UKIP

[God]

UKIP.

So I was reading some of the things UKIP stands for and what they plan to do, but I came across something very displeasing to me. Seeing UKIP is more than likely going to be voted into office.


Here are just some of the ways we will save your money:


Ɣ End wasteful EU and UK subsidies to ‘renewable energy scams’,
such as wind turbines and solar farms


Ɣ Sell unused state-owned property and assets

Well, The USA only has around 100 Years supply of Methane (Natural Gas) in ground, so I'm unsure about the UK, but cutting Green Energy subsidies kinda leaves you with an unstable energy sector? Yes you may have Fracking... but after sucking the Methane from that, what else do you have in the near future?

Also selling off Crown land isn't the way to go. Selling this land to private corporations removes this land from the people for short term gain. Not the right thing to do.



Anyways ya theres my rant.




Also someone please tag undertaker to this thread, as I've heard him talk about UKIP supporting the idea of removing the privately owned Central Bank and replacing it with a Publicly Owned Central Bank.

Is this true, as my main reasons searching what UKIP stands for was this specific reason.


Anyways ye Idk why I made this thread

[MKR&*42]

@-:Undertaker:- (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24233);

(As per request of the thread creator, aka not offtopic.)

[-:Undertaker:-]

Renewable energy doesn't work, the UK sits on 300-years worth of coal supplies and has also promising amounts of gas and shale gas, not to mention with the possibility of fracking. If the UK wishes to reduce carbon output (a notion I regard as absurd) then nuclear would be the best way to go along with a mix of clean coal and continued exploration of the North Sea. From my recollection, Ukip seem to favour nuclear energy along with fracking.

Secondly, Ukip don't propose selling off Crown Estate Land. The plan for Crown land and the Crown Estate - in the 2010 manifesto at least - was that the annual grant to the Royal Family would be ended in return for giving back permanently part of the Crown Estate profits. So in future, say the Crown Estate made say £300m a year - the Royal Family would then be entitled to 5% or something of it a year, that'd remove the controversy of the annual grant system that arises every year whereby the Monarchy is funded by HM Government.

In terms of sweeping to power, far from it at this point. :P And the new manifesto hasn't been released yet for 2015, it will be over summer.


as I've heard him talk about UKIP supporting the idea of removing the privately owned Central Bank and replacing it with a Publicly Owned Central Bank.

I really hope that is in the new manifesto this summer, hopefully the libertarian wing of Ukip will push for it.

I know Rand Paul over in the US is pushing at auditing the Federal Reserve in his potential Presidential campaign for 2016.

[dbgtz]

Is the Bank of England not publicly owned...

[The Don]

UKIP.

So I was reading some of the things UKIP stands for and what they plan to do, but I came across something very displeasing to me. Seeing UKIP is more than likely going to be voted into office.



Well, The USA only has around 100 Years supply of Methane (Natural Gas) in ground, so I'm unsure about the UK, but cutting Green Energy subsidies kinda leaves you with an unstable energy sector? Yes you may have Fracking... but after sucking the Methane from that, what else do you have in the near future?

Also selling off Crown land isn't the way to go. Selling this land to private corporations removes this land from the people for short term gain. Not the right thing to do.



Anyways ya theres my rant.




Also someone please tag undertaker to this thread, as I've heard him talk about UKIP supporting the idea of removing the privately owned Central Bank and replacing it with a Publicly Owned Central Bank.

Is this true, as my main reasons searching what UKIP stands for was this specific reason.


Anyways ye Idk why I made this thread

Ukip is full of morons that don't believe in global warming (even though virtually all reputable scientists agree on it, but thats an argument for another day) so it's not surprising they would have us scrap all the improvements we've been making recently.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukzMSJV-bEw

and no, ukip aren't likely to get into power.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ukip is full of morons that don't believe in global warming (even though virtually all reputable scientists agree on it, but thats an argument for another day) so it's not surprising they would have us scrap all the improvements we've been making recently.

Energy policy isn't planned on the basis of what you'd like to believe, it's planned on the basis of what works and what is cheapest.


and no, ukip aren't likely to get into power.

Not just yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993

[God]

Is the Bank of England not publicly owned...


DING DING DING WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER!

