Ot Hustings.

[harryagain]

Been to a couple of hustngs lately. Noticable how barking mad the Green party are on non-Green issues. Some dopey woman promising the "end to austerity". Only slightly madder than the labour woman in that respect. They had formulated the logic that as we're the third richest (or was it seventh?) economy in the world, we could afford it. But how can we be rich with a ?1.5T debt? Don't you subtract one from the other (apart from in Lala Land)?

Seems to think money grows on trees. The socialists in the crowd were lapping it up, clapping furiously thus revealing how brain dead they all are. (I expect they all have massive Wonga loans.) Shows that telling people what they want to hear works (at least for the brain dead)

Seems obvious that if Labour get in we'll be like Greece in a year or two. But are they lying or just intend to carry on as they did last time (if elected). And would we be shipping shed loads of cash North of the border?

I think I should have stood as an independent, main policy, cancel all Wonga and similar loans. Could have a landslide victory.

[alan_m]

According to a Green party leaflet for the local council elections this will be achieved by nationalising the railways and all bus services and subsidising the fares so that the poorest in society can afford them. The same goes for the power and water utilities. There are a bit vague on bank ownership except that the taxes on them will pay for their policies.

Over a million jobs will be created for people to install loft insulation and for installing solar panels. I assume that these are short term jobs - if each of the million extra workers has just 23 installs they will run out of dwellings in the UK to work on.

[Tim Streater]

I already have loft insulation and I don't want solar panels as I don't believe in sponging from other electricity users. So only 22 for my chap, then.

[Robin]

Not that really. It's the common trick of those who want more spending. They use *total* GDP to argue we can afford more *per capita* spending. Also used eg to argue that "the 7th richest country in the world can surely afford free child care". Indeed, seems almost an obluigatory argument from any Children's Commissioner. And those involved usually know full well it's a con. But the public don't understand the difference. And the BBC rarely if ever pick them up on it - which is easy to do since by that measure China is the 2nd richest country in the world and Inida the 9th.

[Brian Gaff]

Hi, well, its a bit like Tesco. They made a profit and a loss at the same time. I have never really understood the kind of balance sheet that allows this. One thing though, borrowing even for countries is cheap just now as most of the world has low interest rates. The clever bit, which is normally where Governments go wrong, is watching the signs and being in a position to pay it off before they start to go too high. I was watching tv, well listening to it, and noted that all these loan companies have huge differences in interest when its overdue. One supposes that an apr of over 6000 per cent as was on the one I heard is supposed to frighten those away who cannot pay up at the slightly lower just rip off aprs while within the terms of the loan.

People must be mega thick to actually take one out when the costs are actually pretty obvious, especially if you default. do they not teach basic home economics at school these days? There were always costly loans about, as they will be lending to those who have nothing to put up to cover the loan if they default, and of course the organisation needs to turn a profit even if people default.

So why do people take these loans out? OK they need money, but its far better to owe less to some people than to have aloan where the payments increase exponentially. Rocket science it is not. Brian

[Tim Streater]

Prolly they can't get a loan from any other "normal" source. And even if the companies in this sector made no profit at all, they'd still be charging much higher rates that an ordinary bank because of a higher level of defaulters.

[tabbypurr]

No, its to take as much money off people as possible

No!

Simple stupidity. Anyone with a basic understanding of loans realises they'll make them poorer unless they can use the capital to generate greater profit than the interest.

NT

[Bob Neumann]

I'm not really convinced it is 'sponging' from other users though.

By installing solar PV you are reducing the future requirement for energy companies to install generating capacity - that future cost will obviously have to be paid for by electricity users in due course.

So, think of it as a down payment for a sustainable future electricity supply.

[Fredxxx]

The generating capacity will always be required. It is fallacy to believe otherwise.

Utilisation of course will be lower but that doesn't mean its not required.

[Tim Streater]

You are doing nothing of the sort. The generating capacity will still be needed for night time, and foggy/overcast days in winter when there is little light.

No, it's just a waste of money.

[Tim Watts]

They still have to install peak capacity for winter evening when there is no sun.

It's the same as wind generation - it solves very little and just creates a new host of problems.

The only useful green energy is hydro.

[Dave Liquorice]

Er no, the capacity *has* to be there and be able to supply all the demand for the best part of 18 hours, in the winter, when it's cold, when it's dark, which is when the biggest demands for power are.

Solar PV sustainable? OK you run your house on Solar PV only. No import.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Unfortunately, due to the lack of sun in the winter and at night, that statement is completely false.

You need exactly as much conventional capacity to cover the times when renewables let you down as you always did.

The main difference is that renewables steal its income, so the price of conventional electricity has to rise to cover the fixed overheads and capital paydown costs.

So the net effect of renewables is to massively increase electricity price without actually replacing a single conventional power station.

It is also debatable whether the modus operandi those power stations are forced to adopt actually results in any less fuel being burnt.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Just that its more expensive...

[Bob Neumann]

All very predictable responses there. This really isn't the place for forward thinking.

[Huge]

Actually, it's a place for people who can read, write and add up.

[Tim Streater]

Predictable response from you, then, too. Head in the sand regarding any objections, which I note you don't try to refute. Are you able to?

Lets have some forward thinking from you. Merely asserting that Solar PV, wind, etc are the way forward cuts no ice here.

[Bob Neumann]

You say 'the' way forward; I've never said that we can get by just with renewables. However, we know we need to reduce CO2 emissions, so renewables have to be part of the mix. Micro generation makes perfect sense.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, actually we don't know that. A lot of people with commercial and ideological agendas SAY that, but we don't actually KNOW it.

No, they don't. Pound for pound, nuclear buys you far more elecrtricity of far higher quality than 'renewables' do.

No, It doesn't make any sense.

So it seems that even starting from tyhe wrong conclusion, you then make a second false statement, and use that to justify a third statement which is not the logical conclusion of either of the previous two.

So 0 out of three for facts and logic.

I guess that makes you a 'Green'

[bert]

It makes no sense at all in the UK Maybe it does in parts of Africa with long reliable predictable hours of sunshine and such small domestic demand that a battery can supply enough overnight power - bit like running a caravan with one light a small TV and the fridge on gas.