Just to note:

It's a bit cooler today, Ford must've sold a Crapi

22 hours ago, TomsFocus said:

they keep having more and more kids when towns & cities are already overcrowded

Actually, Tom, I think you'll find it's not the birthrate that's responsible but nett inward migration.

16 minutes ago, mjt said:

but nett inward migration.

Otherwise known as "illegal"

1 minute ago, DaveT70 said:

Otherwise known as "illegal"

Or, 'irregular' if you're the King 😂

 

9 minutes ago, DaveT70 said:

Otherwise known as "illegal"

If you have a look at the figures in detail, you find that, illegal immigration, concerning though it is, is a drop in the ocean (sorry!😃) compared to the legal number.

The official figures show the scale of the issue:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2022based

Just been watching "Politics Live" on tv. Much discussion on there of shortage of energy, shortage of housing, shortage of water, shortage of healthcare, etc, etc, but, as usual, no mention of the other side of the supply and demand equation.

39 minutes ago, mjt said:

Actually, Tom, I think you'll find it's not the birthrate that's responsible but nett inward migration.

 Immigration is the main direct driver but figures also show that non-UK born parents tend to have a higher birth rate, so immigration is also a factor there.

3 hours ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

shortage of energy, shortage of housing, shortage of water, shortage of healthcare, etc, etc

Exactly. IMHO the UK is overpopulated by at least 30% if not more, putting an immense strain on those services, not to mention the environment (lack of investment in water treatment to cope with the increase in sh*t).

I may be wrong and I'm ready to be corrected, but I think after WW2 the population stood at about 40 million. It's now pushing 70 million. Then people wonder why services like the NHS can't cope when there hasn't been a commensurate investment in capacity.

And don't get me started on how we are going to feed all the extra mouths while taking farmland out of production to create solar farms and "re-wilding".

1 hour ago, mjt said:

I may be wrong and I'm ready to be corrected,

You may be, but not by much, Mike. Funnily enough I was just wondering how it had changed in my own  lifetime. (Its been hammering down where I am all day, despite Yorkshire Water declaring a drought, so plenty of opportunity for Googling!)

Nearest figure I found to the end of WW2 was 1946 and it was 48.9 million then, and a couple of million more by my appearance, and just short of 70 million** now as you rightly say. So a 40% increase in my lifetime.

**From official figures, assuming they're correct, which many doubt.

1 hour ago, mjt said:

And don't get me started on how we are going to feed all the extra mouths while taking farmland out of production to create solar farms and "re-wilding".

Ok!😀

 

even with enormous levels of immigration; our birthrate is well below 2.2.

So the ponzi scheme of open borders continues in a vain attempt to slow down the sinking of the ship.

The implosion when it comes will be catastrophic - and it will be Europe-wide. WW2 will look like a dress rehearsal. Things move slowly until they suddenly move very fast indeed.

Just recently confirmed, the exact EV grant being issued:

The new UK Electric Vehicle (EV) grant offers a discount of up to £3,750 for eligible new electric cars. The grant is part of a £650 million funding package to make EVs more affordable and encourage wider adoption. To qualify, the car must have a list price of £37,000 or less...

Now if you have a quick flick through Autotrader or similar, £3750 can buy you a very substantial car, and the ultimate in recycling as it's already produced! I just don't understand current 'green' thinking...

43 minutes ago, StephenFord said:

£3750 can buy you a very substantial car, and the ultimate in recycling as it's already produced! I just don't understand current 'green' thinking...

£3750 would also enable you to buy the entire fleet of Morris Marinas left too, with change to buy all of the Allegros and Austin Princesses, just think of that!

I'm pleased that they think that £37,000 - £3,750 = £33,250 is "more affordable". For me it is just a bit less unaffordable. Once it gets into unaffordable territory it doesn't really matter if I cant afford it by a little bit or a lot, I'm still not going to buy it.   

34 minutes ago, DaveT70 said:

£3750 would also enable you to buy the entire fleet of Morris Marinas left too, with change to buy all of the Allegros and Austin Princesses, just think of that!

That’s a lot of rust, if only rust could be recycled.

47 minutes ago, pcaouolte said:

I'm pleased that they think that £37,000 - £3,750 = £33,250 is "more affordable". For me it is just a bit less unaffordable. Once it gets into unaffordable territory it doesn't really matter if I cant afford it by a little bit or a lot, I'm still not going to buy it.   

I think you'll find that many government subsidies benefit the already wealthy... (heat pumps & solar panels to name 2). I get the feeling it's becasue that those in control of policy making are already rich, and have no idea how ordinary folk live.