Anyways yes the Bank of England is privatly owned, and infact is a buisness which has no accountability to the English People. They are a for Profit operation and who ever controls the money, effectively controls the people. You think Bill Gates is rich? Every single pound is an I-O-U to a Private corporation who can print money.

Also everyone, you should meet your Rulers. So take a quick google search to find out who owns your Central Bank.


This isn't something just happening in England, Almost all countries have privately owned central banks.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Is the Bank of England not publicly owned...

It's so-called 'independent' which I have a problem with due to the fact that as monetary policy is so important, our elected sovereign parliament should be in control of monetary policy and held accountable for monetary policy.


DING DING DING WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER!

Anyways yes the Bank of England is privatly owned, and infact is a buisness which has no accountability to the English People. They are a for Profit operation and who ever controls the money, effectively controls the people. You think Bill Gates is rich? Every single pound is an I-O-U to a Private corporation who can print money.

Also everyone, you should meet your Rulers. So take a quick google search to find out who owns your Central Bank.


This isn't something just happening in England, Almost all countries have privately owned central banks.

Have you read 'End the Fed' by Ron Paul? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_the_Fed

I haven't read that book, but he's talked about it in his other books which I have got. You seem pretty interested in it anyway. :)

[God]

Have you read 'End the Fed' by Ron Paul? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_the_Fed

I haven't read that book, but he's talked about it in his other books which I have got. You seem pretty interested in it anyway. :)

Listened to some of his speeches, and honestly, I would vote for him.

I'll have to check out that btw

[The Don]

Energy policy isn't planned on the basis of what you'd like to believe, it's planned on the basis of what works and what is cheapest.

No no no, that's how you think is should be planned, quite different from how it is actually planned.

[Zelda]

its just ridiculous to think imo that they would honestly want to remove everything this country and science as a whole has been working towards with greener energy resources. even if our supplies of coal will last us 300+ years, it is so ridiculously polluting, and any claims that global warming / climate change aren't real are not exactly mainstream science-backed. i won't even go into fracking, but any party that supports ridiculous stuff like all of this will never get my vote, and it makes me wonder how many people voting ukip even know half of wht their policies are, and are instead just voting them as a protest vote or because of europe.

nuclear energy clearly is an alternative, but especially if we went mainscale on it, but even currently, nuclear waste is a huge problem that really cannot be ignored, and we can't just keep shovelling it into the ground or storing it. not to mention how dangerous nuclear reactors can be anyway, seen plenty of disasters caused by that in the past to know how bad it can get. focus should really be going on to moving to green renewable energy sources, especially making the most of what nature has provided around us, with tidal and wind power being very obvious things to make the most of. i personally see wind turbines as not ugly at all but infact quite beautiful, but even with all the nimbys out there, there are plenty of places we can put them that wont disrupt people, not to mention offshore turbines. of course it would make sense to have even more scientific research put into the development of fusion reactors to make them viable in terms of energetic output compared to input, unlike the current problematic situations we currently have, as that would be the most promising end goal in terms of green, safer, renewable energy sources, especially due to its absolutely massive potential energy output compared to all other current methods, given that the fusion of a deuterium nucleus produces far more energy than that we get from the fission of a uranium-235 nucleus in a standard uranium nuclear reactor.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No no no, that's how you think is should be planned, quite different from how it is actually planned.

Which is why small European nations are cutting off their feet economically by going with unworkable renewables whilst America and Canada make use of their shale and oil reserves which is cutting the cost of production, and whilst the huge industrial nations of China and India are building something like one dirty coal-powered power plant a week. Whether you believe in global warming or not, what we're doing in terms of energy is economic suicide.

If renewables worked, why would I oppose them? I'd be for them. But they don't work, so it's a fairytale. I'll focus on the reality of energy.


its just ridiculous to think imo that they would honestly want to remove everything this country and science as a whole has been working towards with greener energy resources. even if our supplies of coal will last us 300+ years, it is so ridiculously polluting, and any claims that global warming / climate change aren't real are not exactly mainstream science-backed. i won't even go into fracking, but any party that supports ridiculous stuff like all of this will never get my vote, and it makes me wonder how many people voting ukip even know half of wht their policies are, and are instead just voting them as a protest vote or because of europe.

