I had more or less dicided not to vote due to 99% of them being affiliated to a political party, so in my eyes they instantly lost credibilty. Additionally, I also strongly suspected the post to be another layer of costly bureaucracy and “jobs for the boys”.
However, listening to the a radio phone-in one day I heard that the post at a certain area was replacing 7 other current posts and hence was cost neutral. We were informed that the new post warranted a basic salary of £80,000 per annum, plus all the office staff, premises, computers, software,etc., etc. all which equated to £250,000 – but still cost neutral. The next caller then asked “are you sacking the redundant 7 posts then?” The reply from some of the candidates was of course “no, as we will find other work for them to do”. I then waited for the programme host to task the candidates regarding “cost neutral”; it never came.
So, no voting for me.
Richard

I, like many of you, have read through the plethora of information for and against, wind turbines.
Notwithstanding many of the arguments put forward, and here I confess to being a non-believer in wind turbines for essential power, the “FOR” fraternity do seem to evade the pivotal question that continually crops up; what happens when the wind stops or drops to a degree of being useless (and this is not an insignificant percentage)? For the amount of turbines already erected, plus those being planned for, an instant standby power source does not exist (I naturally discount the present power stations as they will be closed in compliance with this erroneous eco thinking), so I fail to understand the “for wind turbines” case.
I am obviously missing something from their argument and have been studying the subject for some time now and the answer to the question above seems to elude me – and many others.
Richard