I, personally, am against nuclear power, as it only seems to work with massive explicit or implicit taxpayer-funded subsidies. But whether I am right or wrong, this idea is nuts.
As the critics in the article point out, "it is expensive, creates radioactive waste and could become a target for terrorists", given this gummint's incompetence, no doubt the terrorists will all be offered jobs in the nuclear power stations, just to make things nice and easy for them.
And anything that involves us handing over huge sums of dosh to "French firm EDF" has got to be a shit idea.
Put On Your Big Boy Pants, Maybe?
2 hours ago
3 comments:
Good one. But the monster has three heads:
1. Labour, who don't give a shit about the working classes or about the fabric of society. They just need money from the unions.
2. The unions, who are largely made up of public sector workers, so the bigger the public sector, the more members they have, whether those members are UK or foreign born.
3. The public sector, which just wants to get as big as possible.
And Labour is quite happy for UK-nationals (who have the vote) to stay on the dole, as it makes them captive voters and creates jobs in the public sector for benefits advisors...
Which is why, as you suggest, we have got to the stage where Nulab have created another million or two public sector jobs, at least half a million of which have gone to foreign-born workers. A totally perverse outcome!
Bearing in mind that over the next 10-15 years we will, for various reasons, lose about 25% of our generating capacity, it's tempting - or even unavoidable - to ask how you would fill that gap.
Buying off-the-shelf nuclear stations from the French might be the only option we have other than becoming ever-more-dependent on that nice Mr. Putin.
The words "rock" and "hard place" spring iresistibly to mind.
Nope. We're caught between "the greenies" and "the EU". Let's tell them both to f*** off and go for coal.
Post a Comment