| This leader debate is fooking awful 20:17 - Jun 18 with 18474 views | Dubtractor |
Format isn't working at all. |  |
| |  |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 08:29 - Jun 19 with 2230 views | GlasgowBlue |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 08:01 - Jun 19 by DanTheMan |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48685344
Thought I'd drop this in, the worst is probably Johnson's lie about GATT 24 which has been debunked over and over again.
Especially as either he is knows it's wrong and is happily lying or worse he isn't lying and just has no idea what he's talking about. |
I was disappointed that Emily Maitlis let him get away with falsehoods and not answer the questions Rory Stewart put to him. |  |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 08:30 - Jun 19 with 2233 views | Guthrum |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 22:49 - Jun 18 by ROKERITE |
The Green Movement presents one of the greatest threats to the prosperity and well-being of the Western world. People will die , and I mean really die not like the filthy lies from Corbyn's acolytes about supposed deaths due to Tory "austerity".
Once again the poor and vulnerable will suffer most . Our children are being brainwashed with this climate change nonsense. |
It is actually likely to increase our prosperity. The UK has the best on- and, particularly, off-shore wind farm capacity in Europe. There are developing technologies connected with green energy which can provide jobs and in which field British companies and researchers are among world leaders.
Coal mining (and, by extension, coal fired heavy industry) is gone forever in this country. Most of the UK's economically viable coal was extracted in the 19th and 20th centuries. Thatcher didn't close the mines, they were no longer cost effective to work. And before anyone mentions the new one supposedly opening in Cumbria, that is, as far as I can see, little more than a subsidised job creation scheme in an area of high unemployment.
How is the Green Movement going to cost lives? |  |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 08:36 - Jun 19 with 2213 views | BlueBadger |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 08:30 - Jun 19 by Guthrum |
It is actually likely to increase our prosperity. The UK has the best on- and, particularly, off-shore wind farm capacity in Europe. There are developing technologies connected with green energy which can provide jobs and in which field British companies and researchers are among world leaders.
Coal mining (and, by extension, coal fired heavy industry) is gone forever in this country. Most of the UK's economically viable coal was extracted in the 19th and 20th centuries. Thatcher didn't close the mines, they were no longer cost effective to work. And before anyone mentions the new one supposedly opening in Cumbria, that is, as far as I can see, little more than a subsidised job creation scheme in an area of high unemployment.
How is the Green Movement going to cost lives? |
Some gammons will have strokes because someone's listened to an expert? |  |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 08:46 - Jun 19 with 2178 views | Swansea_Blue |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 22:49 - Jun 18 by ROKERITE |
The Green Movement presents one of the greatest threats to the prosperity and well-being of the Western world. People will die , and I mean really die not like the filthy lies from Corbyn's acolytes about supposed deaths due to Tory "austerity".
Once again the poor and vulnerable will suffer most . Our children are being brainwashed with this climate change nonsense. |
You don't half talk a load of absolute bollox. |  |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 09:06 - Jun 19 with 2156 views | WeWereZombies |
Not had time to really catch up on this thread and off out in a minute or two but I had a squint at Al Jazeera to see if they even mentioned the BBC debate and if they had any reactions:
"My colleagues and I all came to the same conclusion - we felt it was a bit of a rabble really," said Anthony Ridge-Newman, a senior lecturer at Liverpool Hope University and the head of conservatism studies in the UK.
Ridge-Newman added: "Stewart has been talked up a lot in the last couple of days and I think it is possibly even going to his head because he was very awkward in the debate." |  |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 09:21 - Jun 19 with 2133 views | GeoffSentence |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 20:29 - Jun 18 by GlasgowBlue |
I predicted this two years ago. Sadly I don't think he'll do it this time around.
Boris is going to push some of his overspill towards Saj to squeeze Rory out of the race. |
No chance for Rory Stewart this time. As Raab was pretty much a hard brexiteer I can't see him picking up many votes from that lot. |  |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 09:24 - Jun 19 with 2131 views | GeoffSentence |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 20:48 - Jun 18 by StokieBlue |
Peak waffle sums it up nicely.
