The 2005 general election is nearly upon us. Which way will you vote, and you reasons why. Here is a brief list of the potential contestants, please add your own.


More tax!
Less tax!
Dont know!
Death to all infidels!
Who gives a shit?

The great pretender.

apple.


With all due respect, I dont think you are looking at this energy/nuc problem with a clear mindset.

You are still in the "huge facility" school of nuclear engineering.

I am talking about small reactors that can be easily guarded, they dont need to be above ground for that matter. The nucs used for subs are not huge, they do not present a large target, they could even be buried...some target eh?...but they would certainly require guarding, but that cost is pennies compared with the power output.

The security issue is not an issue at all, just put someone who is competant in charge. Take my word for it.


BTW, I am sorry you are not well.

All over now-not the result I wanted but we'll do better next time! There's a big black cloud looming-take cover everyone. I have really enjoyed the discussions all. cheers MP

Not the result I wanted either, funny fact is the Tories polled more votes overall than labour, yet we did not get the sort of seats we should have .
Have labour learned something from mugabe, along the lines of you might not want us but whatever we can do to make you have us.

Dont bank on pr anytime soon, but perhaps the tories will look at it in a different light now.

Talk of the devil.....


Secret papers reveal new nuclear building plan

Oliver Morgan, industrial editor
Sunday May 8, 2005
The Observer


The government's strategy to kick-start a huge nuclear power station building programme is revealed today in confidential Whitehall documents seen by The Observer.
In a 46-paragraph briefing note for incoming ministers, Joan MacNaughton, the director-general of energy policy at the new Department of Productivity, Energy and Industry, warns that key policy targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and boost green energy are likely to fail, and that decisions on new nuclear power stations must be taken urgently. It advises that 'it is generally easier to push ahead on controversial issues early in a new parliament'.

The document points to the key role new nuclear power stations, which do not emit carbon dioxide, would play in tackling carbon emissions. It states: 'We now have 12 nuclear stations providing 20 per cent of our electricity carbon-free. By 2020 this will fall to three stations and 7 per cent as stations are retired.'

It also points to the increased risk of an electricity supply shortage after 2008, when a number of nuclear plants are due to close, and warns of a growing reliance on imported gas supplies.

It continues: 'Extending the lives of nuclear stations and/or new build could strengthen the generating sector's contribution to CO2 reductions, by 2020 and beyond.'

But it adds that to avoid a very steep drop in nuclear output a decision is needed quickly, because it takes a decade to get stations operational. There are also obstacles that would need to be overcome in building a new generation of plants, including gaining public acceptance and dealing with nuclear waste.

The department paper is revealed as the nuclear industry gears up for a major lobbying push for new stations. The Nuclear Industry Association has been pressing on the government the need for 10 new stations to combat climate change, arguing that a large-scale building programme is the only economic way of financing them.

UK companies such as Amec and Westinghouse, the power station construction arm of state-owned British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) - along with foreign companies such as Aveva and Bechtel of the US, have also urged the case in Whitehall.

The Whitehall briefing, a 'first day' options paper prepared for the new Secretary of State, Alan Johnson, states that the government is widely expected to 'come off the fence' on nuclear energy and advises that it should work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Treasury and Number 10 to 'be on the front foot', making a statement on energy policy and its impact on climate change before the summer recess.

MacNaughton warns that '(carbon dioxide) emissions have been rising in recent years. We look to be falling well short of the goal to cut them by 20 per cent by 2010, absent (of) new measures'. Two of the reasons are 'falling nuclear generation' and 'weaker than predicted impact of some policy measures'.

Key among these is the attempt to boost renewable forms of energy - such as wind farms, solar power and crop-burning stations - by forcing electricity suppliers to source 10 per cent of their supplies from these sources by 2010. The paper admits 7 to 8 per cent is more likely.

MacNaughton also admits that the government's stance on the nuclear issue in the last parliament 'to keep the option open' without encouraging it 'was a compromise, endorsed by the PM, between ministers for and against'.

Now she says: 'The case for looking at the nuclear question again quickly is that, if we want to avoid a very sharp fall in nuclear's contribution to energy supplies (some fall is already certain and has begun), we should need to act soon given the long lead times (10 years) in getting a new nuclear station up and running.'

However, she lists a series of issues that need to be addressed:

'How might new stations be financed?

What kind of government support might be necessary for new build to take place?

How far would new build be consistent with our market framework for energy?

How best to secure public acceptance?

How far would we need to resolve the long outstanding issue of finding a final depository for high level nuclear waste, as a pre-condition for progressing new build?'

The previous compromise was hammered out in a 2003 white paper, Our Energy Future - creating a low-carbon economy. This was the result of a bitter Whitehall battle between pro-nuclear elements in the then Department of Trade and Industry headed by the Energy Minister Brian Wilson and in Downing Street, and a determinedly anti-nuclear group headed by Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett.

The new Energy Minister is advised to take a robust line with Defra, not only over nuclear power, but on the amount of carbon dioxide industry is allowed to emit under European regulations. DPEI's wants a higher cap than Defra, arguing that too stringent restrictions will harm productivity.

