Bank Of England Says People Need To Accept They Are Poorer

[Jack Grey]

3 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

You seem to be well informed but your claims are opposite to those on the BBC news.  Can you explain that?

As for smoking, drinking etc, Have you done a survey of these people and how did you know who they were?

Guessing as usual.

 

People are not cold because of "net zero" but because of world energy prices.

No one, environmentalist or not wants "expensive energy" they want "Clean" energy, which is cheaper than nuclear for instance.

 

The problem with renewable energy is that the wind isn't always blowing and the sun isn't always shining 

 

Nuclear energy is fantastic because it runs for 24 hours a day.

 

Even eco warriors say that it's a great energy source.

[Chekhov]

15 hours ago, hackey lad said:

>>El Cid said:
The Governor of the Bank of England has said similar.

But people tend to follow their leaders, the Government need to spell it out, Brexit has cost us 20%, the Ukraine war has cost us 20% and COVID has cost us 60%<<

 

So 80 % not the Governments fault .  

I think your figures are wrong, though having said that, and I speak as a Remainer, if the electorate voted to leave the EU how is that the government's fault ? But I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that one because the government is largely made up of Leavers.

So that's 20% 

Ukraine wasn't the government's fault and I do 100% back their policy anyway.

Still on 20%

Covid ? The Covid general suppression of society and the economy was 100% the government's fault. They do not have to do it they chose to do it, they could have gone for targeted shielding, but I accept that even that would have negatively affected the economy and society, just no where near as much. Shall we say targeted shielding have only been 25% as damaging ? So, 75% of 60%  would give 45%.

So 20% + 45% would give 65%, it's 65% the government's fault.

Even that is not the end of it because Labour supported the government's Covid strategy (in fact they wanted even more of it) so it's at least 45% their fault as well.

14 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

You seem to be well informed but your claims are opposite to those on the BBC news.  Can you explain that?

As for smoking, drinking etc, Have you done a survey of these people and how did you know who they were?

Guessing as usual.

I am pretty certain there are hardly any hungry people in this country who do not spend money on fags, booze, cars, Sky TV etc etc.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

15 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

People are not cold because of "net zero" but because of world energy prices.

No one, environmentalist or not wants "expensive energy" they want "Clean" energy, which is cheaper than nuclear for instance.

That's a motherhood and apple pie answer.

If we had a coal industry and coal fired power stations we'd not have been as affected by the massive price rise of gas.

They got rid of coal and coal fired power stations because they wanted "cleaner" gas.

BTW, almost all the "clean" energy you speak of is not reliable. You need back up power plants (for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine) which, if only used intermittently, are very expensive. Of course, tidal power is reliable, but the environmental extremists don't want that "because of the wading birds habitat" (despite the "Climate crisis"),

 

And you are being economical with the actualité by trying to imply that "nett zero" won't cost anything.  It will cost an absolute fortune.

You are also being economical with the actualité by implying that environmentalists don't want to use price to limit demand for energy, for everything from heating one's house, to driving one's car, to jetting off on holiday. They do want to use it and they will have to use it if they want to get anywhere.

 

13 hours ago, Anna B said:

It's not just financial insecurity, but the mental insecurity.

Everyone seems to be suffering from a kind of universal depression. There doesn't seem to be much hope out there, and not much to look forward to. So many problems, so few solutions. Everything's changed overnight, mostly for the worst.

Is this an unspoken side effect of Covid? 

This is true, you cannot even book a soddin' holiday and be sure you can go, what with strikes and the possibility of more paranoid travel restrictions (which achieved sod all last time anyway......).

Edited April 27, 2023 by Chekhov

[altus]

13 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I think your figures are wrong, though having said that, and I speak as a Remainer, if the electorate voted to leave the EU how is that the government's fault ? But I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that one because the government is largely made up of Leavers.

Brexit could have taken many forms and still abided by the result of the referendum. The Tories chose to implement one of the most economically damaging ones.

[Anna B]

12 hours ago, Jack Grey said:

The problem with renewable energy is that the wind isn't always blowing and the sun isn't always shining 

 

Nuclear energy is fantastic because it runs for 24 hours a day.

 

Even eco warriors say that it's a great energy source.

On the other hand, the tides go in and out 24/7, 365 days a year, and water always runs down hill.

There are many renewable sources of energy which we could be investing in.

 

But I agree Nuclear energy should be part of the mix.

[Jack Grey]

7 minutes ago, Anna B said:

On the other hand, the tides go in and out 24/7, 365 days a year, and water always runs down hill.

There are many renewable sources of energy which we could be investing in.

 

But I agree Nuclear energy should be part of the mix.

Wasn't it the eco warriors who were protesting nuclear in the 1080s so we stopped building them? 

 

And now they say they are ok 

[Anna B]

I was never an eco warrior, but I am a pragmatist. 

We need power and always will.

But all power comes with an environmental cost.

Nuclear power is the lesser evil.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Anna B

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

That's a motherhood and apple pie answer.

If we had a coal industry and coal fired power stations we'd not have been as affected by the massive price rise of gas.

They got rid of coal and coal fired power stations because they wanted "cleaner" gas.

BTW, almost all the "clean" energy you speak of is not reliable. You need back up power plants (for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine) which, if only used intermittently, are very expensive. Of course, tidal power is reliable, but the environmental extremists don't want that "because of the wading birds habitat" (despite the "Climate crisis"),

 

And you are being economical with the actualité by trying to imply that "nett zero" won't cost anything.  It will cost an absolute fortune.

You are also being economical with the actualité by implying that environmentalists don't want to use price to limit demand for energy, for everything from heating one's house, to driving one's car, to jetting off on holiday. They do want to use it and they will have to use it if they want to get anywhere.

 

This is true, you cannot even book a soddin' holiday and be sure you can go, what with strikes and the possibility of more paranoid travel restrictions (which achieved sod all last time anyway......).

It's obvious without even saying it that if we still had coal, we wouldn't be affected by the world energy prices.

It's obvious also that "they",   Thatcher's Tory government, got rid of coal  although the coal fired power stations remained for a long time on imported coal.

That was NOT because they wanted cleaner gas, but because Thatcher didn't want to be dependant on the miners unions.

The clean energy we NEED, rather than want is only not reliable because they have put all their eggs in one basket and developed mainly just one type, Wind.

it's taken them 30 years to get to grips with a new nuclear power station and there have been no attempts to invest in inland hydro or, tidal power.

There has been a lamentable lack of investment in power sources in this country which is par for the course with everything else. Any investment that was put in was from private sources.

The tidal power excuse is just that, an excuse. Tidal power could be developed without affecting wading birds who don't cover every foot of the ocean, but it's harder work.

 

I have not said, or implied, that net zero won't cost anything.

I have not said or implied that environmentalists don't want to use price to limit demand.

In case you haven't noticed, prices are not set by the environmentalists, but by the government, Ofgem and the energy firms working together.

The environmentalists DO NOT want to use the dirty energy at all, but it's you and people like you who are determined to hang on to your "soddin holidays" (that's your description, not mine) who do.

I am not prepared to even discuss your holidays because they don't matter one bit to me.

Travel restrictions are not all caused by strikes but, those that are can be easily solved by paying the people you expect to work, a proper wage.  Dig deeper into your pocket in necessary.

If you don't want to pay, then don't expect others to work for your holiday, (or anything else)

 

 

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

On the other hand, the tides go in and out 24/7, 365 days a year, and water always runs down hill.

There are many renewable sources of energy which we could be investing in.

 

But I agree Nuclear energy should be part of the mix.

Exactly,  and that is what I have just argued with Chekhov but his "soddin holidays" are more important.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Organgrinder

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

It's obvious without even saying it that if we still had coal, we wouldn't be affected by the world energy prices.

It's obvious also that "they",   Thatcher's Tory government, got rid of coal  although the coal fired power stations remained for a long time on imported coal.

That was NOT because they wanted cleaner gas, but because Thatcher didn't want to be dependant on the miners unions.

This is fundamentally incorrect. All Coal fired power stations had to be decommissioned by the end of 2024 by government decree, though they thought they were doing great by getting to done sooner. Only to realise they'd made a mistake..... :

 

“In line with our net zero target, the government is planning to phase out unabated coal-fired power generation by the end of 2024.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/11/uk-coal-burning-power-plant-to-stay-open-two-years-longer-than-planned

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Chekhov said:

This is fundamentally incorrect. All Coal fired power stations had to be decommissioned by the end of 2024 by government decree, though they thought they were doing great by getting to done sooner. Only to realise they'd made a mistake..... :

 

“In line with our net zero target, the government is planning to phase out unabated coal-fired power generation by the end of 2024.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/11/uk-coal-burning-power-plant-to-stay-open-two-years-longer-than-planned

Don't take much notice of government announcements.  Just remember that  Boris was wanting to open another new coal mine when he was in charge.

They just don't have a long term plan for anything which means that anything can happen except investment in something useful.