Thursday, September 19, 2013
Pseudo-Liberals Conference - Lies and Fraud
Following up the LudDim conference.
The big "news" was that they had come out "in favour of nuclear power". Unfortunately, since this was one of the issues on which they officially left the liberal movement by splitting from me, the motion passed is less than supportive.
The motion is among the agenda papers here. Among a 114 line motion, all about subsidising and enforcing windmillery are lines 51-4:
"i) Accepting that in future, nuclear power stations could play a limited role in electricity supply, provided concerns about safety, disposal of radioactive waste and cost (including decommissioning) are adequately addressed and without allowing any public subsidy for new build."
"could", "limited", "provided" & "adequately" are some new definition of support. I would be willing to support the LudDims if they could get rid of all the fascists, for the very limited roles of dogcatchers, provided they adequately proved that they now opposed genocide, child rape, recession and alleviated the justified concern that they are all thieves, but none of them feel to believe that qualifies me as a supporter.
Actually that is a little unfair to me since my concern that they are genocidal, child raping, poverty promoting thieving fascists is entirely justified and could thus be ameliorated if facts changed whereas their alleged fears aren't and thus couldn't.
Their "policy change" is obviously no such thing but a purely PR change because polls show 60% of the public strongly in favour of nuclear and they want to say "wisnae me" as they put the lights out.
======================================
The other news is Clegg promising school dinners for all "worth £400 m a year" (though I suspect a lot of parents could make lunches for rather less). This was the basis of the BBC Radio sales pitch for them today (there has been an awful lot of BBC support during this conference & I look forward, since the BBC are legally "balanced" to UKIP, based on the ratio of popular support, getting about 2 1/2 times as much. The total cost is said to be £600 million.
I sent this email but, for some reason it was not read out:
Clegg has said this will save parents £400 a year which means, bearing in mind that everything has to be paid for and that there is always the cost of collecting extra taxes and of administrating the payout, this means about £200 extra taxes every year for all employed households.
The big "news" was that they had come out "in favour of nuclear power". Unfortunately, since this was one of the issues on which they officially left the liberal movement by splitting from me, the motion passed is less than supportive.
The motion is among the agenda papers here. Among a 114 line motion, all about subsidising and enforcing windmillery are lines 51-4:
"i) Accepting that in future, nuclear power stations could play a limited role in electricity supply, provided concerns about safety, disposal of radioactive waste and cost (including decommissioning) are adequately addressed and without allowing any public subsidy for new build."
"could", "limited", "provided" & "adequately" are some new definition of support. I would be willing to support the LudDims if they could get rid of all the fascists, for the very limited roles of dogcatchers, provided they adequately proved that they now opposed genocide, child rape, recession and alleviated the justified concern that they are all thieves, but none of them feel to believe that qualifies me as a supporter.
Actually that is a little unfair to me since my concern that they are genocidal, child raping, poverty promoting thieving fascists is entirely justified and could thus be ameliorated if facts changed whereas their alleged fears aren't and thus couldn't.
Their "policy change" is obviously no such thing but a purely PR change because polls show 60% of the public strongly in favour of nuclear and they want to say "wisnae me" as they put the lights out.
======================================
The other news is Clegg promising school dinners for all "worth £400 m a year" (though I suspect a lot of parents could make lunches for rather less). This was the basis of the BBC Radio sales pitch for them today (there has been an awful lot of BBC support during this conference & I look forward, since the BBC are legally "balanced" to UKIP, based on the ratio of popular support, getting about 2 1/2 times as much. The total cost is said to be £600 million.
I sent this email but, for some reason it was not read out:
Clegg has said this will save parents £400 a year which means, bearing in mind that everything has to be paid for and that there is always the cost of collecting extra taxes and of administrating the payout, this means about £200 extra taxes every year for all employed households.
To be fair to the LDs, Clegg has said he intends to raise taxes but when the BBC is reporting this honesty should require you to spend as much time discussing the tax rises needed as the spending.
Obviously honesty did not get much of a look in, though they did have somebody from the TPA who made that point and was only interrupted by the Beeboid throughout. Other than that the "balance" was almost entirely "wouldn't you like more government money" without any "wouldn't you like to pay more taxes".
My estimate is that collecting taxes and then disbursing the money adds about 60% to the total so spending £600 million means raising £1 bn or about 0.3p on income tax. I look forward to the LDs acknowledging either that this is their intent or saying what other specific tax they will raise to get another £1 bn.
It is conceivable that this would be a good use of society's resources - I would be willing to spend more on education if it was going to provide more education - but if we aren't allowed to discuss both sides of the equation it is impossible to confirm it.
-------------------------------------
Labels: British politics, Government parasitism, nuclear
