« Cameron does well amongst floating voters | Main | Captions please... »

Comments

How would you set the photo up Tim? And will you be posting it in a caption competition?

Its very indicative of the two men as well.

When presented with the task of getting enviro-cred do you:

A) Lecture foreigners with boring statistics

B) Go and stand in front of a glacier.

Whats hilarious is that Labour are going to claim they are the party of substance over spin.

Perhaps Cameron could report how much environmental damage his trip to Norway will cause?

Come on, use my image for the caption contest!

By the way Chad, As I understand it hes taking the ferry not the plane.

Chad - why doesn't the propellor go round?

Chad

When you first started posting you were very pro Dave for whom you voted. Why the change of heart? Do you now doubt your own judgement? I do like you "propeller head" piccie though.

Chad, how many websites do you actually have?

Chad - why doesn't the propellor go round?
I'm not sure. Cameron did unequivocally pledge that it would. As I said before, the next election will be won by the internet, imho.

Chad, how many websites do you actually have?

:-) Loads and many more political domains waiting for the right time.

By the way Chad, As I understand it hes taking the ferry not the plane.
Perhaps it is just me, but the juxaposition of the tear from a crying child in Darfur with a drip running down the glacier would make a point about priorities.

Esbonio, I think it's because he thinks public funding of political parties is the end of the world. As Cameron supports it, he now thinks this means Cameron's beyond the pale.

Personally I don't understand this as public funding will mean the Westminster system of broad-based parties vying for government can survive the inevitable end of mass-membership parties.

Whereas Chad thinks this is a bad idea, I think it will help to protect mainstream politics and will keep British politics from balkanising into lots of weird micro-parties with unstable coalitions that can't confidently build governments, which I think in turn would be worse for the body politic than whatever public funding would bring.

When you first started posting you were very pro Dave for whom you voted. Why the change of heart? Do you now doubt your own judgement?

Yes, I have noted that I made a mistake and accept my share of the blame for voring for Cameron.

Why the chage of heart?
a: Positive discrimination, the 50-50 A-list. All forms of positive discrimination stink.
b: Non-delibery of the EPP pledge (to date).
c: Proposing state funding of political parties.
d: I support grammar schools.
e: I oppose the national ID database.

Chad, I was just saying. I agree with you about Darfur being of much greater priority than global warming.

There were more typos in my post than a wavenetwork leaflet. Apologies... :-)

What would others nominate as defining political photographs?

Chad, I see how you've disagreed with DC on some issues, which a few people do. The Conservative Party caters for people of different political opinions. I think we need to unite behind David Cameron whether we agree on all his policies or not. You said "we will continue to promote not just our core values that overlap with Cameron's agenda, but to ensure we highlight the areas where we differ too". About the EPP, it will happen at the right time. Regarding state funding, how do you feel about short money? David Cameron is doing his best at showing that the Conservative Party is for the mother nation, one for all and clear water with his stance on funding. These are all themes you addressed in your Platform article, why not be an effective voice within as opposed to a potentially divisive voice outside? The Conservative Party needs people from all strands of conservatism.

I totally agree Dominic. I do not expect to "tick all the boxes" but, the core values, the foundations must be conservative

If Cameron withdraws from the EPP as pledged, drops the state funding plans and opposes the national Id database, then I agree that it will be broadly conservative and I will not only support it but campaign for it.

However, the current core proposals are deeply unconservative. I want a (small c) conservative government that will govern for decades, not to hoodwink people with a single-term mistake that will damage the chances of further conservative governments for generations.

(I answered the short money point on another thread today)

It has to be conservative. Sure there are other issues like eu-wtihdrawal, open primaries, grammar schools etc that I would fight for within the party, but it must first drop these undemocratic and unconservative proposals.

We all have to compromise and be pragmatic, but on core values, we must remain true to ourselves, and as a (small c) conservative I have to accept that my views are at odds with the current Conservative Party, but I do not believe this will always be so.

Therefore, the most effective option is to fight from the outside.

What would others nominate as defining political photographs?

Margaret Thatcher... in a tank; alone in a bleak urban wasteland in need of development

The demonstrator who stood in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square.

"What would others nominate as defining political photographs?"

John Gummer feeding a burger to his daughter to show that eating beef was safe.

Missed a word there Daniel...force. She didnt want that burger!

Neil Kinnock falling into the sea.

Michael Foot with his "disrepectful" donkey jacket.

John Prescott rugby tackling Gordon Brown as he was about to brain Tony Blair with the Mace (private collection).

Prescott punching the protestor. Priceless.

Pictures of Prescott failling asleep. You can find them anywhere...worryingly usually at the despatch box!