Defra is heading the government's Climate Change Programme Review, which has a crucial role in placing the issue at the top of the agenda for the UK's presidency of the G8 this year. But MacNaughton notes: 'Because Mrs Beckett opposes nuclear new build, the review has not so far considered whether nuclear should contribute to cutting emissions.'

Resistance from Defra, where Beckett remains Secretary of State, is likely to remain strong, as she is known to be particularly concerned that no decision has yet been reached on how to store Britain's stockpile of radioactive spent nuclear fuel.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1479279,00.html

I just joined this site. What an interesting mesage board.
I am not too proud to say that it has changed the way that I look at some things.
Mr caveman2 said that the torys got more votes than the reds.
Mr caveman2 are you LIEING???? Arre you a politician???
Are you a tory loser by any chance??? A fully paid up member of the losing tory party???
All the TV & papers say that Labour got 35.2% & Torys got 32.3%.
BUT SERIUSLY
YOU COULD BE RIGHT!!!!!!!!
Blair is such a scumbag that he might have fiddled a lot of those 6million postal votes!!!!

I voted green.
I was tempted to vote ukip but they are such a bunch of fashist scumbags as well. Some of there members come from the BNP.

What a rubbish tory campaign.
They used what they call dog whistle issues to attract votes.
If you treat people like dogs some of them will come when you call but a lot will turn round and bite you for treating them like idiots.

Only one in 5 of the population voted red--the tory got 60000 votes more than labour but Tony still won more seats. I can only guess some constituencies are much bigger than others!

Shag, I am sure the other parties missed you voting for them.

I say Prescott for Prime Minister, now would'nt that be fun.

apple
If you think I am going to plough through pages of diatribe to see if you have insulted me, think again.
If you HAVE insulted me, be happy.
I would hate to have to listen to all you putative Fidel Castros'. Be honest,
you do go on a bit. As for Scotland having PR - that's news to me.
Have a nice day.

standber,

not an insult, an accusation

click here to find out

& as for Castro, socialism/communism is illogical.

apple

& as for Castro, socialism/communism is illogical.

Disagree: They are very logical and the height of aspiration for humans.
Trouble is, people spoil it. Greed, corruption, power and fear are the cancers
that destroy the lofty ideals and concepts of communism.
Castro has been just about the best of all at the attempts to make it work. And the populace can't wait for him to croak.

Always have and always will vote Tory............I know where I stand with them. ALL (with few execptions)politicians lie. I just happen to think that Tories lie the least.

"Always have and always will vote Tory...........I know where I stand with them".


Profumo...Aitkin...Archer... have I missed anyone?


Sounds like your saying standber that you don't mind voting and supporting a party that's harbed those crooks.

Stan,
How about this lot with their bullying and subjugating and lying to take us to WAR.( Dr kelly is no longer here to be able to tell you)
Reid,Mandelson and Campbell and which Party releases bad news when they think the time is ripe when the publics attention is diverted elsewhere.
I know which I would prefer to these lying scumbags.

Stan
'Quoted out of context' is the term. My two sentences made a paragraph
of two lines............and you quote one sentence! I Bet you vote Socialist!

It is not the economy which determines which way the punters vote, but short term greed. The lying ---- can lead me where they like as long as they feed me. Just like camp followers.

After the hype of pre-election Blair are the bills beginning to come in. It will be interesting to see how much longer America's economic position in the world is sustained. Empires fall because of economic factors, not military might. Over the next few years it will be interesting to see the oil producers turn the screw on America and its cohorts and the economic pressure from China and Asia.

Bush's prancing around the world talking about democracy and how he has influenced it in other parts of the world is laughable. The "democracy" in America is dependant on "big money" and its legal missuse of it.

The new democracies being supported by American money in order to obtain oil deals.

How many members of congress and senate are paid and supported by large interanational companies.

This form of democracy is being imported by "New Labour" and swallowed by party members. Again it will be interesting to see half way through this "new" governments term of office, how many paid up party members have been lost and what large donations,(for Baronetcies) have been given to the three main parties of this country.

Fred1New
Before 1997, the likes of Dennis Skinner (aka The beast of Bolsover) said that the next Labour Govt would create 1000 Lordships and vote themselves out of existance. Well, Tony Blair is more astute than that. Over his period so far,
he has created enough to give him a Labour majority in the Lords. These he will
increase more and more but not abolish them. Then he can be sure that what
is referred to the Lords, he will get passed. Crafty,eh?

His latest of course is this Adonis guy. He already has the Law Lords in his pocket with the Lord Chancellor.

Tony's Cronies in the Lords. This really does represent patronage and true values of NEW LABOUR. I would think a Baron's seat is worth a couple of BOB. Do they get a pension or does the poor B----R have to survive on a protected government pension like the rest of the cabinet. That should pay some of their or their kids' mortgages.

What a bl---y hypocrisy we have installed!!!

Mind he tells me he is listening and understands the messages with all the A---- lic---- will support him for their pensions.

Mind he "believes", if his followers believe in him that the party can rule for another 100years. How long was the 3rd Reich for?

Roll on the revolution!!

hi lads/standber/fredINEW / NO WONDER YOU VOTE TORY////you are so FULL OF CRAPS i can/t believe it/////