SB |
I don't think Bojo said anything of substance all nightm it was just bluster topped with more bluster from him. | |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 09:28 - Jun 19 with 2125 views | GeoffSentence |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 21:11 - Jun 18 by Guthrum |
The thing which annoyed me most was the bloke who asked about tax cuts, then was annoyed with Stewart for not promising him any. |
He was a right twot, but I was more annoyed by the 4 prime ministerial candidated who promised him lots of tax cuts and then followed up by promising the next questioner lots of spending increases.
Magic money tree springs to mind. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 09:28 - Jun 19 with 2123 views | BigManBlue |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 09:24 - Jun 19 by GeoffSentence |
I don't think Bojo said anything of substance all nightm it was just bluster topped with more bluster from him. |
Forgetting the questioner's name twice was particularly embarrassing to watch, like a bad episode of the Peep Show.
People seriously think he's the man to tear Europe a new one in negotiations? Don't see it myself. |  |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 09:30 - Jun 19 with 2118 views | GlasgowBlue |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 09:21 - Jun 19 by GeoffSentence |
No chance for Rory Stewart this time. As Raab was pretty much a hard brexiteer I can't see him picking up many votes from that lot. |
Yep. The Tory party are too far to the right to elect somebody like Rory Stewart at the moment.
They need to implode, spend some time in opposition and figure out their place in 21st century Britain. | |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 09:30 - Jun 19 with 2117 views | GeoffSentence |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 21:49 - Jun 18 by Herbivore |
Actually I'm an experienced Sandwich Artist*.
*I discovered the other day that this is genuinely what Subway call their staff. [Post edited 18 Jun 2019 21:55]
|
Nike call their call centre agents 'athletes'.
The world is full of bollox. | |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 09:46 - Jun 19 with 2091 views | factual_blue |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 22:49 - Jun 18 by ROKERITE |
The Green Movement presents one of the greatest threats to the prosperity and well-being of the Western world. People will die , and I mean really die not like the filthy lies from Corbyn's acolytes about supposed deaths due to Tory "austerity".
Once again the poor and vulnerable will suffer most . Our children are being brainwashed with this climate change nonsense. |
The most depressing thing in that post is the implication you have children. [Post edited 19 Jun 2019 9:48]
|  |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 09:47 - Jun 19 with 2085 views | factual_blue |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 00:11 - Jun 19 by BlueBadger |
That's why you're voting Conservative then? |
The most depressing thing about this post is the implication that pokerite is allowed to vote. | |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 10:28 - Jun 19 with 2035 views | flimflam |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 08:30 - Jun 19 by Guthrum |
It is actually likely to increase our prosperity. The UK has the best on- and, particularly, off-shore wind farm capacity in Europe. There are developing technologies connected with green energy which can provide jobs and in which field British companies and researchers are among world leaders.
Coal mining (and, by extension, coal fired heavy industry) is gone forever in this country. Most of the UK's economically viable coal was extracted in the 19th and 20th centuries. Thatcher didn't close the mines, they were no longer cost effective to work. And before anyone mentions the new one supposedly opening in Cumbria, that is, as far as I can see, little more than a subsidised job creation scheme in an area of high unemployment.
How is the Green Movement going to cost lives? |
I am totally in favour or green energy but do feel that there must be better alternatives than wind turbines. We are surrounded by sea so why are we not looking into harnessing that power to create energy?
Wind Turbines rarely run at more than 30% output and have a 20yr lifespan. There is a huge bill on the horizon for decommissioning them in the near future and if the government does not subsidise this they may well be left where they are to rot.
Would the energy companies even build wind farms if they were not so heavily subsidised by the government as would be totally cost inefficient. There must be a better way surely.
Having power stations as backup in case the wind farms fail to produce enough energy also seems to be at odds with the whole green energy movement but maybe we may be in a position one day where these are no longer required.