George Bush landing on the aircraft carrier with the "mission accomplished" banner.

Blair outside No 10 with the mug showing pictures of the kids. - there must have been so much saccherine in that tea.

World leaders in Russia celebrating 60yrs of the end of WW2, with a gap at the front and Prescott standing at the back.

Did anyone see Gordon Brown's claim to be green? Something on the lines of "well, I recycle a bit and switch the television off". Incredible. And Blair's Broadcasting Corporation didn't even pick him up on this.

I saw a snippet of Brown saying that we need new cleaner technologies that will reduce pollution and create new jobs and prosperity. That sounded conservative to me.

We need cleaner fuels, and to replace our gas and oil based electricity supplies with nuclear, wind, wave etc.

If there is one thing that is holding us up it is the negative reaction to nuclear fuel.

I hope that the group re-viewing environmental policies will come out against nuclear energy.
Personally I don`t believe that its economically viable and also I am not convinced of the safety aspects of it.
Also I believe if we came out against nuclear power we would really demostrate our green credituals to the public and be in tune with what most people believe that its just not safe enougth.
Whenever people speak up in favour of nuclear power I always want to ask them if they would want one in there town. I suspect the answer in ninety per cent of cases would be certainly not.

*keels over, clutching at heart and gasping for breath* For once, I am in almost complete agreement with Jack Stone (apart from the deliberate spelling mistakes, of course).

It seems somewhat bizarre that, as we approach the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, nuclear power seems to be back in political fashion.

It seems somewhat bizarre that, as we approach the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, nuclear power seems to be back in political fashion.

Possibly because any sensible person should realise that an obsolete Soviet reactor that was operated well outside of its own safety protocols is not typical of the nuclear industry as a whole. It's a giant red herring.

While I tend towards the rather not nuclear side the BBC reports benefits of Chernobyl
1 Huge wildlife reserve with rare species returning
2.Somewhere to dump nuclear waste as its already radioactive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4923342.stm

Always a silver lining.

Instead of 'Coke Cameron' waffling on about "climate change", can we just have a change of leader?

"Instead of 'Coke Cameron' waffling on about "climate change", can we just have a change of leader?"

Well wasn't that a constructive comment?

It really would be astonoshing if the Labour Party was the only serious political party who had the courage to actually support nuclear power while the once "Natural party of government" was reduced to the pathetic state of capitulating to the idiotic green lobby. If we are serious about cutting emmisions we need to understand that nuclear power, not endless gimmicks, is the answer. New technologies and renewables might one day meet our energy needs but in the short and medium term they won't.

To answer Jack's question. I would be as happy living near a nuclear power station as I would any other power station. The safety record of the nuclear industry is extremely good.

Personally I don`t believe that its economically viable and also I am not convinced of the safety aspects of it.
Also I believe if we came out against nuclear power we would really demostrate our green credituals to the public and be in tune with what most people believe that its just not safe enougth.

Yes it would be fun to return to the power cuts we so enjoyed under Edward Heath.

Well Jack on current trends according to a McKinsey Report Europe will be generating 44% electricity from gas by 2010 and have prices 30% above the USA.

The Russians do not have the infrastructure to increase exports but Gazprom aims to bring all pilelines under its control. It has already cut a deal with E-On to take stakes in their gas distribution business in Hungary, we know they want the pipelines in Ukraine, and they now want Centrica. If they don't get it they will reduce gas flow to Europe.

So all these new LNG storage facilities to be built around Britain to store LNG from Malaysia, Qatar, Algeria, Indonesia will mean the port facilities will get very congested.

I think there should be one town in England which is completely cut off from the Grid and made to survive on windmills and solar panels - I favour Notting Hill or Harrow or somewhere like Didcot or Bicester. Then let them enjoy the ease and comfort of running their lives on "renewables"

The Internet has caused huge increases in power demand as have Colocation Centres and the huge server arrays, plus of course PCs everywhere; and with trains using electric power instead of diesel.................well if you don't use nuclear then you must accept power rationing.

I take it Jack you think Britain should stop importing French (nuclear) electricity as at present ?

If you had 40 million fewer people in Britain you might get away with using coal and gas only, but with a fast-rising population you will have blackouts and brownouts. Texas at present is going through blackouts as the temperatures reach 40C and air-conditioners bring the system to its limits.

Do you know how many British manufacturers are currently on short-time Jack because gas prices are so high they cannot compete with German competitors ?

A couple of points regarding nuclear power.

