When will THEY listen to US??

You think you are joking, don’t you?………..:(

Ah Well, back to chopping the woodlands and Forests down to keep warm then….:rolleyes:
Jim.
Lincoln .7

A welcome dose of reality and clarity CD.
And all that I might add is that the figure of 105% will be dramatically reduced over the next decade as older and emission high power stations are closed without alternative production facilities being in place. I think the estimated shortfall in capacity by 2020 is 30GW, so from 2016 until 2030/35 we will have to make up the difference by buying energy where we can unless some capacity is retained by backtracking on the ludicrous emission reduction targets.

Why don’t they cut some of the taxes they impose on the Utility bills, and hammer the suppliers, and sod the shareholders…

Cameron, his mate Nick and the rest of the Tory’s have a choice. Do something about utility bills or wait and see how many “hardworking” pensioners die this year because they cannot afford to heat and,or eat…

Before we lay all of our woes about energy prices at the politician’s feet we ought to at least try to understand the problem, or problems, which I see as being:

It is very difficult to use ‘competition’ to drive down electricity prices as there is only just enough capacity in the system to meet our current needs; I think the total generating capacity within the UK is 105% of what we are currently using. Developing more capacity (and then not using it!) to develop ‘competition’ and drive down prices is prohibitively expensive and therefore not really an option (in either the private or public sectors).

The UK operates in a global market for energy and many of the price fluctuations are completely outside of the control of the government (whether our energy is supplied by the private or public sectors). I do not understand how any government can offer a ‘price-freeze’ on energy; if energy has to be supplied at a loss (by the private or public sectors) who is going to make up that loss? Well, I guess it will be the taxpayer (because it the government has nowhere else to get the money). Also if I were an electricity company and I were forced to sell electricity at a loss then what would I do? I would make less electricity; what would that do for prices?

The government could remove ‘green taxes’, or any taxes, from energy but what then? We either give-up on any green energy options or we raise taxes another way but, as always, from the taxpayer.

Modernising our energy industry, be it nuclear-power or whatever, is going to be expensive so the money to do it has to be raised, and again, this money has to be raised as taxes. We can involve the private sector with ‘investment’ but why would the private sector invest if they were not getting out more than they put in? With the private sector we, the taxpayer, will certainly pay more but the advantage is that we do not have to pay now but some time in the future (hence its appeal to the politicians of the day).

We could all try to use less energy. Insulating homes is a good way of doing this but it is expensive so not viable for those on low incomes unless it is subsidised. It is subsidised and that adds extra to everybody’s utility bills; do we cut this? Do we continue subsidising insulation? Who pays? The taxpayer again?

So, bearing that in mind, what is the actual solution…

…apart from calling the politicians a load of ******s? Anybody?

Snafu,” I rest my case”, as a Barrister would say.Your answer to my last question, is just the way I think. When in Court, Its easy to give a speech to the Beak, surprising how quick you can pick it up.
I ‘spect Chas has had his Horlicks, and been tucked up in the land of nod at this time of day…..
Jim.
Lincoln .7

And they expect that we will vote for them in the next Election.?

Have you seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk

Despite the fact that I have regarded the fella as a complete merchant for much of his career, I am strangely compelled to agree with him – who should you vote for when the options are all the same?
I used to believe that all politicians were in it just for the advancement of themselves; these days I suppose there are one or two who have an inkling that there are others out there who would get along a lot better if someone like them spoke up for the downtrodden of society – but that doesn’t involve many. Of course all politicians are human, their hearts are in the right place – must be, otherwise the blood wouldn’t get pumped around…
Of course all politicians talk a good talk, they are trained to and those who can’t but have other redeeming features are hidden from the press when questions are asked. Studying the law is much regarded as a qualification for becoming a politician; being able to stand up and give a speech to a judge must be harder than giving a rousing speech to a hall full of political cronies.

…Miss Clegg…

In what way is it suitable or even acceptable to denigrate women by the assertion that because you do not agree with a particular politician you can reduce him to being a female, and having a ‘hissy fit’? Would you see fit to attack him by changing his race or skin colour? I have no truck with religion, on the whole, but telling everyone that he was an Islamist would be not right either.
Unless you were talking about some other Clegg, of course…?

