|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I don't think you can really blame them (the course was specifically for people like me who were moving up form shop floor roles, so "management trainee" probably has a slightly different connotation in that context). Like I say my GCSE History course ended at 1945.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
Austria's filing a lawsuit to halt the construction of the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant because it dislikes nuclear power; the claim is that the funding plans constitute unlawful state aid: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/21/austria-to-launch-lawsuit-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-subsidies quote:Austria is to launch a legal challenge against the European Union’s (EU) decision to allow billions of pounds of subsidies for Hinkley Point C, casting fresh doubt over the UK’s first planned nuclear reactors in 20 years. Luxembourg whining about illegal state aid is loving precious, as is the Austrian claim that nuclear is not environmentally sustainable. Should just send them a letter inviting them to contemplate the fate of the last mouthy Austrian who tried to stick his oar into British affairs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:18
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:I've actually been very tempted to knock up a simple website called "what your hero said" with a picture and a fully attributed quote or two on each page I'd get involved in that. Although all of what Smith said in The Theory of Moral Sentiments doesn't change the fact that he was still the definitive laissez-faire capitalist, since he believes human nature is too frail to relied upon for altruistic behaviour, and that accordingly self-interest has to be yolked to altruism, a spiel you see all the time in conservatism.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Should just send them a letter inviting them to contemplate the fate of the last mouthy Austrian who tried to stick his oar into British affairs. is this a fakepost?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Should just send them a letter inviting them to contemplate the fate of the last mouthy Austrian who tried to stick his oar into British affairs. While Austria complaining about Britain's energy concerns is ridiculous, this is just amazing 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Austria's filing a lawsuit to halt the construction of the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant because it dislikes nuclear power; the claim is that the funding plans constitute unlawful state aid:
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Austria's filing a lawsuit to halt the construction of the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant because it dislikes nuclear power; the claim is that the funding plans constitute unlawful state aid:
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:is this a fakepost? No, I would structure our response as follows:  
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Although all of what Smith said in The Theory of Moral Sentiments doesn't change the fact that he was still the definitive laissez-faire capitalist, since he believes human nature is too frail to relied upon for altruistic behaviour, and that accordingly self-interest has to be yoked to altruism, a spiel you see all the time in conservatism. I'm not sure I'd disagree with the premise, although I probably draw different conclusions. Expecting people to get behind socialist policies because they're morally correct is ... let's say a little optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:I'm not sure you can blame British feminism too much for the Sun continuing to be creepy fucks after one of their angles for being creepy fucks is removed. Blame the Sun for being creepy fucks instead, and put getting rid of candid celebrity pics next on your agenda list, I'd say. This is how they've basically come out as winners - they get to carry on as normal while the feminist activists get characterised as mere prudes. ('There, now there's no tits in the newspaper, is that what you want?!') There's already rumblings of how these feminists have denied page 3 models an opportunity to earn a living, so I fully expect the Sun to spin a 'perhaps we are the true feminists here' out of this scenario
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:40
|
|
Wolfsbane posted:I'm not sure I'd disagree with the premise, although I probably draw different conclusions. Expecting people to get behind socialist policies because they're morally correct is ... let's say a little optimistic. Perhaps, but a lot of socialist theory is based on the premise that people are fundamentally decent. Plus, you know, 'invisible hand' and all that. People really tried in the end of the 20th century to turn Adam Smith into a cool fuzzy guy, but he was just a pretty moral person who really believed that free markets were the way forward to produce good ends. Like a lot of well-meaning and less intelligent conservatives in the present day, who don't have the excuse of not having a shitload of data to work with an mercantilism to discredit.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
Just saw a friend of a friend on Facebook saying that if the Greens get elected Putin will take over the UK. What loving world do these people live in?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:48
|
|
Praseodymi posted:Just saw a friend of a friend on Facebook saying that if the Greens get elected Putin will take over the UK. Airstrip one.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
Zephro posted:I don't agree with their objections but I hope they succeed anyway. Hinkley Point is a criminal waste, channelling vast quantities of money to EDF for decades. If the only way to get nuclear power is to guarantee companies return on equity of 20%+ for a third of a century then we should spend the money on renewables instead. At least they have a track record of getting cheaper, not more expensive, with time. We've had our fingers up our arses for 25 years and it's to a point where we just need to give EDF what they want. We can't just run current nuclear stock indefinitely, it's already past design life
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