For some reason Germany is still building coal burning power stations even though they have committed to phase them all out by 2038.
I dont claim to be any kind of expert so expect to be shot down but feel we will become too reliant of foreign energy to make up the difference when we eventually go full wind farm. |  |
| All men and women are created, by the, you know the, you know the thing. |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 10:34 - Jun 19 with 2017 views | GlasgowBlue |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 09:24 - Jun 19 by GeoffSentence |
I don't think Bojo said anything of substance all nightm it was just bluster topped with more bluster from him. |
It appears Abdullah should heed his own advice about words having consequences.
| |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 10:38 - Jun 19 with 2002 views | StokieBlue |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 10:34 - Jun 19 by GlasgowBlue |
It appears Abdullah should heed his own advice about words having consequences.
|
What did he say?
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 10:43 - Jun 19 with 1978 views | DanTheMan |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 10:38 - Jun 19 by StokieBlue |
What did he say?
SB |
Abdullah asked if the candidates agreed that their words have consequences.
It was a fair enough question and tripped a few of them up.
However, as GB says, probably wasn't the best person to be asking that question given that tweet history. |  |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 10:45 - Jun 19 with 1976 views | StokieBlue |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 10:28 - Jun 19 by flimflam |
I am totally in favour or green energy but do feel that there must be better alternatives than wind turbines. We are surrounded by sea so why are we not looking into harnessing that power to create energy?
Wind Turbines rarely run at more than 30% output and have a 20yr lifespan. There is a huge bill on the horizon for decommissioning them in the near future and if the government does not subsidise this they may well be left where they are to rot.
Would the energy companies even build wind farms if they were not so heavily subsidised by the government as would be totally cost inefficient. There must be a better way surely.
Having power stations as backup in case the wind farms fail to produce enough energy also seems to be at odds with the whole green energy movement but maybe we may be in a position one day where these are no longer required.
For some reason Germany is still building coal burning power stations even though they have committed to phase them all out by 2038.
I dont claim to be any kind of expert so expect to be shot down but feel we will become too reliant of foreign energy to make up the difference when we eventually go full wind farm. |
We will never be in a position where we don’t need baseline power generation (firm power) unless we have nearly twice the required output from wind turbines so wherever the wind is the demand will be met. There is nothing wrong with turbines, they are great but you are right that tidal power should be harnessed as well.
With regards to the firm power, it should be either 4th generation nuclear or molten-salt nuclear. Nothing else will provide the baseline power that is required. It’s a choice between coal and modern nuclear and in my opinion that is no choice at all. Coal has to go.
We need:
Firm — baseline production from nuclear
Intermittent — wind turbines, solar (panels or directed), tidal etc.
Instant — stored energy via pumped hydro, batteries and possibly hydrogen (which some 4th generation nuclear power stations produce as a byproduct).
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 10:46 - Jun 19 with 1967 views | StokieBlue |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 10:43 - Jun 19 by DanTheMan |
Abdullah asked if the candidates agreed that their words have consequences.
It was a fair enough question and tripped a few of them up.
However, as GB says, probably wasn't the best person to be asking that question given that tweet history. |
I saw the debate (was commenting last night).
I meant what has come to light subsequently - seems you've highlighted a dubious tweet history which does seem rather poor vetting from the BBC.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 10:47 - Jun 19 with 1963 views | GeoffSentence |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 10:34 - Jun 19 by GlasgowBlue |
It appears Abdullah should heed his own advice about words having consequences.
|
I can't see what that is about without registering and I can't be arsed with that at the moment.
I assume that he has said some inflammatory stuff himself, given your post. Which would make him a hypocrite if that were the case, but his question to the panel was still a valid one. | |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 10:54 - Jun 19 with 1943 views | GlasgowBlue |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 10:47 - Jun 19 by GeoffSentence |
I can't see what that is about without registering and I can't be arsed with that at the moment.
I assume that he has said some inflammatory stuff himself, given your post. Which would make him a hypocrite if that were the case, but his question to the panel was still a valid one. |
Yes, I don’t disagree that his question wasn’t fair. Just the wrong person to ask it.