Explain to me then, why many of them are Barristers who could earn a damned site more than an M.P.,Why are they M.Ps.?, Many are Millionairs also, some are good, but I bet you wouldnt get many doing the job for nothing, look how many are on the books of Companies, who get paid shed loads of money just to have their name on said Companies letterheads.

Career politicians.
Lots have trained as barristers but many have never actually worked in anything approaching a meaningful way. There used to be a lot of business leaders in government, but when you have to take decisions that go against your business-belief it sorted the men from the boys. It used to be that all (male) politicians had some military experience, even if just via national service, but these days they have to be influenced by very senior officers and that influence sometimes comes down to having gone to the same public school, rather than what might be best for the country.
Why are they MPs? Can I be cruel and say that its all they ever wanted to be – look at Ian Duncan Smith or William Hague, both former leaders of the Conservative party but never prime ministers, both without the ability to leave politics after their short leadership careers that they have remained as cabinet members. MPs can claim that they are there to help their fellow man, members of their constituencies, and local business, but usually they are there to help their sponsors, be it local or national businesses or a particular union, and get positive publicity for their party; and if it personally helps them financially (with a nod or a directorship now, or a job when they leave parliament) then that is good too.
I distrust people who want to be, or are, politicians. They claim they work hard (and maybe they do) and the money doesn’t compensate (but how many of us make the same claim?) but look at all the perks! Power corrupts and influences those around them – who on earth would conduct an affair with John Prescott if, rather than being the deputy prime minister, he was the owner of a chip shop in Hull? How many other politicians have had affairs or scandals which have brought shame on themselves and others, both directly (lovers, business partners, etc) and indirectly (family)? The list is endless.

I expect Charlie has given up reading, especially my posts, but please watch that video.

Sorry I had not picked up on that point in your post.

[QUOTE=charliehunt;2081598]Leaving aside the fact that a Peer is not an MP,

He most certainly was an MP prior to being made a Lord.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Leaving aside the fact that a Peer is not an MP, why should I try to persuade you of anything, Linc? You believe what you believe and hold your opinions, to which you are entitled. I have mine and we differ.

Explain to me then, why many of them are Barristers who could earn a damned site more than an M.P.,Why are they M.Ps.?, Many are Millionairs also, some are good, but I bet you wouldnt get many doing the job for nothing, look how many are on the books of Companies, who get paid shed loads of money just to have their name on said Companies letterheads. We have a Lord here, who has a large business in the flower industry, never seen him prior to being made a Lord when they used to come and knock on your door. You will have a hard job on your hands to convince me they are M.Ps, who are there for the sole purpose of looking after just you and I.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

But that’s where you are quite wrong, Linc and we have discussed this before. UNLIKE you I do not tar ALL MPs with the same brush.

I am pleased to say Chas, I am like you, I remember what they are ALL like, in it for what THEY can get out of it, “The M.P.s system” of milking.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Some people have very short memories!

Wasn’t it Labour who introduced the green taxes, that have made heating so much more expensive?

And I believe it’s the Conservatives that are looking to axe those? And guess who’s objecting?

I’m no Tory, but they’re positively saints compared to the last lot.

Cameron, his mate Nick and the rest of the Tory’s have a choice. Do something about utility bills or wait and see how many “hardworking” pensioners die this year because they cannot afford to heat and,or eat……….

Will he do something ? No. He will continue to do what he has done throughout his premiership. Protect the rich and make the poor either pay or die. Maybe its his way of truing to solve the pension crisis.

Whilst in the year of her demise, Maggie’s privatisation policies come home to roost…….

I’m quite sure though The Flypast Conservative club is happy with the current situation and will no doubt simply blame Gordon Brown for it all……

Well that’s the only possibility…….:)

Must be the only one here who does not, or taking the P.

Jim.
Lincoln .7

You really don’t know to whom I refer…..?:rolleyes:

Miss Clegg

Who is Miss Clegg?

Planemike

Absolutely not and at least Cameron tried to make a start with a reduction of 50 but Miss Clegg had a hissy fit and took her ball away.
250/300 should be the ultimate aim – that would save a few bob wouldn’t it?