Zokes, may I point you in th direction of the government's report on these issues published March this year. Far from the ideological stuff that is alluded to here, it actually contains many of the arguments that you make and the explains why the current strategy may not extend as far as you may like.
But when the facts are examined, the story becomes very different - funny that. We have a government that recgonises where and how a "market-based" system for nuclear power has failed (early in the report and a rel long term story) There are clear strategies including the rationale for why the government needs to get involved, how to ensure UK inc and people are involved (with target),, the cost-benefit anaylsis explaining why UK involvement should be maximised as much as possible and the reasons why this does to reach the 100% that would allow us to fly the "made in UK flag".
It's an intersting report led by my mate Uncle Vince. Once you read the facts, it is easy to see when ranting especially about ideology etc is just that - ranting and far divorced for the actual events in front of us.
There may well be flaws in the strategy but that is a long way from the kind of false accusations banded about earlier.
One technical point, the government doesn't have it's own capital or money. It raises it from us and by borrowing - hence the need to understand the investment bit!!!
None of the above should be taken as me saying that I support the proposal per se. But if we are going to reject it, let's at least do it for the correct reasons.
Zokes, may I point you in th direction of the government's report on these issues published March this year.Once you read the facts, it is easy to see when ranting especially about ideology etc is just that - ranting and far divorced for the actual events in front of us.
Do you really think that Zokes is going read [i]"the government's report on these issues published March this year"[/i] because you claim it refutes his post ?
Of course not, you know damn well that he won't. So why even suggest it then, it seems such a silly thing to do ?
I'll answer that question for you.
What you are in fact saying is, "you are wrong Zokes but I'm not going to tell you why, you're just going to have to trust me because I know lots of things that you don't know". It's an absolute classic teamhurtmore tactic.
Just tell Zokes why he's wrong, don't come out with some bollox about reading a government report published in March.
The truth is that you can't tell him why he's wrong. So instead of doing so you simply want to insinuate that he is.
Oh stop ranting/trolling.The whole point is that the government (and I) agrees with lots of what Zokes says. That was my point. Not what you misrepresent as per. Clear trolling. They also go on to explain why it's not in their (and their advisors) opinion possible to deliver nuclear power 100% from UK inc. My second point - you did read my firsf para above? We all recognise that this is a laudable goal but not achievable [i]in their opinion[/i] especially given the perceived urgency to deliver a different energy mix. With an accelerate investment in UK capability they expect that we have the domestic capability with government support to deliver 60% of achieveables. And they include the cost benefit analysis to show why.
So perhaps it's YOU who should stop being silly. Read the report yourself (it woild take you about an hour) and avoid the embarrassment or ranting about stuff that is simply not true. Far from being an ideological driven response there has been considerable time and effort given to trying to work out a coherent nuclear strategy in the UK. In this case, I will give Vince Cable the credit he and his colleagues deserve.
Yes classic THM tactic - try to see what the government is actually saying as opposed to mere unsupported ranting. Try it some time.
Ditto re energy policy. The government has done huge amounts of work on how to make the energy markets work better. There a many recommendations based on thorough analysis presented by the cross party committee. So when Milliband and Major ignore this in favour of sound bite politics it should be highlighted.
Any way enough. I am out. It's Friday night after all and your trolling is tiresome in the extreme. I had hoped that we/you could move on. Obviously not. I have no desire to bore others or annoy the mods.
You sound stressed, not something which I would expect from someone confident and secure in what they believe.
BTW I read an interesting article today about the growing opposition to the TINA mantra in economics, specially in the wake the catastrophic global systemic failure of the neoliberal free-market experiment when all that "basic investment maths" screwed up.
They quoted Paul Krugman, you know, the geezer with a PhD in economics from MIT and winner of the Noble Prize in Economic Sciences, as saying :
[b][i]"As I see it, the economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth"[/i][/b]
Makes you wonder, eh ?
"UK Inc" and its more popular sibling "UK Plc" are terrible and meaningless cliches.
Ernie was correct, I have no intention of reading that report. I've told you quite clearly my opinion as to why what is being done is not only a very bad idea, but possibly even constitutes dereliction of duty by the ruling coalition. The facts I've used to come to this conclusion, I feel, are supported by common knowledge and insight. They seem to echo what other posters have stated.
So, THM, you tell me why I'm wrong. Or, accept that you are.