Coal isn't actually that polluting if you use clean coal filters as many western countries do nowadays, the images you have when you think of coal of dirty smoke billowing across the city sky is something that wouldn't and just doesn't happen today - apart from in the far east where clean coal isn't used because of the expense which they cannot yet afford.

As for fracking, fair enough. But whatever party gets in is going to have to frack, and personally I see no problem with it. Why be against something that will provide cheap energy for us for many years, will create jobs and which makes us more energy independent?


nuclear energy clearly is an alternative, but especially if we went mainscale on it, but even currently, nuclear waste is a huge problem that really cannot be ignored, and we can't just keep shovelling it into the ground or storing it. not to mention how dangerous nuclear reactors can be anyway, seen plenty of disasters caused by that in the past to know how bad it can get. focus should really be going on to moving to green renewable energy sources, especially making the most of what nature has provided around us, with tidal and wind power being very obvious things to make the most of. i personally see wind turbines as not ugly at all but infact quite beautiful, but even with all the nimbys out there, there are plenty of places we can put them that wont disrupt people, not to mention offshore turbines. of course it would make sense to have even more scientific research put into the development of fusion reactors to make them viable in terms of energetic output compared to input, unlike the current problematic situations we currently have, as that would be the most promising end goal in terms of green, safer, renewable energy sources, especially due to its absolutely massive potential energy output compared to all other current methods, given that the fusion of a deuterium nucleus produces far more energy than that we get from the fission of a uranium-235 nucleus in a standard uranium nuclear reactor.

Are you making the claim that a large industrialised nation can power itself via the wind, and in a cheap manner?

Look, the reality of the situation is this: either you go for nuclear and reduce carbon emissions but end up with nuclear waste (which can be safely stored away just as we've been doing since the 1950s) or you can have a mixture of coal/gas/nuclear which is the cheaper option but will produce more carbon emissions. That is the choice and the reality we face, take your pick.

[dbgtz]

DING DING DING WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER!

Anyways yes the Bank of England is privatly owned, and infact is a buisness which has no accountability to the English People. They are a for Profit operation and who ever controls the money, effectively controls the people. You think Bill Gates is rich? Every single pound is an I-O-U to a Private corporation who can print money.

Also everyone, you should meet your Rulers. So take a quick google search to find out who owns your Central Bank.


This isn't something just happening in England, Almost all countries have privately owned central banks.

Apart from the fact it's not privately owned...


It's so-called 'independent' which I have a problem with due to the fact that as monetary policy is so important, our elected sovereign parliament should be in control of monetary policy and held accountable for monetary policy.



Have you read 'End the Fed' by Ron Paul? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_the_Fed

I haven't read that book, but he's talked about it in his other books which I have got. You seem pretty interested in it anyway. :)

But at the end of the day, it's still publicly owned

[The Don]

its just ridiculous to think imo that they would honestly want to remove everything this country and science as a whole has been working towards with greener energy resources. even if our supplies of coal will last us 300+ years, it is so ridiculously polluting, and any claims that global warming / climate change aren't real are not exactly mainstream science-backed. i won't even go into fracking, but any party that supports ridiculous stuff like all of this will never get my vote, and it makes me wonder how many people voting ukip even know half of wht their policies are, and are instead just voting them as a protest vote or because of europe.

nuclear energy clearly is an alternative, but especially if we went mainscale on it, but even currently, nuclear waste is a huge problem that really cannot be ignored, and we can't just keep shovelling it into the ground or storing it. not to mention how dangerous nuclear reactors can be anyway, seen plenty of disasters caused by that in the past to know how bad it can get. focus should really be going on to moving to green renewable energy sources, especially making the most of what nature has provided around us, with tidal and wind power being very obvious things to make the most of. i personally see wind turbines as not ugly at all but infact quite beautiful, but even with all the nimbys out there, there are plenty of places we can put them that wont disrupt people, not to mention offshore turbines. of course it would make sense to have even more scientific research put into the development of fusion reactors to make them viable in terms of energetic output compared to input, unlike the current problematic situations we currently have, as that would be the most promising end goal in terms of green, safer, renewable energy sources, especially due to its absolutely massive potential energy output compared to all other current methods, given that the fusion of a deuterium nucleus produces far more energy than that we get from the fission of a uranium-235 nucleus in a standard uranium nuclear reactor.

Very well said. You can't have a reasonable discussion though because they just absolutely refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem. Even if you provide solid concrete evidence it will be dismissed as a conspiracy. Although most of the people voting Ukip are doing so more on the grounds of immigration or euroscepticism rather than their energy policies or anything else for that matter. It's an issue that a large portion of people are indifferent towards as it's not something that's visibly a problem at the moment, and by the time the effects are visible it will most likely be too late. I think it's mainly due to people not thinking long term and for future generations, they'd rather have what's cheaper to save themselves a bit of money at the expense of future generations.

[hairpins]

i heerd ukip standz 4

Uber racists
K**ts
Idiot rasists
Pro-rasists

[God]

Which is why small European nations are cutting off their feet economically by going with unworkable renewables whilst America and Canada make use of their shale and oil reserves which is cutting the cost of production, and whilst the huge industrial nations of China and India are building something like one dirty coal-powered power plant a week. Whether you believe in global warming or not, what we're doing in terms of energy is economic suicide.

If renewables worked, why would I oppose them? I'd be for them. But they don't work, so it's a fairytale. I'll focus on the reality of energy.


As for fracking, fair enough. But whatever party gets in is going to have to frack, and personally I see no problem with it. Why be against something that will provide cheap energy for us for many years, will create jobs and which makes us more energy independent?


Actually China is busy in Canada with the FIPPA Treaty which would make the Chinese State Owned company un-accountable to any laws that it breaks in Canada including but not limited to destroying our environment.
Also if any legislation is passed, like for the Environment, the Chinese can sue the Canadian Gov't for all lost wages.
Most of our Oil is going to the Chinese, the rest to the Americans. Most annoying thing is, Canadians aren't getting cheaper Oil either.

Actually Wind/Solar/Hydro electricity are viable solutions. My question is, when we run out of Oil and such, what are to look to? Is that not Economic Suicide? Sorry but we live on a Finite Planet.

Now onto Fracking. Fracking Fracking. So you think Fracking is one of the cheapest means of extraction? No it isn't and thats why we are seeing a boom in it now, since the highly inflated prices of natural gas (methane) and oil now make it economically viable.

Anyways thats a different story. Fracking involves drilling a hole down to the area they want. After that they make a casing which is concrete. This casing which protects ground water and aquifers, but leads down to the pay area where they inject over 520 different chemicals, which almost all area very dangerous to our Health. These casings fail 5% the moment they are poured, after that the odds of them Failing increase as they age, and after 30 Years, more than 50% of these fail.

We now get into the worst part, these chemicals and natural gas, get access to our drinking water. Then we are left with contaminated water, and the Fracking companies get to leave with cash in their profits. This here is just the worst of the worst. I've not got the time to explain the others. But remember this, it's simply not a coincidence when 1000's of people around Fracking Sites complain about terrible water quality, which means chemicals that were not present before, that are used in the fracking process, and even being able to Light their water on fire. This is real. Now you don't here all these stories because when they do proceed legal action, almost all of the time there is a part in the deal making it so they cannot talk about it or will face a lawsuit. And why would a Fracking company supply some of these people with water if there was nothing wrong with their water and they were not at fault. Think, just simply THINK.

How rich are you if you cannot even drink your own water safely? Cheap gas is awesome! But the costs of water being double that. Is it really worth it, Is it really worth it to destroy our clean water? Water is the basis of life, everything needs water to survive, and without it, we won't be able to live.

Apart from the countless amount of water destroyed from "accidental exposure" which the Fracking companies fully know of and that they are un-avoidable. There is around 20 Million litres of water used on ONE WELL. To get an idea, this is 600 Tanker trucks of water, you know, the big ones with 18 wheels.


Anyways its up to you if you wish to destroy your water, land and environment. Just who is going to explain your grandchildren why they cannot play in the streams because they are so highly polluted, that they cannot go fishing because the fish cannot live in such terrible water conditions. That they cannot drink out of the faucet because you can actually light it with a match.


Water is everything and is our most precious resource. It is the base of all living things and should be cherished.