I would not like a nuclear power station in my home town for choice because it would not look nice in my glorious countryside environment. I would imagine however that those places that do have them would probably be happy to keep them for the jobs they provide. As for the risk thgat would not perturbn me. I guess there is some risk but not so much that we canot feel reasonably comfortable with by using using modern technology and safety precautions. I do not think we can look after the billions on this planet properly by relying on wind and sun but am willing to be persuaded otherwise. And if the Tories go against the peaceful use of nuclear power where is the logic in nuclear weapons? Will that be the next fatuous policy move.

While Chernobyl is not representative of UK installations, it is representative of what we can expect in countries where life and safety is held in less high regard and regulations are not enforced.

Consequences of a catastrophe cross borders and therefore we must be able to influence developing nations to choose alternatives to nuclear power. British interests would be better served by developing and proving viable alternatives.

The big coal-fired power stations were built on the coalfields in the north of England and power was wheeled through the Grid.

The gas-fired power stations are built in Southern England so they can access the pipeline from Norwich and so power stations are more likely to be near your town - ie Peterborough than a coal-fired one ever was.

I don't like the visual pollution on the horizon as I see horrible white windmills ruining the landscape

Consequences of a catastrophe cross borders and therefore we must be able to influence developing nations to choose alternatives to nuclear power. British interests would be better served by developing and proving viable alternatives.


That's it !! Hey we can tell Iran to use windmills instead of enriching uranium - or maybe they could use oil.......or even gas...................if only they had realised Britain has run out of oil and gas and will use hot-air, then they could drop their idea of atomic energy................

I don't like the visual pollution on the horizon as I see horrible white windmills ruining the landscape

Sadly, since our indigenous trees are not able to “walk” fast enough to keep up with the changing climate, you are going to have to learn to like a changing landscape. Personally I see harnessing the wind as getting something for nothing, so it appeals to my instincts.

Well said Rick. Yes I can recall Heath's 3 day week. No cars on the motorways,.Etc, etc. Nuclear power seems one of the few things the french got right along with their truly independent deterrent.

I guess the problem is we all have different attitudes to risk. I am not that worried about the risk of nuclear power and having lived through the gloomsters threatenting an ice age back in the 70s not too concerned about global warming. But if i was concerned about CO2 then surely I should want nuclear power in preference to a wigwam with a windmill.

That's it !! Hey we can tell Iran to use windmills instead of enriching uranium

You mock, but do you agree that it’s somewhat hypocritical to ask other countries not to pursue nuclear technologies while we go full steam ahead? I blame precisely this kind of hypocrisy for much of the resentment towards the West.

"You mock, but do you agree that it’s somewhat hypocritical to ask other countries not to pursue nuclear technologies while we go full steam ahead? I blame precisely this kind of hypocrisy for much of the resentment towards the West."

The West is democratic. Iran is an Islamic Fundamentalist regime that wants to wipe Israel off the map. If Iran was democratic then we would be guilty of hypocrisy.

Re "I blame precisely this kind of hypocrisy for much of the resentment towards the West."

Is it really hypocrisy? Is it the West who are the hypocrites. For example, look at the UN and the nations it appoints to its Human Rights Committee. The problem is not western (or should I say since it is usually code, the US and its allies) hypocrisy. No the problem is our own craveness in failing to call things for what they really are. I cannot believe you really think objecting to Iran going nuclear is hypocrisy.

Is it really hypocrisy?

Not exclusively. It has a large dollop of self-centredness too.

We must have continuity of supply, therefore nuclear seems the obvious choice. We need to have a spread of types including some renewables, wind, wave, etc. Let's also have some combined heat and power plants. A good mix will enable us to compare them.

Above all the government must listen to a range of experts in their fields.

Surely David Cameron on his bike is an iconic photo, but I hope he will not simply be known for supporting green issues. I do not believe it will be enough to get into power.

"Possibly because any sensible person should realise that an obsolete Soviet reactor that was operated well outside of its own safety protocols is not typical of the nuclear industry as a whole. It's a giant red herring."

Oh James, I just knew you'd get excited by my reference to Chernobyl.

No, it isn't typical of the British nuclear industry (and I didn't argue that it was so take your straw man and go and play somewhere else, Aunt Sally) but the 20 year anniversary is a fitting reminder of the disastrous consequences of something going wrong and/or standards not being maintained properly.

But even putting the Chernobyl anniversary to one side, I simply cannot comprehend why nuclear power has become the political fashion (for Labour anyway - enormous credit must go to David Cameron for steering Conservative policy away from being pro-nuclear).

It's dangerous.
It's expensive.
It's ugly.
It's toxic.
It's unsustainable.
It's dependent on a raw material largely sourced from unstable or unreliable suppliers.
It's tantamount to sending an invitation to terrorists declaring 'ATTACK HERE!'.

