted logic'...The mines are now flooded, and uneconomical to re-open!

So what, we should have kept them open, uneconomically, so that they wouldn't have become flooded, making them uneconomical to mine.

Not sure what you mean by your second comment

That figures...
But just so you comprende, how many will be able to afford £3+/litre?

Yea, you kind of miss it don't you?

We have never produced sweet crude (economically), we have always bought it in and sold our heavy crude.

We have found huge reserves of shale gas in the UK (that's not something you stick in your car), enough shale gas to power us up for possibly 60-100 years.

If we really needed to we could nuke up, and stick batteries in our cars, another 10-30 years and the tech will be there to do so properly, we have probably got another 50 years of normal fuel.

When the sh*t hits the fan the tables are turned and the lights go off!...remember the '70's even when we had coal?

So you agree having or not having certain natural resources is not the barrier to our economy, good.

 

[Whitespirit66]

Large, unsightly extensions appearing everywhere. Fancy one next to you? thought not.

Great way of making this little lot legit.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3873783/Slumdogs-of-Southall.html

 

[Whitespirit66]

Us folk in northern ireland can feed ourselves. Argiculture here is booming. Just in from work from a 300 head beef farm and find you lot arguing as usual.
Hard working protestants you see with a good work ethic plus were not over run with a large population.

Hope you've got some spuds to go with that roast!

my thoughts exactly.

No one else picked up on it.

 

[ellal]

So what, we should have kept them open, uneconomically, so that they wouldn't have become flooded, making them uneconomical to mine.

Nuclear, wind, solar....all heavily uneconomic, and yet they are heavily subsidised.

Coal would have required far less subsidy, and would have been economic in it's own right years ago... Coal was sacrificed for a political ideal!

Yea, you kind of miss it don't you?

I'm afraid you've got that all a*se about face...

Ever heard of the terms 'net exporter' and 'net importer'?..

As in the case of your lack of knowledge regarding our food situation, you can keep on digging that hole if you like...

So you agree having or not having certain natural resources is not the barrier to our economy, good.

See earlier post about why we no longer mine our coal...

And our oil/gas was only just coming onstream, hence at the mercy of others...

Now we are net importers of energy, we are back where we started..

The thing about history is that most don't learn from history...

 

[chapeau]

Thatcher did the right thing to take on the militant unions. Country was at risk of becoming a basket case as anybody who lived through those years would know.

Problem is the rot had already set in. The electorate thought they were entitled to a high standard of living without paying for it in full, so they elected governments who borrowed to make up the difference.

North sea oil and gas was very very useful to prop up our standard of living so guvmint could borrow less.

We now face the same problems of massive debt and high unit cost of labour but fewer ways of paying it back.

Of course the politicians know this, but they want to be re-elected, so don't tell it as it is. When has a politician ever....

 

[AronSearle]

Nuclear, wind, solar....all heavily uneconomic, and yet they are heavily subsidised.

They also have the capability to power us for thousands of years with little to no pollution (yes, nuclear power has had many advancements, waste is now a further fuel).

Coal power actually releases more radioactivity into the atmosphere than nuclear!

You are also comparing a fuel with power production, you have to add in carbon taxes on coal power plants and take the total cost of subsidy, not just the mining. (you might argue carbon taxes are a farce, but that's a whole other matter, and part and parcel of EU).

I'm afraid you've got that all a*se about face...

So in my response to info about massive UK shale gas reserves, you completely drop the subject of fuel dependence, bladeblaa.

I don't care that we import food, having just ate a banana, I am all for it.

Now we are net importers of energy, we are back where we started..

We can easily meet our own needs, but we keep voting in faux greenies who have no idea and stop our gas and nuke potential.

 

[joe-90]

Where are these reserves, Aaron? Are they asking for money to be invested like they do with oil? Do they really exist?

 

[ellal]

They also have the capability to power us for thousands of years with little to no pollution (yes, nuclear power has had many advancements, waste is now a further fuel).

Coal power actually releases more radioactivity into the atmosphere than nuclear!

It may 'release'* more radioactivity (a link to the facts perchance?), but nuclear has it's own waste problems - hence why the term used is 'released'..re-processing only covers a small percentage of that nuclear waste...

(*Although I wonder how all that coal 'radioactivity' released stacks up against chernobyl... )

And the word that you, like governments, don't mention is Decommissioning!

That one tiny word means that currently we are commited to subsidising the nuclear industry to the tune of £70bn - and rising!

So in my response to info about massive UK shale gas reserves, you completely drop the subject of fuel dependence, bladeblaa.

I didn't drop it like you dropped the food issue...

As for the 'shale', as Joe says where are the PROVEN reserves?

I don't care that we import food, having just ate a banana, I am all for it.

It's easy to go on about food we can't grow/produce here, but we are now massively net importers of basic stuff that we were net exporters of...

 

[AronSearle]

(coal)It may 'release'* more radioactivity (a link to the facts perchance?)

www.google.co.uk

but nuclear has it's own waste problems

Well that depends, many ways are being devised of turning the waste into another fuel source, the waste is also technologically quite manageable and many safe ways of disposing it exist, the barrier is politics.

And nuclear is really the only long term solution to our energy needs going by available technology, coal, oil and gas are stop gaps. Subsidising them at the cost of nuclear is going to hurt us (but probably not in our lifetime).

You have to look beyond mere economics (but if you do, it is cheaper to buy coal as opposed to dig it up ourselves in the highly overstaffed manner we did before thatcher).

(*Although I wonder how all that coal 'radioactivity' released stacks up against chernobyl... )

There are several hundred reactors, running over a period of several decades, and the only one that really went wrong is a Russian built and run one, were they deliberately pushed the envelope and ran a risky experiment.

And the word that you, like governments, don't mention is Decommissioning!

A political hot potato, but technology has answers.

That one tiny word means that currently we are commited to subsidising the nuclear industry to the tune of £70bn - and rising!

Source please, and over what time frame is that 70bn?

As for the 'shale', as Joe says where are the PROVEN reserves?

www.google.co.uk