Try explaining, rather than ranting, and you may find others more open to your viewpoint. This is, after all, the point of a discussion. Not only to get your point across, but to also listen to alternative views, and perhaps take them on board somewhat.
Well that's a pity. The government lays out the background to your first paragraph - the history bit. No conflict with what you are saying. It then lays out the strategy v 2030-2050 benchmarks. [b]A large part of this focuses on maximising the share of UK companies (large and SMEs) not only in the domestic market but also in the current and future export market. There is no dereliction of duty since they have outlined exactly what they intend to do about it, when and against which benchmarks they expect to be judged and how they are going to do it. [/b]Then the potentially interesting and most relevant bit, it lays out the role of government (critical), an assessment of current UK capabilities and expectations re how proposed investment can maximise the contribution of UK industry across the value chain. This is (perhaps) the contentious bit (although not really) since it explains why the UK, even after the proposed investment, will not have the capacity to deliver 100% of the needs. Gov may be able to do amazing things but magic isn't one of them.
None of this is ranting, none of this constitutes a dereliction of duty etc. Its is where we are now and what the gov intends to do about it. So people have a choice, rant about facts that sound nice for the sake of arguing but are not true or focus on the facts as they stand. There is then the legitimate basis for criticisng specifc details on what the gov proposes. It is clear where some want to stand because they like trolling. You can make your own choice.
Bottom line is the gov broadly supports your sentiments but can only partially deliver against them. Hardly a dereliction of duty nor some ideological drive allowing foreigners to take over our industry. Shame that because the headline don't make for such great reading. Tant pis!
Gov may be able to do amazing things but magic isn't one of them.
Well up until now when it comes to building nuclear power stations British governments have apparently been waving their magic wands and making magic.
[b][i]"For the first time, a nuclear station in this country will not have been built with money from the British taxpayer"[/i][/b]
- Secretary of State for Energy Edward Davey.
So there you have it, this government proudly boasts that for the first time since 1956 a power nuclear power station won't be built and owned by British taxpayers, but by companies under the control of foreign taxpayers.
BTW Re : [i]"A large part of this focuses on maximising the share of UK companies"[/i] You do realise that that EDF Energy which is leading the consortium to build Hinkley C is a UK company, even though it is 100% owned by its French parent company and that France is the direction in which much of the profits will be going, mostly into the coffers of the French government, don't you ? Of course you do.
So it shows how misleading the claim that 57% of the contract value will go to UK firms, a figure which we are apparently expected to be hugely impressed with. The largest "UK firm" involved in this project is Électricité de France.
Oh look, THM is confusing his personal opinions with facts and being incredibly haughty and patronising towards anyone who disagrees.
That is a massive surprise. 🙄
Sorry Grum, but I didn't write the governments report. But nice try!
FWIW, I am (on balance) anti this project and the end result but for different reasons. But when I read the report and the background analysis especially from the Oxford team on the cost of [b]not investing[/b] in our own domestic capabilities. I understood and changed my mind on the governmet's motivation and reasoning, And for a change I am actually quite sympathetic to Vince Cable's arguments.
If you want to believe that the issue is pure ideology and dogmatism, so be it. Like most political decisions when you strip away the rhetoric there is a heavy dose of pragmtism involved combined and very detailed supporting analysis, combined with a dashing of opportunism close to election time. Like energy prices this gets lost in the Westminster noise.
And look at what the poster who works in the industry said!
P.S. I am also sympathic to the idea (shared by the Government) that not only would it be great if we had the domestic capability to deliver these projects domestically but also that we should also have the global expertise to export those skills internationally in the way EDF does. So it's genuinely intersting to understand why the Government feels that they cannot fully deliver on this a present.
FWIW, I am (on balance) anti this project and the end result but for different reasons. But when I read the report and the background analysis especially from the Oxford team on the cost of not investing in our own domestic capabilities. I understood and changed my mind on the governmet's motivation and reasoning, And for a change I am actually quite sympathetic to Vince Cable's arguments.
It's typical that when in possession of a weak argument you waffle in a confusing manner and heavily hint that you are in fact in agreement with the opposing point of view after all.
So what is it ....... are you (on balance) anti this project and the end result but for different reasons ? Or do you understand the governmet's motivation and reasoning ? Which one is it ?
And obviously your opposition, if you are actually opposed - we haven't yet established that, is "for different reasons" to everyone else, no surprise there. But how come you're so secretive about these "different reasons", don't you want to share them ?
I look forward to much prevarication and beating about the bush.