Zephro posted:I don't agree with their objections but I hope they succeed anyway. Hinkley Point is a criminal waste, channelling vast quantities of money to EDF for decades. If the only way to get nuclear power is to guarantee companies return on equity of 20%+ for a third of a century then we should spend the money on renewables instead. At least they have a track record of getting cheaper, not more expensive, with time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Praseodymi posted:Just saw a friend of a friend on Facebook saying that if the Greens get elected Putin will take over the UK. Putin on the blitz
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:is this a fakepost? It seems only mildly less tactful than Austria throwing that kind of funding spanner in the works out of nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
mfcrocker posted:We've had our fingers up our arses for 25 years and it's to a point where we just need to give EDF what they want. We can't just run current nuclear stock indefinitely, it's already past design life quote:I disagree because renewables are simply not an adequate or credible alternative to nuclear in most densely populated northern european countries. edit: who wants to bet the plant will come in either on time or on budget, while we're at it? Zephro fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Here's another way to look at it: if you take the strike price, multiply it by the length of the subsidy, and account for downtime, you can expect the plant to earn roughly £85 billion in revenue over the first 35 years of its operation. EDF are claiming it will cost £16 billion to build (though you might want to ask the Finns and the French about how realistic that is). Being a nuclear plant its operating costs will be negligible - a bit of money for salaries and a tiny bit for the fuel, with a small contribution to the nuclear cleanup fund. EDF are going to make a colossal killing out of Hinkley Point and every pound they make in profit is a pound that we could have spent on, I don't know, more nuclear reactors? You could build five reactors for the money that we've promised to pay EDF over the next three decades. It's one of the shittiest decisions in the history of British nuclear power and given our record, with the Magnox plants and the AGRs, that's really saying something. edit: Finland != Switzerland Zephro fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Arrrrrgh gently caress you zipvan gently caress you gently caress you gently caress you. Didn't notice the wing mirror on a van I just hired was knackered amongst the pages and pages of other damage done to the van, drat thing nearly fell off in traffic. Called them and they might charge me £250 because I didn't report it was broken at the start when I didn't know about it. Hooray, money I don't have going down the drain, let's be poor and destitute itt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Nuclear power at twice the going rate for anything else isn't an adequate or credible alternative to a fossil-fuelled system. Hinkley was a bad deal when oil was $100, it looks ruinous now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Zephro posted:No, we really don't. There's no reason EDF have to run the plant apart from "markets are better", My (completely unaware of politics) friend in the nuclear industry was of the opinion that we, as a nation, would be incapable of operating a new generation of nuclear plants ourselves. He cited lack of an appropriate trained workforce and widespread retiring of the key personnel involved in the previous building of reactors. In other news, the delightful Ms Sturgeon has decided to light a firecracker under the Union - the SNP will be dropping their previous policy of not voting on English-only issues following the general election. Fucks sake, she's practically forcing people who care about the West Lothian question to vote Tory to get EVEL.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
She said they would vote on issues that could affect the Scottish budget and the example she gave was ending nhs privatisation, nobody is forcing you to vote tory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Phoon posted:She said they would vote on issues that could affect the Scottish budget and the example she gave was ending nhs privatisation, nobody is forcing you to vote tory. Healthcare is an entirely devolved issue. I don't want her sticking her nose into it, whatever the policy under discussion. I haven't had time to read it all, but here's an extremely detailed inside story of the Better Together campaign that looks quite interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:If you give a poo poo about CO2 emissions or the target of achieving an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas output by 2050, fossil fuels aren't a viable option so the price of a bunch of coal and gas plants is neither here nor there. Rosatom will build you a power station with a strike price of €50 per ton. The boss of Ineos has recently agreed a nuclear deal in France with a strike price of €45. We got hosed, badly, for no good reason, and all it's going to do (besides making EDF rich) is convince people that this green poo poo isn't worth taking seriously because it's so incredibly expensive. The government has already announced that onshore wind will be cheaper than Hinkley Point's power by 2017. Solar will be cheaper by 2020, if the government sticks to its pattern of reducing solar's strike price by £5 every year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Prince John posted:In other news, the delightful Ms Sturgeon has decided to light a firecracker under the Union - the SNP will be dropping their previous policy of not voting on English-only issues following the general election. That's a Torygraph hatchet job. What Nicola Sturgeon said was that matters such as NHS funding have impact north of the border (which they do) and therefore are matters that affect Scotland. Due to the Barnet Formula, spending in Scotland is tied to that in England. So funding debates are ones where SNP members can and should vote. That's not the same as administrative issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:
