Poll: Mods, one last poll before tomorrow?

Who are you voting for tomorrow?

  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 251 35.1%

  • Labour

    Votes: 78 10.9%

  • Conservative

    Votes: 316 44.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 71 9.9%
  • Total voters
    716
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
robgmun said:
Ah sorry, i stand corrected then :p

But yes the amount of uranium is not a concern

Still, I'd like to see advancements in Fusion, they've been talking about it since i was a kid but not much progress!
Click to expand...

Do you remember that movie Keanu Reeves was in, where he invented a method of extracted unlimited energy from water? That's what we need :)
 
bam0 said:
Who wouldn't but Fusion has always been X years away, and X doesn't seem to be getting any smaller, I certainly wouldn't hang any future power production plans on fusion suddenly being cracked.
Click to expand...

Why is that do you think? Being a cynic, I wouldn't be surprised if the people who could make this work have been bribed or 'persuaded' to hold off by those very powerful people with vested interests.
 
I'm still pretty sure i'm voting Conservatives, in my opinion some of the Lib Dems policies are crazy they seem to be for big giveaways at a time when spending needs to fall. I always don't agree with the Lib Dems on nuclear (both trident and nuclear power). Though the most likely outcome is a minority tory government or Lab-Lib coalition (with PR being the deal). No way would I vote Labour can't stand Ben Bradshaw.
 
I voted Lib Dem. I don't like their Nuclear power policy, generally I agree with most of what they want to do though.

For the record IMO our navy has been a joke for the last decade or more. It feels like we are blindly building ships we don't need without a thought for what the most likely theaters we are going to want to project force into.

IMO What we need are a couple of good nuclear powered aircraft carriers, a handful of helicopter carriers, some decent attack submarines, the ability to land troops and protect them once landed.

As for nuclear power I think we need to strive to be energy self sufficient. I think in the future that will be far more important than having a nuclear deterrent. I have made this point several times to a lot of lib dems and may end up renewing my membership to make the point at conference if they don't see the light after this election.
 
The Mad Rapper said:
Do you remember that movie Keanu Reeves was in, where he invented a method of extracted unlimited energy from water? That's what we need :)
Click to expand...

Well of course! But unfortunatly it's fansaty with our current tech, and would be hundreds of years away if it were actually possible

Meanwhile we have to deal with the problem at hand and Nuclear power really is our only real option.

To say anything else like Clegg is, is simply pandering to the student vote to gain them, students are unfortunatly young and impressionable. And as you tell them what they need to hear then they'll vote for you, most of them were too small to remember Blair and how he walazed in on promises in much the same way as clegg is doing now
 
Last edited:
The Mad Rapper said:
On the basis that accidents do and have happened, and will doubtless happen again. I do not want a nuclear reactor melting down a mile from my house, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Nuclear power is extremely safe; the chances of a meltdown are so close to zero as to make no difference. You're more likely to be flattened by an asteroid than killed by a meltdown.
 
The Mad Rapper said:
It still concerns me though :(
Click to expand...

Fair enough, maybe you need more questions answered, feel free to ask them :)

Please don't let igronce of the facts drive you to fear, which in turn rules your life, that's the Daily Mail way and we have to pull people away from that
 
Last edited:
Mr Jack said:
Nuclear power is extremely safe; the chances of a meltdown are so close to zero as to make no difference. You're more likely to be flattened by an asteroid than killed by a meltdown.
Click to expand...

chernobyl freaked a lot of people off the idea of nuclear.
though i believe that problem was human error and cost cutting.

on the topic of fusion, couldnt find the exact article of scientists overcoming on the last theoretical barriers, but the current status of the tech is impressive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Current_status
 
drew64 said:
chernobyl freaked a lot of people off the idea of nuclear.
though i believe that problem was human error and cost cutting.
Click to expand...
Chernobyl did freak a lot of people out, but modern reactors are nothing like the Chernobyl one, in terms of design, or safety features, hell Chernobyl didn't even have a hard containment vessel.
 
bam0 said:
With no exit controls the UK quite simply doesn't know how many people are here illegally
Click to expand...

and that to my mind is the problem with the Lib Dems proposed amnesty, you cannot give an amnesty to x number of people if you don't know the value of x. and also not forgetting the fact that some people will be here alone, so once you've given them the right to be here legaly, there wives/husbands/children could then also have the right to be here as a consequence.
 
The Mad Rapper said:
I agree we do need Carriers - how old is the Ark Royal now? It must be on it's last legs.
Click to expand...

Ark Royal was commissioned in 1985, Illustrious in 1982 and Invincible in 1980.

Our carriers do suck balls compared to the Nimitz class though :(
Click to expand...

I would guess we have different operational requirements to the US Navy ?

Does the UK need a couple of carriers 100,000 tonnes plus with 100 or so aircraft, not to mention the cost ?
 
Von Smallhausen said:
Ark Royal was commissioned in 1985, Illustrious in 1982 and Invincible in 1980.



I would guess we have different operational requirements to the US Navy ?

Does the UK need a couple of carriers 100,000 tonnes plus with 100 or so aircraft, not to mention the cost ?
Click to expand...

I don't think we do, the new Queen Elizabeth class are just about right in my opinion, though maybe it would be better for them to be nuclear powered. I don't think the Invincible class were even ment to be carriers in the correct sense of the word if it wasn't for the Harrier.
 
Haha. :D

I was wondering why they had that music as the subtle backing track. Certainly explains the incomprehensible 'filler' talk.
 
Andy_82 said:
I don't think we do, the new Queen Elizabeth class are just about right in my opinion, though maybe it would be better for them to be nuclear powered. I don't think the Invincible class were even ment to be carriers in the correct sense of the word if it wasn't for the Harrier.
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

When was the last time a Phantom or Buccaneer was catapulted from a UK carrier ?

It must be the 70s .....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom