Then you don't understand how economies work. Or countries for that matter.

Great to see some positive job news for the region following the huge number of redundancies over the last two years.

Government debt before the crash was nothing out of the ordinary and broadly similar to what we had under the previous Tory administration.


No argument on either of those points. Looks like we'll be going down the same path again as well.


When people use sweeping generalisations such as the 'public sector' I feel obliged to fall in line.

And the banks weren't the only part of the private sector to benefit from the money thrown at them.

I think that will be the case, The Hornsea array wind farm is currently waiting approval as part of the round 3 offshore wind programme, round 3 is for massive windfarms (1000's of turbines ) to be placed strategically around the u.k, Siemens are part of a collaboration who are the stakeholders in the hornsea array, therefore Hull would be an ideal base to ship turbine parts directly from the port to the construction site, i would imagine pen will be put to paper and plans for this manufacturing facility given the go ahead only if the round 3 wind farms are granted approval, a wind farm that size would require 100's of service technicians which would be recruited from the area i presume, ( based on siemens recruitment policy for they're other wind farms) going by other offshore windfarms i have seen around the u.k there will be 100's if not thousands of indirect jobs created if Hull is used as the base for the construction programme for the hornsea array.

caveat to the discussion

Kosh would have a Liberal Democrat government, so his grasp on reality is questionable.

carry on

Kosh has run out of parties to vote for.

Which leaves me with a problem at the next election as my principles won't let me abstain.

For those who reckon that this is only coming about through massive taxpayer-funded subsidies, you are probably correct - as far as the short-term is concerned.

Fossil fuel energy resources are finite, they will run out in the long term but more importantly, they will get massively more expensive in the short term. We have squandered the wealth of oil & gas in the North Sea, so we are now net importers and as such, are subject to the market forces that will see fossil fuel prices continue to rise.

Many new & novel technologies require some form of government intervention. I'm old enough to remember the argument against the introduction of unleaded gasoline ("we'll need a separate pump on EVERY forecourt"icon_wink.gif. I can also remember the massive programme of refitting every gas cooker, gas fire and gas boiler, so that we could switch from the noxious town gas to cleaner-burning natural gas. All of this happened without the consumer having to pay a penny at point of supply. It was paid through duty reductions and government spending & subsidies. So please don't tell me the private sector would handle the job, they'd just look for the cheapest option every time.

And for the deniers of anthropological climate-change - "go fook yourselves".

Great news for the region.

and dont forget the russians are looking at potentially huge untapped areas of the frozen north as sources of fossil fuels - if this happens they could have almost as much of a say in the pricing of fuel as the middle east, and could end up holding a lot of countries to ransom over fuel prices. any energy sources we can provide ourselves will help us in the long term

Despite a period of strong economic growth, and a decent start by Brown as chancellor the spend more than you earn drug eventually caught hold. Deficits were revised upwards year upon year as the economy slowed while the borrowing and spending increased. The deficit was worse than when Labour called in the IMF in 1976.

rlIt was all going wrong well before the crash.rl

We should have been building new a new wave of nuclear power stations long since. Another failure of the previous regime. As for the purporters of, as you put it, - anthropological climate change -, they've fooked themselves on regular occasions and delivering poor and inaccurate science has not helped their cause one iota.

And what about the subsidies for nuclear, care to even attempt to put a figure on them?

Then we get to the decommissioning, something else that has been heavily subsidised, with costs buried. Unfortunately the legacy remains. A local nuclear plant has just finished a fifteen year decommissioning, the doors were locked in December. The grandchildren of the last bloke out will be old men before the site is considered safe enough for demolition, never mind redevelopment.

What poor and inaccurate science are you deniers claiming now?