OT General Election apathy.

[MillerBill]

We have a govt. which on it's manifesto was voted in, with a huge majority.They have failed to deliver fully, the Brexit result that should be bringing in Border controls.We have followed this net zero nonsense that's crippling everybody with green taxes we are all paying in our bills.We are not using our own natural energy sources such as natural gas,oil and coal BUT at great cost importing these fuels to keep us going.We are the cleanest country but we will all be skintLockdown which lasted two years of economic suicide that cost the country over 450 billion.People getting paid not to work surely for so long, kills the economy with massive damage.These centric globalists that have infested Parliament couldn't care a toss about small business and the working man.Unfortunalely the main opposition will not improve any of these faults.I will not be voting for like for like wannabe MPs.Can anybody name me a state run institution that works in this country?Around 50% of all money spent is on the NHS,we are not getting true value through mismanagement.The General Election turnout will be the lowest for a very long time with all the apathy from homeless voters.

[Jimmy Badfellow]

You are not alone in your thinking MB. Like it or not we have a 2 party country and that is pretty much it.The only thing I would urge others to think is if something is currently terrible it doesn't mean that the alternative has to better.It could be even more terrible. Labour under Starmer would give us all a full dose of what a 'Red - Green' revolution would look like. Identity politics and a full on onslaught to net zero.

[harpo88]

Sorry MB I have to take you up on the net zero comment. We have capacity for a lot more renewable power and to use products that can use that renewable electricity rather than fossil fuels. The market structures are currently set up that the price of electricity though is driven by the price of gas, not the cheaper price of renewables. And while there are some levies on energy bills, currently these fall on lower carbon electricity rather than gas, so the system is working against itself. They also go to fund things like fuel poverty support schemes. And harnessing more renewables makes us more energy self-sufficient - but we're unlikely to be able to get 100% self-sufficient while keeping bills down, so interconnectors with places like Norway are important. And if we only used UK-based gas and oil, it would cost more (unless heavily subsidised by other taxes) because it wouldn't be part of a competitive market.

The best way to lower bills permanently - ie not with pots of funding we have to renew every winter or every fuel crisis - is to improve our housing stock with energy efficiency and transition to products that can use renewable power. There are upfront investment costs, but running costs will eventually be cheaper.

[Redshank]

The "state run NHS" is the biggest con of them all. It's largely privatised with your taxes being spent on funding the profits of the many private business run under the NHS banner. My missus works for a private practice and it's obsecene the profits that are made and shared out by the practice owners (doctors). That's happening up and down the country in virtually every area of the NHS (it's not a well run practice by the way!)

We all have horrific stories of long waiting lists. It's getting worse. For some with worsening or worrying conditions, the only option is to go private. More creeping privatisation.

The bottom line is that the NHS was initially set up and funded by heavy taxes on the very rich. That's changed over the last 40-50 years and the tax burden for funding the NHS, welfare state, public services etc. etc. has steadily shifted onto the shoulders of the working class and the middle class. We're being bled dry while the uber rich dodge their fair dues.

Until inequality is addressed and wealth is more evenly distributed via a fairer taxation system, nothing will change (other than things getting worse!).

Unfortunately, any hint of overhauling the tax system is totally avoided by our career politicians. UK politics is all about power and nothing to do with what's best for the country. Sunak, Starmer, Davey, Farage - all in it to further their own careers and interests. They all know what needs to be done, but it's not in their interest to do it.

[Derbymiller]

Sorry MB I have to take you up on the net zero comment. We have capacity for a lot more renewable power and to use products that can use that renewable electricity rather than fossil fuels. The market structures are currently set up that the price of electricity though is driven by the price of gas, not the cheaper price of renewables. And while there are some levies on energy bills, currently these fall on lower carbon electricity rather than gas, so the system is working against itself. They also go to fund things like fuel poverty support schemes. And harnessing more renewables makes us more energy self-sufficient - but we're unlikely to be able to get 100% self-sufficient while keeping bills down, so interconnectors with places like Norway are important. And if we only used UK-based gas and oil, it would cost more (unless heavily subsidised by other taxes) because it wouldn't be part of a competitive market.

The best way to lower bills permanently - ie not with pots of funding we have to renew every winter or every fuel crisis - is to improve our housing stock with energy efficiency and transition to products that can use renewable power. There are upfront investment costs, but running costs will eventually be cheaper.

Please define renewable energies

[harpo88]

Please define renewable energies

Sorry I would say offshore and onshore wind, solar, tidal, pumped hydro. Not a fan of biomass but nuclear has its place, as we need some baseline, along with larger scale and longer duration storage. Plus more distributed technologies so domestic solar and batteries and a bit of hydrogen in places eg connected to heavy industry.

Everything has some sort of downside and challenge of course but it's cost/benefit.

[frogmiller]

Please define renewable energies

Net Zero carbon dioxide plan. Is it the biggest con of all? The renewable energies machines aren't as green as they make out!

[UlleyMiller]

We have a govt. which on it's manifesto was voted in, with a huge majority.They have failed to deliver fully, the Brexit result that should be bringing in Border controls.We have followed this net zero nonsense that's crippling everybody with green taxes we are all paying in our bills.We are not using our own natural energy sources such as natural gas,oil and coal BUT at great cost importing these fuels to keep us going.We are the cleanest country but we will all be skintLockdown which lasted two years of economic suicide that cost the country over 450 billion.People getting paid not to work surely for so long, kills the economy with massive damage.These centric globalists that have infested Parliament couldn't care a toss about small business and the working man.Unfortunalely the main opposition will not improve any of these faults.I will not be voting for like for like wannabe MPs.Can anybody name me a state run institution that works in this country?Around 50% of all money spent is on the NHS,we are not getting true value through mismanagement.The General Election turnout will be the lowest for a very long time with all the apathy from homeless voters.

Maybe you just have electile dysfunction...?

(I'll get mi coat)

[harpo88]

Net Zero carbon dioxide plan. Is it the biggest con of all? The renewable energies machines aren't as green as they make out!

It just makes zero sense that it would be a con. Why would Governments want to do anything that they know costs money up front and requires initial disruption that people would rather not do (as you'll well know from the experience in France)? As for it being some sort of succumbing to vested interests, the incumbents - fossil fuel companies - still receive massively beneficial tax breaks and are more entrenched globally with politicians and financiers.

Everything involves some sort of emission and has environmental impact - as acknowledged in my earlier post saying that everything has a downside - but the overall footprint of renewables and products that use renewables are way lower than the incumbents and better geopolitically.

[frogmiller]

It just makes zero sense that it would be a con. Why would Governments want to do anything that they know costs money up front and requires initial disruption that people would rather not do (as you'll well know from the experience in France)? As for it being some sort of succumbing to vested interests, the incumbents - fossil fuel companies - still receive massively beneficial tax breaks and are more entrenched globally with politicians and financiers.

Everything involves some sort of emission and has environmental impact - as acknowledged in my earlier post saying that everything has a downside - but the overall footprint of renewables and products that use renewables are way lower than the incumbents and better geopolitically.

The amount of CO² in the entire atmosphere is 0.041% how much of that do humans create?.

What % of CO² would see life on earth fail?

More CO² would see better yields for agriculture.