How many more reasons do people need before they realise that nuclear power simply isn't the answer to Britain's energy problems?

I didn't argue that it was so take your straw man and go and play somewhere else, Aunt Sally

Except you are clearly trying to taint the industry by false association, as your next sentence shows.

... the 20 year anniversary is a fitting reminder of the disastrous consequences of something going wrong and/or standards not being maintained properly.

It's a fitting reminder that if you use an obsolete design, fail to properly train your staff, ignore safety protocols, etcetera, that things go wrong.

I simply cannot comprehend why nuclear power has become the political fashion

It's a mature and reliable technology that would allow Western nations to maintain their current energy outputs whilst simultaneously reducing the carbon emissions associated with power generation, and lowering air pollution generally.

As Sir James Lovelock puts it, nuclear power is a way of providing our metaphorical aircraft with a powered descent.

It's dangerous.

All power sources are dangerous. The point is that the risks can be managed and reduced.

It's expensive.

Although over the life of a plant - including commissioning and decommissioning costs - electricty is cheaper per KWh than from any other source.

It's ugly.

Power stations are rarely things of beauty.

It's toxic.

One advantage of the modern plant designs is the amazing reduction in the volume of waste produced: if modern plants were commissioned to replace the existing stations, Britain would be able to maintain its 20-25% share of nuclear-generated power and add just 10% to the UK's volume of existing nuclear waste over their 60-year operating lifetime.

It's unsustainable.

Barring the fact that demand and costs will make uranium recovery increasingly economically viable, this is something of a false argument. Fission technology isn't intended as a permanent solution, but rather as a menas of securing our energy supply for at least the next sixty years (during which time other sources can be developed).

It's dependent on a raw material largely sourced from unstable or unreliable suppliers.

Only if you ignore the fact that the largest suppliers aren't dangerous and unstable. Or do you know something about Canada and Australia that I don't?

It's tantamount to sending an invitation to terrorists declaring 'ATTACK HERE!'.

The new generation of nuclear plants (such as the ones France is about to build) can be made safe enough to withstand even extreme events such as earthquakes, aircraft crashes or even a terrorist attack.

Does anyone know any recent reports in the public domain about the nuclear power argument explaining aspects particularly like safety and waste?

"Except you are clearly trying to taint the industry by false association, as your next sentence shows."

Not really. I accept that the Chernobyl reactor was outdated and badly maintained, making it more prone to disaster than British nuclear sites.

I don't accept that being less prone to disaster makes today's nuclear power stations completely invulnerable to disaster though.

The risk may be less, but the potential damage is still huge.

"It's a fitting reminder that if you use an obsolete design, fail to properly train your staff, ignore safety protocols, etcetera, that things go wrong."

Further to the points above, I'd note that things still go wrong with modern design and well-trained staff. Less likely perhaps, but still possible.

"It's a mature and reliable technology that would allow Western nations to maintain their current energy outputs whilst simultaneously reducing the carbon emissions associated with power generation, and lowering air pollution generally."

I'm not sure that crowing about slightly reduced carbon emissions whilst filling the ground with radioactive waste is the right way to address the environmental problems that we face as a society to be honest.

"All power sources are dangerous. The point is that the risks can be managed and reduced."

All power sources don't cloak Europe in a radioactive cloud when something goes wrong.

The best way of managing and reducing the risks associated with nuclear power would be to steer well clear of it.

"Although over the life of a plant - including commissioning and decommissioning costs - electricty is cheaper per KWh than from any other source."

I'll take your word on that one, although given the rather limited timespan of nuclear generators and the restricted supply of the required raw materials, I'm not particularly convinced. (As an aside, I'd be interested to know how much it would cost to implement localised energy generation, whereby houses and businesses generate their own electricity where possible.)

"Power stations are rarely things of beauty."

Quite right. But then I'm not arguing for more power stations either.

"One advantage of the modern plant designs is the amazing reduction in the volume of waste produced: if modern plants were commissioned to replace the existing stations, Britain would be able to maintain its 20-25% share of nuclear-generated power and add just 10% to the UK's volume of existing nuclear waste over their 60-year operating lifetime."

That's all very interesting but it doesn't change the fact that vast amounts of radioactive waste will be produced that will require 'disposal' (i.e. being buried in a hole in the ground).

"Barring the fact that demand and costs will make uranium recovery increasingly economically viable, this is something of a false argument. Fission technology isn't intended as a permanent solution, but rather as a menas of securing our energy supply for at least the next sixty years (during which time other sources can be developed)."

James, other sources are available now. You can, and have, come up with better arguments than touting nuclear energy as a stalling mechanism used to buy time to develop these other sources.

"Only if you ignore the fact that the largest suppliers aren't dangerous and unstable. Or do you know something about Canada and Australia that I don't?"

'Largely sourced from unstable or unreliable suppliers' were the words I used James, not 'exclusively sourced from dangerous and unstable suppliers'.

Between a third and a half of known recoverable resources of uranium are found in sub-Saharan Africa or the former Soviet bloc (Kazakhstan is the second largest uranium producer in the world, for example), neither of which are reliable, nor secure, nor stable regions.

Furthermore, any assumption that our uranium supply would be sourced exclusively, or even mainly, from Australia and/or Canada fails to take into consideration factors such as import costs and preferential trading agreements, such as that between Canada and the US.

In addition to this, any shortfall in nuclear energy production (for example, whilst waiting for nuclear reactors to come on-stream) would need to be met by buying in supplies from elsewhere, in all likelihood France, where the nuclear industry is fuelled by uranium from Niger.

"The new generation of nuclear plants (such as the ones France is about to build) can be made safe enough to withstand even extreme events such as earthquakes, aircraft crashes or even a terrorist attack."

I find the idea that nuclear power plants could be built to be completely invulnerable to terrorist attacks highly implausible.

We are a nation island built on top of coal and surrounded by coal under our sea beds. We have hundreds of years worth of supplies. Modern clean coal technologies mean we can use it in a green way and have a secure supply. The answer to the energy question is to use our coal and in the meantime perfect nuclear safety. Its a no brainer. DC should should summon up the political will to state clearly this approach and get on with it,

Matt

Tories reopen coal mines. That will be the ultimate U turn.

Have a lot of sympathy with your comment Matt. If the figures add up and it's clean, then it is indeed a no brainer.

Matt wrote

"We are a nation island built on top of coal and surrounded by coal under our sea beds. We have hundreds of years worth of supplies. Modern clean coal technologies mean we can use it in a green way and have a secure supply. The answer to the energy question is to use our coal and in the meantime perfect nuclear safety. Its a no brainer. DC should should summon up the political will to state clearly this approach and get on with it,"

It's a bit late for that don't you think, Matt? DC can hardly go from calling Brown the fossil fuel Chancellor to being fossil fuel himself.

As for Nuclear Power stations being ugly? well, we could always recruit Prince Charles to advise on the aesthetics and have them built to look like those ever-so-beautiful (and noisy) modern windmills.

Well, Im just going to be completely female, and say that DC looked positively dishy in those clips Pierre Morgan just showed. We need the wimmins vote????? Go figure. Im off to bed.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Labour don't appear to be holding true to their previous good form in the image building game. All their latest party election broadcast did was to emphasise the Cameron "Change" agenda. Not to mention running a "negative(?)" campaign against/about David Cameron whilst they were supposed to be averting a Labour massacre in the locals, one would have thought by talking about how great Labour councils could be, perhaps?

Anyway, Cameron looking concerned at melting ice is good political art. It's probably all bulls**t, but who cares. Cameron looks young fit and active whilst Brown stands behind a podium somewhere (having flown transatlantic) and gives some meaningless yawnfest policy dirge. Besides, Brown's on an image crafting exercise too. We're all supposed to be bowled over by Brown-the-statesman. Starving in Africa? Power hungry in Number 11 more like.

Oh, and look at this, it's amazing!
http://www.backingblair.co.uk/dave/

"Oh, and look at this, it's amazing!"

That did make me laugh out loud.

Can anyone actually download that BackingBlair Dave clip? Mine always stalls after 7 mins download, and I do have broadband.

Suggestion: I couldn't get it to work this morning despite several attempts, but I succeeded about 15 minutes ago. I think its a band width problem at the server. It still took a long time.

Just watched it. Great jokes. I especially liked the bit about the subtext of riding a bike...

"Tony Blair has never done this" Genius.

Those who believe that nuclear power is the answer to our problems should go with there kids and live near one and see if its true what those who already live near nuclear power stations say that kids are much more likely to get cancer there than if they lived elsewhere.

Jack Stone I don't want to live near a football ground - ban football.

I don't want to live near a brewery - ban breweries.

I don't want to live near a superstore - ban superstores.

I don't want to live near windmills - the HF is detrimental to health - ban windmills


I don't want to live near electricity substations - ban substations

I don't want to live near a bus stop - ban bus stops

I don't want to live near a hospital - ban hospitals

I don't want to live near an airport - ban airports


Since you kindly asked me to shape the country according to my residential preferences we have banned quite a few activities and utilities many people find useful and I have not even mentioned banning schools or car parks, train lines, or crematoria

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker