Who DID you vote for?

[Will]

I do love the fact that there's a whole new year or two, when people pull out the eco card from their pocket, claim to save the enviroment etc and i can simply ask "did you vote green?"

So I can gloat all the time?

I'm actually surprised that the Greens took a seat. Pleasantly so, but still surprised.

Don't know much about politics in Scotland but they have produced an interesting result. I wonder if it a rejection of the SNP's proposals for independence?

Very hard to guess how this will pan out. Lib-Con coalition?

The SNP tend not to do very well in a general election, especially since the Scottish Parliament was created. Combine that with the bank bailout which an independent Scotland could never have afforded and a frankly shit campaign from the SNP this election, and it isn't surprising they haven't made any gains. The next Scottish Parliament election will be the one to watch. If Labour swing back towards the left, then the SNP may struggle, if Labour try to keep to the centre ground, the SNP may do well.

 

[yaruar]

Also no surprise that the inner London benefit boroughs all stayed Labour. I'm in Croydon North and it's a Labour stronghold, they ran a dirty campaign out on the streets and train stations telling everyone how crap and scary the tories where, while ignoring talking about their own policies.

Funnily enough the Tories did exactly the same round here, although rather than being in person they put their negative stories about Labour on 50 foot billboards changing weekly because they had all the cash from their non taxpayers. TBH they were as bad as Labour in terms of Negative campaigning, they always are, it's a shame really.

 

[Scouse]

Jackie Smith has gone.

Couldn't have happened to an uglier fucking whore IMHO

 

[Tom]

http://ruletheweb.co.uk/b3ta/gordy/gordy.swf

 

[Scouse]

I do love the fact that there's a whole new year or two, when people pull out the eco card from their pocket, claim to save the enviroment etc and i can simply ask "did you vote green?"

Greens have done well this election. One of the most shocking things about this whole election is that the environment was hardly mentioned.

Lib dems had the best environmental policy. That's another reason I voted for 'em.



Edit: Nice Tom

 

[Tom]

They're not Greens though, are they? They're reds. People aren't stupid.

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/policies.html

 

[Tom]

Oh and could an admin change the title of this thread please, to the more grammatically correct "For whom did you vote?"

 

[yaruar]

They're not Greens though, are they? They're reds. People aren't stupid.

Green Party | Policies

At least they've updated their policy from a few years ago when it amounted to us getting rid of technology and living in mud huts and picking berries for a living.

 

[yaruar]

Ohhhhh, Tory unrest already, classic.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yeah Will, if you vote green, you can bea s eco-crazy as you want

Given that you do what you preach ofc.

 

[Wij]

At least they've updated their policy from a few years ago when it amounted to us getting rid of technology and living in mud huts and picking berries for a living.

and dying in our 30s presumably

 

[Wij]

Lib dems had the best environmental policy.

They had a fucking shit energy policy. No nuclear, pinwheels will power the uk. We've set aside £400 million which will be enough to power Filey... when the wind is blowing. Brownouts ? Never heard of 'em.

:/

 

[Will]

Yeah Will, if you vote green, you can bea s eco-crazy as you want

Given that you do what you preach ofc.

I'm actually not a huge fan of some of their official policies, though neither was my local candidate, which is why she got my vote. I dislike some of their environmental policies, their policy to immediately ban all animal testing, ditto GM. I do like a lot of their social and economic policies, but I'm aware their and my views are probably a little removed from the mainstream.

 

[Scouse]

They had a fucking shit energy policy. No nuclear, pinwheels will power the uk. We've set aside £400 million which will be enough to power Filey... when the wind is blowing. Brownouts ? Never heard of 'em.

:/

Sorry Wij. Continued Nuclear is idiotic IMHO.

My opinion isn't borne out of some "fear of nuclear" or somesuch shit. It's borne out of the fact that I studied energy policy and I've worked in the energy industry (albeit in an IT capacity) for fifteen years.

I know what illegal deals the Labour government and "UK" energy companies have done to ensure that nuclear gets a new lease of life - and they involve us footing a £100bn+ cleanup bill for "disposal" of waste.

Only it's not "disposal". Because not a scientist on the planet knows how to get rid of the shit.


Distributed energy production is the only way to go. We don't need brownouts if we do it right. And it'd be a damn sight cheaper than the £100bn we'll be forking out just for ficticious nuclear "cleanup".

 

[Wij]

Safe storage of old waste is a seperate issue though. Surely we should be doing that anyway. Who ends up paying for that is a political-wrangling issue which shouldn't affect our judgement of where we should be producing future energy from.

Aside from the historic legacy there's no credible argument against new nuclear. All generation options will be more expensive than dirty coal. If we went heavy on wind though we would run out of water to pump uphill on windy days. The UK doesn't have enough suitable rivers and flood-plains. There are other generation options but we'd run out of coastline / land / crops etc... before we got near meeting our needs. Nuclear combined with sensible amounts of the various renewables would allow us to meet those needs.

Plus, there's still the point about saying you're going renewable and then not having any kind of plan or funding to do it.

As for future nuclear waste, I'm sorry I don't give a fuck. Bury it in the ground, or stick it down used oil wells, whatever. There isn't that much, especially with new reactor designs.

