UKIP, Science and Unanswered Questions

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Psamathe
Posts: 10382
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

UKIP, Science and Unanswered Questions

Postby Psamathe » 20 Feb 2015, 3:46pm

Recently a UKIP Westminster candidate asked a serious and very important question, bringing into doubt the countries future energy policy. And the questions "What happens when the renewable energy runs out ?"

So the Guardian has written a highly thoughtful piece answering this and several other major questions UKIP undoubtedly have of our scientific community and science policy (and raising further major issues the country (UK) will need to address before much longer).

http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2015/feb/20/science-questions-ukip-renewable-energy

Ian

beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: UKIP, Science and Unanswered Questions

Postby beardy » 20 Feb 2015, 4:01pm

What if he had just messed up when intending to say "What happens when the renewable energy subsidies run out?"?

Then a rather bias press jumped on the chance to ridicule those that they dont like. I am no fan of UKIP but playing games like this only reinforces their supporters resolve and often generates more supporters for them. However it makes those doing the mocking feel that they have won people over but often that is only those who were not going to vote UKIP anyway in the first place.

At what proportion of the electoral vote will they start getting treated equally to the other parties, or is it dependant on time served?

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 46367
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: UKIP, Science and Unanswered Questions

Postby Mick F » 20 Feb 2015, 4:10pm

Absolutely.
+1
Mick F. Cornwall

beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: UKIP, Science and Unanswered Questions

Postby beardy » 20 Feb 2015, 4:20pm

Now if you want a reason to dislike UKIP and to argue against their energy policies, start here
Energy

– UKIP will repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 which costs the economy £18bn a year.
– UKIP supports a diverse energy market including coal, nuclear, shale gas, geo-thermal, tidal, solar, conventional gas and oil.
– We will scrap the Large Combustion Plant Directive and encourage the re-development of British power stations, as well as industrial units providing on-site power generation.
– UKIP supports the development of shale gas with proper safeguards for the local environment. Community Improvement Levy money from the development of shale gas fields will be earmarked for lower council taxes or community projects within the local authority being developed.
– There will be no new subsidies for wind farms and solar arrays.
– UKIP will abolish green taxes and charges in order to reduce fuel bills.


as this is what they actually have put forward as their policies.

Freddie
Posts: 2329
Joined: 12 Jan 2008, 12:01pm

Re: UKIP, Science and Unanswered Questions

Postby Freddie » 20 Feb 2015, 4:30pm

It was a she, beardy, but that was precisely what I was about to say, the top comment about it on the Guardian (perennial bastions of fairness and equality) reads:

"wingless1234 8m ago

Oh Pleeese ! Do grow up, are you seriously suggesting Victoria does not know what renewable means ? She said, or at least meant to say, what happens when subsidies run out for alternative energy schemes, as they will. Presumably they'll become unviable white elephants."


All this bashing UKIP is tedious in the extreme. I saw that slur piece ("100 Days Of UKIP" TV programme) recently, it was pretty unbelievable stuff. There was probably somewhere in the region of 100 instances of the word racist/s, just to drive the point home. Nothing in the way of substantive argument though. The screaming leftists with their baseless accusations of bigotry and racism against the party, only push people likely to vote for them closer still.
beardy wrote:At what proportion of the electoral vote will they start getting treated equally to the other parties, or is it dependant on time served?
Never, the other parties don't want them to be. Their lackeys refuse to attack their policies. rather they throw insults. I have to side with Peter Hitchens and say that the other parties represent their own interests as bourgeois, bohemian elites and have nothing but contempt for the common man, hence their anger at UKIP, whose policies appeal to the common man.

beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: UKIP, Science and Unanswered Questions

Postby beardy » 20 Feb 2015, 4:49pm

The screaming leftists with their baseless accusations of bigotry and racism against the party, only push people likely to vote for them closer still.


Well I am a screaming lefty. I did have a good laugh when the UKIP deputy (some scouser) was challenged about some comments from one of the UKIP candidates (probably racist in nature), he replied that the candidate had indeed made those comments but he was in the Conservative Party before joining UKIP when he did so. :lol:

I guess that even though we are from opposite sides of the spectrum we recognise the tactics. I guess that you lapped up all the mis-information about "Red Ken" when it was happening though. :?

I can see that people can have legitimate reasons to dislike Livingstone and his policies but most of what was said about him especially in the 80's was misleading to say the very least.

PS: He got elected as London Mayor despite or because of this.

Freddie
Posts: 2329
Joined: 12 Jan 2008, 12:01pm

Re: UKIP, Science and Unanswered Questions

Postby Freddie » 20 Feb 2015, 5:07pm

beardy wrote:
The screaming leftists with their baseless accusations of bigotry and racism against the party, only push people likely to vote for them closer still.


Well I am a screaming lefty..

This is unlikely, a leftist assuredly, but the kind of people I refer to know their A to Z by heart:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/943 ... he-new-pc/

and get into behaviour like this in their free time:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/brendan-on ... rcissists/

Psamathe
Posts: 10382
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: UKIP, Science and Unanswered Questions

Postby Psamathe » 20 Feb 2015, 5:12pm

So with politicians do we base things on what they actually say or what we want to believe they said or what we would like them to mean. Personally, I think we have to base our opinions on what they actually say. To do otherwise is just basing our beliefs on what we want to believe.

And I thought it was quite an amusing article (and suspect even UKIP supporters would think so).

So maybe when UKIP's policies state:
From UKIP Transport Policy Document wrote:10.2 We believe that there needs to be a better balance of rights and responsibilities for pedal cyclists, with too much aggressive abuse of red lights, pedestrian crossings and a lack of basic safety and road courtesy.

10.6 UKIP would consult on the desirability of minimum third party liability insurance cover for cyclists - a simple annual flat rate registration ‘Cycledisc’, stuck to the bicycle frame, to cover damage to cars and others, which are currently unprotected. The Cycledisc should also carry clear identification details, which will help counter bicycle theft, and deter dangerous cyclist behaviour. We support provision of cycle parking at reasonable charges.

10.7 UKIP believes that basic cycle and safety training should be made mandatory, and be funded in schools or via local authorities. UKIP supports the campaign work of national cycling organisations.

10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a ‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause
unacceptable delays to traffic

Do we believe they want to charge cyclists for an equivalent of VED (the "cycledisc"), do be believe basic cycle training will be made mandatory ? do we believe ... etc. or do we live in cloud cuckoo land and believe they "mean something different. Because if we want to interpret what they say as what be believe then ... great for all our politicians ... but not so good when we want to hold them to account.

Ian

beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: UKIP, Science and Unanswered Questions

Postby beardy » 20 Feb 2015, 5:31pm

So with politicians do we base things on what they actually say or what we want to believe they said or what we would like them to mean. Personally, I think we have to base our opinions on what they actually say. To do otherwise is just basing our beliefs on what we want to believe.


If you listen to what politicians actually say on programs like Question Time, you will find that mistakes like this are quite frequent. Most by established politicians are ignored because "we know what they meant to say" and if in doubt you can refer to the written word or ask for confirmation.

If such mistakes by the regular parties were picked up with anything approaching this vigilance, newspapers would not fit through letterboxes ever again.

fluffybunnyuk
Posts: 450
Joined: 1 Sep 2013, 10:58pm
Contact:

Re: UKIP, Science and Unanswered Questions

Postby fluffybunnyuk » 20 Feb 2015, 6:04pm

I'm fairly sure she probably meant non-renewables like coal,gas, and oil. The answers simple pour lots of money into fusion faster, and one day it will pay off.

Psamathe
Posts: 10382
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: UKIP, Science and Unanswered Questions

Postby Psamathe » 20 Feb 2015, 7:07pm

fluffybunnyuk wrote:I'm fairly sure she probably meant non-renewables like coal,gas, and oil. The answers simple pour lots of money into fusion faster, and one day it will pay off.

But others have been claiming she meant renewable subsidies. So, like UKIPs transport policy (the part of it relating to cycling and cyclists), I can only work on the actual words.

Ian

kwackers
Posts: 13542
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: UKIP, Science and Unanswered Questions

Postby kwackers » 20 Feb 2015, 7:08pm

fluffybunnyuk wrote:I'm fairly sure she probably meant non-renewables like coal,gas, and oil. The answers simple pour lots of money into fusion faster, and one day it will pay off.

Well, given the experts say fusion is as far away now as it was when ar wer a lad I wouldn't put money on it.

fluffybunnyuk
Posts: 450
Joined: 1 Sep 2013, 10:58pm
Contact:

Re: UKIP, Science and Unanswered Questions

Postby fluffybunnyuk » 20 Feb 2015, 7:32pm

fusions at breakeven pretty much. Its like the going to the moon problem was in 1962. The problem is right now countries dont want to fund ITER, and ITER is the stepping stone to larger units which should go past breakeven.

https://www.iter.org/mach well worth a browse.

Timescale ... https://www.iter.org/img/resize-700-90/www/content/com/Lists/WebsiteText/Attachments/50/iter_phase.jpg

It should run on 50MW and have a theoretical max output of 500MW

kwackers
Posts: 13542
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: UKIP, Science and Unanswered Questions

Postby kwackers » 20 Feb 2015, 8:15pm

fluffybunnyuk wrote:fusions at breakeven pretty much. Its like the going to the moon problem was in 1962. The problem is right now countries dont want to fund ITER, and ITER is the stepping stone to larger units which should go past breakeven.

https://www.iter.org/mach well worth a browse.

Timescale ... https://www.iter.org/img/resize-700-90/www/content/com/Lists/WebsiteText/Attachments/50/iter_phase.jpg

It should run on 50MW and have a theoretical max output of 500MW

I've no doubt it can be done. I just doubt the timescale. Even once it's working we're at least a decade away from building actual power plants. Plus 500MW is a meaningless amount. By 2027 solar will be massively more efficient and cheap, I'd even guess we'll have made some decent inroads into energy storage and distribution.

Mind you given the general right wing agenda's include leaving all R&D to companies and reducing spending on 'green' subsidies there is the question of whether the whole energy generation problem will just stop until we hit a critical point in time. (Just as well the Chinese are spending a small fortune on it, at least we'll be able to buy in their expertise when the time comes).

Hard to believe we once led the world as engineers, good job we've got banking and services to fall back on.

beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: UKIP, Science and Unanswered Questions

Postby beardy » 20 Feb 2015, 8:56pm

Psamathe wrote:
fluffybunnyuk wrote:I'm fairly sure she probably meant non-renewables like coal,gas, and oil. The answers simple pour lots of money into fusion faster, and one day it will pay off.

But others have been claiming she meant renewable subsidies. So, like UKIPs transport policy (the part of it relating to cycling and cyclists), I can only work on the actual words.

Ian


Yes but you keep on referring to the actual words that she instantly corrected and has consistently stated were at a slip of the tongue ever since. Try looking to the actual words that she has used in the correction as they were the ones that were meant instead of deliberately going on about what was said through a slip of the tongue.

If the only thing you can try and hang on UKIP is a slip of the tongue then it isnt only UKIP supporters who will ridicule your case.