The whole set up by the beeb was a debacle from start to finish. Channel 4 did it so much better on Sunday. | |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 11:03 - Jun 19 with 1919 views | flimflam |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 10:45 - Jun 19 by StokieBlue |
We will never be in a position where we don’t need baseline power generation (firm power) unless we have nearly twice the required output from wind turbines so wherever the wind is the demand will be met. There is nothing wrong with turbines, they are great but you are right that tidal power should be harnessed as well.
With regards to the firm power, it should be either 4th generation nuclear or molten-salt nuclear. Nothing else will provide the baseline power that is required. It’s a choice between coal and modern nuclear and in my opinion that is no choice at all. Coal has to go.
We need:
Firm — baseline production from nuclear
Intermittent — wind turbines, solar (panels or directed), tidal etc.
Instant — stored energy via pumped hydro, batteries and possibly hydrogen (which some 4th generation nuclear power stations produce as a byproduct).
SB |
I might be making this up but wind is not always guaranteed whereas tides are unless the moon falls out of the sky.
That surely makes tidal energy more reliable than wind? | |
| All men and women are created, by the, you know the, you know the thing. |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 11:04 - Jun 19 with 1916 views | Guthrum |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 10:28 - Jun 19 by flimflam |
I am totally in favour or green energy but do feel that there must be better alternatives than wind turbines. We are surrounded by sea so why are we not looking into harnessing that power to create energy?
Wind Turbines rarely run at more than 30% output and have a 20yr lifespan. There is a huge bill on the horizon for decommissioning them in the near future and if the government does not subsidise this they may well be left where they are to rot.
Would the energy companies even build wind farms if they were not so heavily subsidised by the government as would be totally cost inefficient. There must be a better way surely.
Having power stations as backup in case the wind farms fail to produce enough energy also seems to be at odds with the whole green energy movement but maybe we may be in a position one day where these are no longer required.
For some reason Germany is still building coal burning power stations even though they have committed to phase them all out by 2038.
I dont claim to be any kind of expert so expect to be shot down but feel we will become too reliant of foreign energy to make up the difference when we eventually go full wind farm. |
Energy storage is where the next movement is going to come. That will allow electricity to be generated at maximum rate from renewables, then used when it's needed. There are various approaches to this, in addition to traditional batteries, e.g. pumped hydro (Dinorwig, Ffestiniog, the new Coir Glas project in Scotland) and chemical (the Spanish molten salt plant).
Decommissioning turbines is a matter of scrapping or refurbishing, both of which have commercial possibilities. There is no dangerous waste to dispose of, as with nuclear or coal plants.
Certainly for now we need traditional power stations, but gas is far more efficient and cleaner than coal, plus we have our own supplies thereof. Also cheaper to construct than nuclear. | |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 11:07 - Jun 19 with 1916 views | StokieBlue |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 11:03 - Jun 19 by flimflam |
I might be making this up but wind is not always guaranteed whereas tides are unless the moon falls out of the sky.
That surely makes tidal energy more reliable than wind? |
You are totally correct with your first assumption. However if you double the number of wind turbines you actually need to power the country you should be able to provide enough energy. It's still no guaranteed and it's certainly not efficient to do that.
Tides are complicated - do you want to use tidal barrages (which are certain, powerful but expensive) or devices that float on the surface (produce far less power, might be an issue to shipping)?
Essentially I think my first point was correct, you need a spread of technologies in order to have a fully workable carbon free power system.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| This leader debate is fooking awful on 11:15 - Jun 19 with 1895 views | artsbossbeard |
Worst Westlife tribute act ever. |  |
| Please note: prior to hitting the post button, I've double checked for anything that could be construed as "Anti Semitic" and to the best of my knowledge it isn't. Anything deemed to be of a Xenophobic nature is therefore purely accidental or down to your own misconstruing. | | Poll: | Raining in IP8 - shall I get the washing in? |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
