« David Cameron's press conference | Main | A more accountable ConservativeHome »


Amusing response about co-locating grammar schools and nuclear power stations. They could perhaps be... gamma schools?


The nuclear analogy I had in my mind was after the first exchange of Nuclear strikes the natural pause in the process when each side decides if it wants to take it to the next level.

I'm afraid his answer on Nuclear power is disingenuous as which solution makes economic sense is almost solely a function of how government frames the rules. Nuclear may have problems with waste to pay for, but oil and gas doesn't pay its fair share of the large military capability we have to maintain to secure our supply routes and sources. (And arguable the wars we are now fighting).

What happened in the Western US over power supply should be a sobering thought for Mr Cameron. Parties who let the lights go out don't stay in power themselves for very long - as Ted Heath could have told him.

Please get good power industry input as well as the feckless Etonian/Nottinghill green campaigners on this !

Conservative Party members who favour sele ction and nuclear power are just as out of touch with there views on nuclear power as they are on grammer schools. Most of the people we need to win back to get back into power don`t want either!

Is that a fact Jack? Where do you get your information that what you say is true? Or have you just invented it because that's what you happen to feel?
Not really expecting an answer because you don't 'do debate' really do you?

Another reason to be glad that Gordon Brown gets to make the major decisions on energy. The evasion of responsibility by Cameron is criminally negligent when we need to compensate for the lunacy of burning North Sea gas to generate electricity and wasting our domestic heating fuel in this way.

Cameron cannot go on dodging issues with slick soundbites. The energy situation of the EU is perilous and the EU COmmission wants control of the grid across Europe to protect energy supplies now Russia is problematic.

Gordon Brown is going to look very solid compared to a flaky opposition

Agree with DC's view that the role of govmt is to provide a framework within which the market/industry arranges the form of supply.

Does the refusal to provide incentives for any one form of energy supply include windmills? Newer forms of energy generation would probably argue that they need help to become established, at least at first, but how could we argue that this would not extend to the nuclear industry without taking a direct decision not to opt for nuclear?

Cameron talks about removing the obstacles that get in the way of green energy being used more widely, presumably he is referring to planning objections. How does this sit with giving more power to local people? Green energy is a side-show compared with the massive requirement for industry and business. He obviously does not want to indicate he supports nuclear, though he will have to, though it is hard to see what alternative there is.

Everyone wants the lights to remain on, but no one is prepared to say how it is going to happen. I thought political leaders were there to lead us and give answers to difficult questions, but it seems they are afraid to do so, and instead would rather give soundbites to try to impress focus groups.

Cameron is absolutely right. It's not the government's prerogative to decide on a particular source of energy supply (eg nuclear) or form of education (eg grammar schools). Governments should set the framework and let local coucils, companies or other groups of individuals decide what to do - within the rule of course.

"Conservative Party members who favour sele ction and nuclear power are just as out of touch with there views on nuclear power as they are on grammer schools."

Do we need any more evidence that Jack Stone is a troll? Grammar schools have 49% support and supposedly we're out of touch.

I'm all for so called Green Energy and apple pie ( I think you'll find it comes from somewhere and has an impact on the environment though ). But we needed to start building Nuclear power stations about 5 years ago.

The problem is this debate lacks quantitative information. All of the green proposals are tinkering round the edges, as I have no doubt frustrated civil servants and power experts have been telling our politicians. In as short a time as 10 years this country will rely on the good will of a nuclear armed and powered Iran [who will control gas exports from the Gulf] and Russia - just to keep the lights on. How free a country does anyone think we'll be then ?

What sort of chap says "co-locate" when 'built' would suffice. I am wondering is English his first language?

Eliab, he was making a joke saying that some of the grassroots would like to create a peculiar utopia with grammar schools located in nuclear power stations.