 

[Scouse]

Safe storage of old waste is a seperate issue though. Surely we should be doing that anyway.

OK Wij. For the safety of my ass, I'd never normally antagonise you - but you've missed my point entirely:


There is no such thing as "safe storage" of nuclear waste.




Nuclear waste remains dangerously radioactive for about 100,000 years. Our best container lasts 300 years max. Then the container itself becomes nuclear waste.

We can't bury it safely. We can't "stop" it being radioactive. We don't know what to do with it. There is literally no safe way to deal with it.


This is why all governmental nuclear reviews have given new nuclear a "thumbs down". Until Labour broke the law and wrote the review they wanted, 'cause there's cash in it...



Edit:

As for future nuclear waste, I'm sorry I don't give a fuck. ...There isn't that much, especially with new reactor designs.

The designs that have been greenlighted aren't the "new reactor" designs btw. They're the old shit dirty ones. Just FYI

 

[ECA]

Space Elevator!

 

[Scouse]

Space Elevator!

If only eh?

 

[Wazzerphuk]

My constituency:
BBC News | Election 2010 | Constituency | Kingston & Surbiton

My past constituency:
BBC News | Election 2010 | Constituency | Twickenham

Good to see the Lib Dems prevail here. Vince smashed it as normal. Labour not even getting a sniff, great stuff.

 

[ECA]

Go big or go home!

 

[Chilly]

so we poison a small bit of mountain somewhere. dig a holt 3 miles deep lob the shit in, no water table to poison, jobs a goodun.

 

[Scouse]

so we poison a small bit of mountain somewhere. dig a holt 3 miles deep lob the shit in, no water table to poison, jobs a goodun.

Oh Chilly! If only you'd been on the government advisory board! Nobody has ever suggested just what you're suggesting! It's so new, so bold, so inventive!

Chilly for PM! He comes up with shit that nobody has ever even thought of before!!!!


Just to reiterate one last time (otherwise this thread'll be completely derailed):

There is no such thing as "safe storage" of nuclear waste.

 

[Embattle]

Massive butt kissing on 1

 

[Embattle]

Stuck the boot in as well...bit earlier than I predicted for the blame game.

 

[Wij]

OK Wij. For the safety of my ass, I'd never normally antagonise you - but you've missed my point entirely:

There is no such thing as "safe storage" of nuclear waste.

Nuclear waste remains dangerously radioactive for about 100,000 years. Our best container lasts 300 years max. Then the container itself becomes nuclear waste.

We can't bury it safely. We can't "stop" it being radioactive. We don't know what to do with it. There is literally no safe way to deal with it.

Half-lives ? Most of the REALLY radioactive waste (which is only a tiny fraction) has a REALLY short half-life. Simples really. If it's giving off lots of energy it won't be able to do it for very long. You need to distinguish between all the different types of waste.

Page 169 in here:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewtha.pdf

This is why all governmental nuclear reviews have given new nuclear a "thumbs down". Until Labour broke the law and wrote the review they wanted, 'cause there's cash in it...

Edit:

The designs that have been greenlighted aren't the "new reactor" designs btw. They're the old shit dirty ones. Just FYI

Well - that's an implementation fuck-up not a fundamental problem with Nuclear power.

Fast-breeders and Thorium ftw

 

[Scouse]

Half-lives ? N' stuff

So, it's now "not as dangerous as we thought" eh?

Does it matter if it only kills people for twenty thousand years?

I mean, humans have only been able to digest milk for 7000-odd years. And these are the timescales we're talking about. Evolutionary timescales. If nuclear waste was only radioactive for 7000 years would that be magically OK?

Gah. I give up. People believe what they want to. Facts be damned.

 

[Deebs]

So, it's now "not as dangerous as we thought" eh?

Does it matter if it only kills people for twenty thousand years?

I mean, humans have only been able to digest milk for 7000-odd years. And these are the timescales we're talking about. Evolutionary timescales. If nuclear waste was only radioactive for 7000 years would that be magically OK?

Gah. I give up. People believe what they want to. Facts be damned.

We currently do not have the capability to deal with nuclear waste, what's to say that before our containers are breached that we haven't figured it out?

Christ, in 100 years we managed to get onto the Moon and beyond. Who knows what the next 100 years will hold.....

 

[Wij]

So, it's now "not as dangerous as we thought" eh?

Does it matter if it only kills people for twenty thousand years?

I mean, humans have only been able to digest milk for 7000-odd years. And these are the timescales we're talking about. Evolutionary timescales. If nuclear waste was only radioactive for 7000 years would that be magically OK?

Gah. I give up. People believe what they want to. Facts be damned.

Kills people if they get near it. Keep it away from people. I'm failing to see a problem.

 

[Sharkith]

Whilst this parliament is well hung it is not as well hung as I am.....

 

[Zenith]

Its allright Scouser, people are ignorant when it comes to this.

So the two solutions are: 1) We might be able to fix it in the future... So yeah, lets take a decision to base our energy base on something that we DO NOT KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH. It doesnt matter we MIGHT be able to do it in some unforseen future, we just might not figure it out either.

2) Nuclear is the only choice ONLY IF you ignore a lot of other energyresources... Esp. in the situation we are in now, when a lot of good energy solutions are starting to pop up, such as thermic energy.