Must be. Do I?  poo poo, sorry. tables. Coohoolin fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:The Guardian has just given up now. How else can I take it seriously if I don't know what's popular around the web? Including the loneliest orca's tiny tank
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Zephro posted:No, we really don't. There's no reason EDF have to run the plant apart from "markets are better", and the entire creaking, under-invested, asset-sweating UK energy industry is a refutation of that idea right now. If the markets require £20+ profit for every £100 of revenue they make, I think that's a bad deal. There's no reason the government couldn't run the plant itself once EDF have built it. Given that the government have promised that you will guarantee to pay EDF at least twice the present going rate for electricity for thirty years, it's hard to see how it could end up more expensive. Sorry, feel free to put a big asterisk with "assuming we are not going to nationalise the thing" next to my post because, let's face it, we're not. My point is that we needed new nuclear in 19 loving 90 when the ICE started making noise about it. In The Year of Luigi 2015 we're completely hosed and cheering for Hinkley C to fall through just to spite a massive handout to EDF is massively short-sighted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:That's a Torygraph hatchet job. But the spending on every devolved issue in England has an indirect impact on the Barnett allocation, so that argument can be used to allow the SNP to interfere in every otherwise-devolved issue. The whole point of the West Lothian question is that they shouldn't be able to do this. If you're going to adopt such a wide definition of "does it affect Scotland" then you're basically saying there is no West Lothian question to answer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:16
|
|
It seems to me like the line was drawn at the only reasonable and sensible point possible with the West Lothian question. I think this will effect the SNP's credibility (lol if people thought they had any before though). mfcrocker posted:My point is that we needed new nuclear in 19 loving 90 when the ICE started making noise about it. In The Year of Luigi 2015 we're completely hosed and cheering for Hinkley C to fall through just to spite a massive handout to EDF is massively short-sighted. Everyone I know who works in energy thinks the situation is a disaster and we are already too late delivering power stations. The best we can hope for is trying to make this thing somehow cost less than a loving fortune. If it's between overpaying and not building it, though, we have to choose overpaying, so we have no leverage.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
I don't really see the English getting bothered at the SNP slowing the advance of privatisation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Zephro posted:But you seem to think we can convince the public to pay double the going rate for electricity for the sake of global warming. I wish I had your optimism. Well, that's the wonderful thing about public private partnerships, isn't it - no up front cost and by the time the bills start coming in, it's too late for anyone to complain.  And yes, Rosatom will build you a nuclear plant with a cheap strike price. Unfortunately, if you take them up on that deal you also get a nuclear plant built by a company that is owned and controlled by the Kremlin, and which was responsible for Chernobyl. Might be a bit hard to sell politically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Must be. Do I? Nice can of fosters there 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:I don't really see the English getting bothered at the SNP slowing the advance of privatisation. I'm not bothered about the specifics of the particular (no doubt well-chosen) example she chose to give her interviewer. Nobody here wants the NHS to be privatised. It's the principle it establishes that I am bothered about. Tomorrow it might be tuition fees for English students or <insert rabble-rousing policy of your choice>.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
There is no simple answer to West Lothian without further butchering our hodgepoge constitutional setup. An attempt to prevent Scottish MPs from voting on wider English issues can be equally applied to many issues for London MPs which the GLA/Mayor has direct control over. Try proposing to take away the voting rights of London MPs and see how far you get 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
God, a bunch of people you didn't elect having their say over affairs that affect you, must be hard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Prince John posted:But the spending on every devolved issue in England has an indirect impact on the Barnett allocation, so that argument can be used to allow the SNP to interfere in every otherwise-devolved issue. The thing is that not everything is about spending. Just a lot. If the Facesitting Laws only affected England then the SNP shouldn't vote on it - as they shouldn't have on Tuition Fees. You are trying to prevent the SNP voting on one of the more important things that actually affects Scotland. Money. If all the financial issues are handled in the budget then, and only then, does keeping the Scots out make any sense. The whole point of the West Lothian Question is whether only English MPs should vote on questions that are exclusively English. How much money Scotland gets is clearly not such an issue. And neither are issues that directly impact how much money Scotland gets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
e: wrong thread!
communism bitch fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
neonchameleon posted:The thing is that not everything is about spending. Just a lot. So to paraphrase, you only recognise the existence of a West Lothian question when the law being passed by Westminster relates to a criminal offence, or moral standard, or something else that doesn't involve the allocation of government expenditure? As Barnett feeds off public expenditure in England & Wales, you would be disregarding almost every issue of financial consequence by adopting this criteria, including English tuition fees. Prince John fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:44
|
|