So much for Labour's tax and spend plans but what about the Tories' tax and spend plans? Nobody is mentioning those. The question that you should be asking is whose tax and spend plans are likely to lead to a greater good for the majority of the population?

The Tory tax and spend plans won't come up for detailed discussion until the manifesto is released. I believe it's due Thursday of this week.

Yes but the don't know what they will cost - but whoever they are buying them from will have to accept government bonds as payment!! Unreal but that's Labour all over.

I am interested how this levy on those paying over £330k is going to work? Well it wont because Labour have little/no chance of getting in. It Monopoly politics i.e. playing a game without real money it madness.

We are where we are. Long term the best thing to do is to bin off this nuclear project - at least in its current format.

On coal and gas I'd continue to get it from where we've got it in the past. We at least have a choice of provider there and aren't locked into a deal that's decades long. We'd have more flexibility.

I agree on that deal - I do think Nuclear is the way forward

I've no objections to Nuclear. Just that deal seems utterly awful. If we're going Nuclear we need a proven system - not something new and it needs to be owned by us.

If we're going to have it I'd rather it have a big union jack flying on top of it rather than being reliant on foreign money and influence - particularly French and Chinese.

Until we can get the deal we want I'd stick with gas and coal. I would also be sticking some subsidy toward wave and tidal power given that those are likely to be growth industries in the future.

We need to move away from nuclear & fossil fuels, & towards a low carbon future. Nuclear will never pay for itself & leaves a legacy for others which is immoral. We should be concentrating on energy reduction, we could cut our energy consumption (& bills) significantly in the region, while creating sustainable jobs.

I am unsure how reducing energy consumption creates sustainable jobs?

Retrofitting homes, offices, factories etc to reduce consumption would take a lot of work. Sure it would be quite expensive, but Nuclear is hardly cheap and creates far less jobs.

Quote: Sal Paradise "I am unsure how reducing energy consumption creates sustainable jobs?'" The world's leading research institute is here in Leeds; www.lowcarbonfutures.org/reports ... ch-reports More sustainable than the incinerator in keighley that will burn 100,000t of recyclable waste a year, releasing a cocktail of the most poisonous chemicals known to science over everywhere in the wind path from Keighley to Leeds. But it will create 75 jobs, so our vacuous MP is supporting it.

Quote: Sal Paradise "I am unsure how reducing energy consumption creates sustainable jobs?'" The world's leading research institute is here in Leeds; www.lowcarbonfutures.org/reports ... ch-reports More sustainable than the incinerator in keighley that will burn 100,000t of recyclable waste a year, releasing a cocktail of the most poisonous chemicals known to science over everywhere in the wind path from Keighley to Leeds. But it will create 75 jobs, so our vacuous MP is supporting it.

Our nations values vaporised throughout the 1980s. I wouldn't expect them to return any time soon.

Most of the world chooses convenience over being "green" all day long.
Too many people consuming more than they need and nothing significant will be done until it's too late.

If Stephen Hawking is right (and we need to colonise another planet within 100 years), we should all be living like nuns but, nobody will sacrifice the 3 cars on their drive or scale back their personal consumption.

It must be if its sending poisonous fumes out into the atmosphere?

The concept of scarce is an interesting one - we have barely tapped into the resource of this planet and its sun.