Increasingly it is hard to see how we can meet the various demands on energy and the environment without looking at nuclear. I wasn't that keen years ago but my view is shifting. Ironically it is the Greens that have led to what I beleive is a shift in public views with nuclear coming back to the forefront. I do agree the responsibility is on Govt to create the framework as trying to make the decision and it being wrong would be very costly. We will need a mix. I definately think we need to look at clean caol technologies, we have lots of the stuff in the UK and could use it while the nuclear industry addressed the waste and safety issues,


Government's primary role is to ensure our security,and that includes energy security,which in turn must include nuclear.But of course Cameron is not in government.
There is so little to choose between Labour and Conservative that Nuclear energy might be the decisive key.
Even the Germans now see the need for Nuclear.

There's a depressing number of people on here who seem to simply knock anything Cameron has to say. He's taking an entirely sensible course here - suggesting that the Government needs to be more agnostic about methods of supply. Politically it aoivds the enourmous pitfalls that all specific types of generation have - none are without risks of one kind or another - but leaves the stage open for our future policy. Nothing to disagree with here!

He has morphed into Blair though, hasn't he?
Taking exactly the same line with the delinquents in his own party.
This is going to be a fun ride!

I prefer coal myself. The Uranium for nuclear won't last much longer than gas and oil.

I agree with Michael McGough on the primary responsibility of government being to ensure the security of the populace.

The problem is lack of time. In 1997 we were facing an energy crisis that was 20 years out, it is now only 10 years away. The nuclear powerstation plans are ready to go; they have been waiting for someone to approve them for 10 years.

Nuclear fuel, like oil, needs to be imported and the by-products will incur a security overhead as well as the disposal cost. Coal will create by-products, irrespective of scrubbers to prevent them entering the atmosphere.

Green energy needs to be part of the mix but it just isn't going to be ready in time. Local power generation has tremendous potential, and could be combined with waste disposal to reduce landfill, but needs time to think through and implement.

Better insulation and reducing the power requirements for electrical goods will help, but is there time to implement a large-scale insulation program and will it reduce demand by enough?

The country needs to debate this, and that creates an opportunity for the Conservatives to take the lead and the credit for caring. Branches and consituencies could organise town hall meetings to debate the issues and make sure they were carried in the local press.

That would create an expectation and demand for an energy policy. It would be more effective than creating the policy and trying to explain it afterwards, as we saw on Grammar Schools.

I'm not sure I understood his tax implications, did that mean no tax breaks for green energy sources? How des he square that with the carbon targets?

On Nuclear, I'm personally in favour or a diverse supply, which includes Nuclear for security reasons. I didn't understand what he was saying here either; was he saying that the market could decide with certain caveats? Again, does this mean we will be exposed to changes in the geo-policitcal situation, or not?

Not a very convincing reply Tim, I thought. More straight talking needed. There seems to be a mixture or driving hard and dancing going on here, and it makes me nervous.

The problem here is that he didn't actually answer the question which was how exactly are the Conservatives going to react to Brown's commitment to Nuclear Power. That commitment will be a fait accompli by the time the Conservatives get into power and so we must have a proper view on it, not just a generalised soundbite about frameworks and grown up thinking.

Quite obviously there is only one solution in each area of policy, therefore:

education: bring back grammar schools

climate change (not that it exists): bring back nuclear power

crime: bring back the rope

foreign policy: bring back the Empire

economics: bring back the window tax

pensions: bring back pneumonia

You see it's all very simple when you think about it.

Yes I understood that, and the joke would have worked in English just as well.

oh oh.

I am no fan of Nuclear and as far as I am concerned Cameron is right to treat it as a last resort. I do however appreciate that energy security is absolutely vital and therefore nuclear has its place. One caveat that I would like to add with Nuclear is a long term provision to cover the cost of disposal of waste in 50+ years time. I would also actually like to see favouritism in planning and incentives for combined heat and power and green energy (wind,solar, wave, etc ). This is not really a green agenda it is about not being in the back pocket of any foreign government and that includes countries that supply nuclear material. It is certainly not some bizarre attachment to one form of energy generation or another.

