LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
You really can only use the land the solar is on for sheep or goats.
Can't use it for cattle or growing crops, so depending on the qulaity of the land, then yes it does have a potential impact.0 -
UK airports cover a bigger surface area than solar farms. Agricultural uses account for 63% of land area and about 30% of that is actually used for food crops. Solar farms currently account for 0.1% of land area, and would need to rise to 0.5% to meet government targets. I think it's safe to say there is enough to go round. This is just about people not liking the appearance of PV panels. Polytunnels are obviously fine, though.TheBigBean said:
They do a bit.rjsterry said:Oh FFS, they're re-heating the stupid idea that solar farms compete for land with food production.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Dorset_Boy said:
You really can only use the land the solar is on for sheep or goats.
Can't use it for cattle or growing crops, so depending on the qulaity of the land, then yes it does have a potential impact.
That won't be a problem on the cattle front, as JRM wants to replace expensive UK beef with cheap hormone-treated Aussie beef.0 -
Perhaps you should have made the point that the land use is immaterial as opposed to them not being built on poor quality farm land.rjsterry said:
UK airports cover a bigger surface area than solar farms. Agricultural uses account for 63% of land area and about 30% of that is actually used for food crops. Solar farms currently account for 0.1% of land area, and would need to rise to 0.5% to meet government targets. I think it's safe to say there is enough to go round. This is just about people not liking the appearance of PV panels. Polytunnels are obviously fine, though.TheBigBean said:
They do a bit.rjsterry said:Oh FFS, they're re-heating the stupid idea that solar farms compete for land with food production.
0 -
Or perhaps you wanted to say they are not built on land that could be used for crops.0
-
Major and Brown both went through their first elections as PM at pretty much the last point allowed by law. May only held an early election as she thought it would increase her majority.First.Aspect said:
We have historically relied on the parties adhering to convention and, if they change leader mid term (like Major, May and Brown) calling an election a period thereafter that's not insultingly long.pblakeney said:Can I use this current topic to point out that while the next election will be Sunak v Starmer the votes go to the party, and whoever they choose as leader.
The general public will ignore this. Again.
The Tories have ignored this, as they have ignored other norms for several years. I think they will be punished heavily, but the consequences of tearing up the unwritten rule book are probably going to be quite long term.
Just look at the US, where elections and actual votes don't seem to matter.
We need to be really scared of the Tories start demanding recounts.
There is no convention for “unelected” PMs to hold an election after a period that isn’t “insultingly long”. There is a convention of the Opposition being hypocrites and demanding elections when the incumbent government changes its leader and hence the PM.
1 -
I'm saying that the argument that they represent a threat to UK food security is nonsense.TheBigBean said:Or perhaps you wanted to say they are not built on land that could be used for crops.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
That is also true. Just not what you said originally...rjsterry said:
I'm saying that the argument that they represent a threat to UK food security is nonsense.TheBigBean said:Or perhaps you wanted to say they are not built on land that could be used for crops.
0 -
I wrote "...they're re-heating the stupid idea that solar farms compete for land with food production." Perhaps I'm missing something, but as solar farms are effectively already limited to grade 3b land or lower ( moderate to poor yields), and only ever occupy a tiny amount of agricultural land of any grade, in what way do they meaningfully compete with land for food production?TheBigBean said:
That is also true. Just not what you said originally...rjsterry said:
I'm saying that the argument that they represent a threat to UK food security is nonsense.TheBigBean said:Or perhaps you wanted to say they are not built on land that could be used for crops.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It's not really a big point, but solar farms are predominantly built on low quality farmland, so it does mean slightly fewer lambs each year. This is why I said "They do a bit". Overall, it is not going to have a massive impact as you say.rjsterry said:
I wrote "...they're re-heating the stupid idea that solar farms compete for land with food production." Perhaps I'm missing something, but as solar farms are effectively already limited to grade 3b land or lower ( moderate to poor yields), and given the tiny amount of land to be used by solar farms, in what way do they meaningfully compete with land for food production?TheBigBean said:
That is also true. Just not what you said originally...rjsterry said:
I'm saying that the argument that they represent a threat to UK food security is nonsense.TheBigBean said:Or perhaps you wanted to say they are not built on land that could be used for crops.
0 -
-
Slower and less capacity on a line that was super busy when I used to catch it reasonably regularly 5 years ago.
Brilliant0 -
It's getting to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually u turn on this.0
-
Jezyboy said:
It's getting to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually u turn on this.
Maybe the plan is to break the railways as well, so that more people become motorists, as obviously we need more motorists to fight in the war on motorists.0 -
-
Ignore
0 -
-
I'm amazed that 25% of people think that the Tories will deliver on the new 'plan'
"...in the abstract overwhelmingly think the money would be better spent on other rail, road and bus projects. However, only 25% think it is likely that these projects would be delivered on"rick_chasey said:0 -
I was trying to link something but technical incompetence prevailed.briantrumpet said:0 -
@surrey_commuter noticed the economist calculated the 13 years of fuel duty "freezes" have cost around £80bn; not far off the cost of HS2, right? ;-)
0 -
Network North document now downgraded to 'examples of the kind of project we would fund'.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Am not convinced the message "it's time for a change" is going to work out for him.
0 -
Has anyone come back to him yet with 'Change from what? You've been the Party in power for 13 years'.kingstongraham said:Am not convinced the message "it's time for a change" is going to work out for him.
Do they genuinely think the electorate are stupid enough to not realise which Party is in Government? They seem to just treat people with complete contempt, possibly due to how they were able to dupe them in 201.0 -
That's because of the war on motori... oh... errrick_chasey said:@surrey_commuter noticed the economist calculated the 13 years of fuel duty "freezes" have cost around £80bn; not far off the cost of HS2, right? ;-)
0 -
I like the idea of putting a large lump sum on the price of petrol to pay for a railwayline.veronese68 said:
That's because of the war on motori... oh... errrick_chasey said:@surrey_commuter noticed the economist calculated the 13 years of fuel duty "freezes" have cost around £80bn; not far off the cost of HS2, right? ;-)
0 -
I like the idea of varying fuel duty based on the oil price.0
-
There is 20% VAT as well as fuel duty. Higher oil price, more tax in the coffers.0
-
agreed, it would be a terrific hedgeTheBigBean said:I like the idea of varying fuel duty based on the oil price.
0 -
Just make oil in the UK a fixed price, when it's cheap the Government does well and when it is expensive the 'poor motorist' is protected.TheBigBean said:I like the idea of varying fuel duty based on the oil price.
0