My biggest issue with "green agendas" is that they are all such hyperbole.  Yes, we should be more mindful towards the planet, and we essentially are already.  Don't dump crap into oceans, recycle and reuse, look towards sustainable sources.  Yes 100% on board.

But "the world will end", "irreversible damage", blah blah blah.  The biggest con is "net zero" or "carbon neutral" - look, it's 100% not possible nor compatible with the capitalist economies that we all benefit from.  Apple open a store in London and state that it's "net zero" - yes, but also no.  Yes on paper, but no because all you're doing is offsetting, which translates to "creative accountancy with money and physical output".  You cannot run a lightbulb without power, and in some way or another you need to consume and expend something to generate or convert that power.

If they proudly claimed "We are taking sensible steps, reducing packaging, dimming lights, etc" then I would absolutely applaud them, but they have to go all hyperbole and say "we are now carbon neutral" - yeah, on paper only!

3 minutes ago, NJLouch said:

But "the world will end", "irreversible damage", blah blah blah.  The biggest con is "net zero" or "carbon neutral" - look, it's 100% not possible nor compatible with the capitalist economies that we all benefit from.

You should always ask these zealots, 'If we achieved net zero tomorrow, what difference would it make, and what next?'

If you get a sensible answer, please can you post it here..

58 minutes ago, StephenFord said:

'If we achieved net zero tomorrow, what difference would it make, and what next?'

They could bring back "acid rain" and the "ozone layer" they got a bit bored of that

55 minutes ago, DaveT70 said:

They could bring back "acid rain" and the "ozone layer" they got a bit bored of that

In the 1970s when I was in primary school, there was much talk of a forthcoming ice age 😂

40 minutes ago, StephenFord said:

In the 1970s when I was in primary school, there was much talk of a forthcoming ice age 😂

Yes, I remember that too! (Though I was well out of school by then!😀)

1 hour ago, DaveT70 said:

They could bring back "acid rain" and the "ozone layer" they got a bit bored of that

In fairness, the changes we made (by "we" I mean the populace, including industry and governments aligned with the Montreal agreement) allowed the regeneration of the ozone layer.  It was always a self-healing situation, but we were impeding it - and it's now looking like late 2030s for a full recovery.

But, considering how quickly it started to recover - it just shines a light on the "world is ending" hyperbole they preach.  And the flip side of that coin is that by preaching it, they achieved a positive outcome.

Just looking at the Energy Dashboard https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live right now. Despite it being quite pleasant (here at least) as at 19.01 we're only getting:

Wind  3%

Solar 8.8%

Gas is 40.7%

Nuclear 12.7%

Foreign imports 19.9%

Biomass (Drax, basically) 9.5%

The rest is hydro and "miscellaneous"

 

So they burn gas to make electricity and then expect us to use electricity to heat our homes.

As electricity is about 4 times the price per kWh compared to the gas that we are currently using in our homes I can't see any sense in this at all.

Buy an air source heat pump they say, it is four times more efficient than a gas boiler. Maybe so, but when the electricity is 4 times the price of gas you just end up with the same overall cost to heat your house having spent five times as much to install the heat pump than you would spend to install a new boiler.

Green subsidies are a scandal.

 

Transferring tax paid by the poorest tax payers to the richer ones who can afford (subsidised) luxuries.

Bloke at work T055ER installed solar panels. He was very pleased with himself that it "pays for itself". Completely obvious to the fact that the money he gets is from bills paid by everybody, including the poorest people in the country, who cannot dream of installing luxuries that "pays for itself".

Same with these grants to install charging points. Nice if you are middle class and have off street or resident permit parking. Not so nice if you rent a flat or live in a terrace and are paying for somebody else to have something you can't afford yourself.

It's insane that a labour government is bragging about redistribution from the poor to the rich. I know. I know. They've always done it. But the bragging as though this is the right thing to do....

 

9 minutes ago, pcaouolte said:

 I can't see any sense in this at all.

Tut tut! This is why Mr Miliband gets so frustrated. Us peasants simply can't see the genius in his plan to turn the UK into a green energy superpower.

did you hear Miliband's response to a Parliamentary question asking how much the temperature will be reduced if Britain achieved (and sustained) net zero tomorrow?

The same question was asked of that lunatic that used to be co-lead of the Greens (now in the Lord).

Just utter waffle about Britain being a world leader etc etc.

These are not serious people. We get the leaders we deserve, and our leaders are morons.