Sits rather nicely with Letwin's "provision-based paradigm" vs "framework-based paradigm" don't you think? Team Cameron might have hit upon a winning narrative, lets see how it feeds into other policy areas...

A good answer that has little or no base in reality.

Oh, if it were true what Cameron was saying, that a tory government would provide a framework but not impose a preference, then there would not have been any argument re grammar schools as government would not be making the choice.

And re energy supply, does Cameron really expect us to believe he is not favouring or prejudicing against different types of supply? It was only a few months ago that Cameron said nuclear was the "last resort - if that is not showing a prejudice, I don't know what is....

TomTom. If you think Gordon Brown is so great while don`t you go and comment on Labourhome not here. A site that "suppose" to be for Conservative supporters.
It seems half the people on this site are not really Conservatives they just use it to attack the party and start arguments.

TomTom. If you think Gordon Brown is so great while don`t you go and comment on Labourhome not here.

Jack Stone why don't you go to London and offer to work unpaid as a factotum to Cameron ? There can surely be no greater purpose in your life than to bask in the radiant glory of the Sun King, to doggedly follow in his footsteps, record every word and thought for posterity; and assuming of course, you could write (and spell) you would be hailed as a modern-day Boswell for your 20-part biography of England's Greatest Living Philosopher-King......and you Jack Stone would have been there every inch of the way.....a sort of Baldrick figure

No doubt Sonny King Cameron's Camelot of Plastic Gnomes will require a resident fool replete with cap and bells.

Jack Stone will win the role hands down, although sadly it is difficult to envisage how he will bring his famous spelling into play.

Is 'Oberin' Houston the same person who used to post as Oberon Houston, or is he a spoof?

TomTom.You and your fellow right-wingers seem to forget there were a lot of Cameron supporters just two weeks ago when the party got its best results in local elections for years.
Some of us are not here today gone tomorrow Conservatives. Some of us understand the meaning of loyalty.
As far as I am concerned David Cameron is doing a great job in trying to take the party forward.
Those who stand up for grammer schools, complain about green taxes, back discrimination against gays, are obsessed by immigration and Europe are stuck in the past with the concerns and the remedys of the past.
David Cameron is right to try and drag the party into modern day Britain and try to get it to accept solutions for this century not the last.
Cameron is a winner and deserves our respect and loyalty not continued backbiting and attacks.

Jack Stone might have learnt to spell grammAr by now.
My problem with Cameron is the hamfisted way he makes policy statements which don't seem to have been thought through - or are calculated to cause the maximum grief between himself and his own most loyal members. He then arrogantly insults them. HE is picking a fight with his own party in the silly belief that this is the secret of Blair's success so he should emulate it. This is all good member-repelling stuff, as many a local Association can testify. He should stop this now before it's too late.

I've got a couple of long-standing frineds who are party activists in Southend, Jack Stone, and neither of them have ever heard of you.

How can that be when you claim to be such a fine upstanding party luminary?

Care to explain?

Conservative Party members who favour sele ction and nuclear power are just as out of touch with there views on nuclear power as they are on grammer schools. Most of the people we need to win back to get back into power don`t want either!
Ultimately it's about how successfull the policies are - people want to see reductions in non-renewable fossil fuels, alternative energies in the UK require a lot of investment and development to be ready, in the meantime nuclear power has to take any slack - if there are power cuts to industry then the economy will suffer, power cuts to hospital services and infrastructure and more people will die - base energy policy on focus groups and you'll come a cropper in the long term.

So far as school selection methods goes, a blend is desirable and the way to achieve this would be to transfer all state schools to private charities limited by guarantee and giving them a lot of freedom to decide how they select pupils, and to require them to charge fees to cover costs, with something like the Student Loans Scheme extended among other things to school education with low levels of interest chargeable including compound interest and repayable above a certain threshold out of earnings as Student Loans are now.

Being in government is about taking decisions in the national interest and where public opinion is not in favour, persevering and persuading people of the merits of your argument and the successes as a result.

The comments to this entry are closed.



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:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker