It is beginning to dawn on us that the Lib Dems could win the next election.
Not only have they got a powerful team of existing candidates; they provide a truly fresh approach to politics which shone out at the debate last night.
Nick Clegg was clearly different to the other two leaders - I've forgotten their names - who just trotted out cliche after cliche as they squabbled between them.
I agree with Nick Clegg was heard several times in the discussion as the others struggled to claim credibility.
Barrow people will no doubt be alarmed at the proposal to cut Trident. If the other parties are honest, they will have to do the same in the future though at present they claim otherwise.
What is needed is for totally fresh thinking to the direction of our industry using our skilled workforce. It is alternative energy technology and Barrow could become world leaders in developing equipment to harness wind, rivers and sea power.
The development of the Electric car and related technology is another area. France is pouring in government resources to lead this field. Why aren't we doing the same?
Could it be that we are unwilling to face new challenges?
Do we want to remain stuck in old approaches, clinging on for grim death to the familiar and not being brave and confident about our abilities to face new challenges.
Do we not need a Redshaw for the present to lead in a new direction?
Could this not be Barry Rabone with the Lib. Dems.?
He's clearly a brave man taking the position of changing the direction and diversifying the output of Barrows skilled workforce.
This is clearly the honest thinking for the future.
Challenging - yes, but opening up new opportunities and not condemned to obsolescence by Labour and the Tories.
As you gather, I'm won over by Rabone and his team who I met yesterday in and around Ulverston Market and had several conversations with them and was persuaded by their energy and brave stance for the future. They came across honestly and weren't hiding behind the old regurgitated thinking of the other parties who I believe are hasbeens.
2010 will be remembered as the time Britain had a major refit and turfed the old and malfunctioning system out for something built for the next twenty years.
12 comments:
Let's not get too carried away on the basis of a single debate, Geoff.
Polls seem to suggest that, apart from Clegg's boost, the debate hasn't changed many people's minds - if they supported Cameron/Brown before, they still support them now (and thought the other one performed badly).
It would be nice to think that well-publicised debate & getting policies out in the open to discuss them would radically alter how people think or vote, but as you found out yourself when you went knocking on doors, people are often stubborn and tend to do what they've always done. The old "I'm a Labour voter" "Why?" "I've always voted Labour" - doesn't matter a jot what they have or haven't done for them, they're sticking with them.
Politics is a tribal game. Watching poor Republican supporters in America angrily argue against healthcare plans that would directly benefit them tells you that. They would rather lose a leg than support a Democrat initiative.
Lib Dem would need to gain near 300 seats to win this election, tall order a 400%+ increase.
Clegg came through on the night with the other two party strategies failing but they'll be regrouping for the next rounds where it may turn into Con/Lab on Lib Dem fight
Tim Farron was on tv last night also supported scrapping trident which sounds sensable but I'd like to hear more on how they will move workers from a ship building industry into the green renewable industry. From seeing other local industries disappearing I can't see a transition happening without a long period of reduced income to the area.
Parking in Kendal is a simular analigy - we have a free car park which the con candidate is campaigning that it's needed. Lab candidate is critising him as it's illegal yet lab has done a youtube video on the same car park talking of the need for parking. I questioned lab why he wanted this vital parking to disappear, which he replied it's illegal and thinks we should have a park 'n' ride. I comment that it would be wise to put the park 'n' ride in place before getting rid of the parking area, which he agrees is the right way to do it.
So why can't he campaign on the basis that car park is illegal but I want a park 'n' ride in place before this vital parking area is removed, rather than give the impression that the parking should be reduced by removing this parking site and critise the con guy when it turns out they have the same goals.
Not sure that the electric car is all that environmentally friendly. Electricity has to be generated to start with, and the car needs fuel in its manufacture etc etc. It will be years, if ever, before there is enough green fuel to satisfy demand.
Be that as it may, the country certainly needs a new look and change of direction. The masses of benefits and credits are like sweetie distribution. What a cost in administration. Hands reaching out for what is 'mine'. More sweeties to equalise fairness and on and on. My 'rights' rather than my 'responsibility'. Grab what you can, while you can, is a policy clearly demonstrated by most MP's.
Time we asked what can WE do, individually and as a community, rather than what can be done for us.
The whole of Parliament needs a CLEAN sweep, before it can gain credibility. Maybe you are right — a new broom is needed!
Yes, I agree that it would be an uphill fight for the Liberals.
what annoys me intensely is that time and time again the media spreads the story that the Liberals are worth talking about and so concentrate on only the two well knowns.
It's lazy reporting and reinforces a myth so people believe it - a vote for the Liberals is a wasted vote.
The reason that I didn't get elected could be the same. People weren't convinced that I had a good enough chance.
As far as the unthinking followers: yes I met a few of them but many were quite receptive which makes me wonder whether my previous reason is correct.
Electric cars are less polluting.
The electricity that drives them can be generated under practically none polluting conditions in large highly efficient power plants. On this scale the Carbon Dioxide produced can be recovered by specifically designed equipment as has already been done in I believe Germany.
If we wish to be efficient and clean: the electric car makes sense.
Or have I missed something?
At the risk of straying off topic, I thought this graphic on the Information is Beautful website headlined "Planes or volcano? What's emitting the most CO2 per day?" was interesting:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/planes-or-volcano/
I'm all for interesting "off topic" behavior!
Here's the link in clickable form!
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/planes-or-volcano/
Anyone one reading this fancy being an "author" on this blog?
Then you could launch your own burning(explosive maybe) topic.
I'm all for it!
Good point re the volcano.
All that travel and to what purpose?
Wouldn't people enjoy a holiday within 50 miles instead?
I've lost most of my interest in tripping around the world (been there got the . . shirt). I do enjoy doing stuff here instead spending a fraction of the money doing pottery and buying the odd picnic table instead - two more on the way for Gill Banks.
Having said that I do enjoy keeping in touch with my roots with a trip to Paris once a year if possible.
This will have to fit round the needs of a greenhouse now!
Who said something about being 'off topic'?
Love to see you on a bike Geoff ask Ralph has he a spare 3 Wheeler
You would touch base with more people and discover a new world
Regarding cycling:
Thanks for the welcome prod.
I have been a keen cyclist and have my own. I used it daily when living in London to get to work.
In fact one of my form thought it would be a good practical joke to undo my brakes with almost disastrous consequences!
Fortunately I survived the first need to stop.
Here in Ulverston my trips, for the most part, are done on foot. I don't have to use the car except for carrying things.
Having an allotment puts the case for getting their by cycle and I'll be getting my faithful steed out and giving it a service!
Gladys - Coal / Gas power stations have an energy efficacy of between 30% for the older stations upto 60% for the newer stations. The regular car efficacy is 30% so already if you use electric you're likely to be already better of. Modern electric motors are 90%+ efficacy so the majority of the power station electric is used
Energy used in the building for each type of car will be roughly the same, with electric cars being so new they are already looking at recycling
There are some electric cars coming on the market although there is a long way to go to get them to the same price range and reach to majic 300 mile range per charge. Lots of UK companies are involved in electric car developments, these 2 short clips show what these cars can do.
Gearless Pt1
Gearless Pt2
Thanks Dave,
More on electric cars:
The main holdup in their development is that of the means of storing the electricity. Old batteries were too heavy. New ones are a lot better.
Is there a way of storing more electricity or futuristically beaming power into the car as it moves - which in theory could be done with radio waves.
France I understand is wanting to be world leader of car battery design and technology. Now that's not heavy engineering and Barrow's strength. The closest fit as I understand it is the alternative power generation industry.
Let's bring back our steel furnaces and raw material production. We've also got loads of very pure iron ore immediately beneath us. We need to come up with an economic way of mining it: wind power to supply the energy to pump that intrusive water out?
Apparently we've also got loads of oil beneath Walney Island.
Let's not get blinkered by what is and is not possible!
Okay, Geoff, Dave Lakeuk and any others pro-electric cars, this is why electric cars are NOT the answer. I am not good at explaining these things so I enlisted my son to put forward the argument:
Why electric cars are not the answer.
Firstly, cost. The fundamental problem with electric cars is the relatively low power density of batteries - when measured by volume or weight. This is improving, but the batteries are very expensive. They take a lot of energy to create, and another lot of energy to recycle - not to mention some rather obnoxious materials in them.
They are also slow to recharge - to the extent that there are now proposals for complex removable packs and automated battery swapping bays to allow 'recharging' by replacement. That requires a huge investment in facilities and spare batteries.
As to efficiency, instead of burning fuel at the point of use and converting it directly into mechanical energy, it's burned at a power station, used to create steam, the steam then creates mechanical energy, that is converted to electircal energy, transmitted around the country, converted down again to charge the battery where it's converted to chemical energy. Then at the point of use, the chemical energy is turned back into mechanical energy to drive the car. it might be worth pointing out that one of the reasons ships moved from steam to diesel is that diesel is more efficient thermodynamically and the efficiency of a diesel engine exceeds the theoretically achievable efficiency of a steam turbine.
So overall - is an electric car more efficient than a liquid fuelled one ? After all those conversions, probably not.
So against battery, it takes a lot of energy and resources to make the batteries, it takes a lot to dispose of/recycle them at end of life, and they aren't all that efficient in between.
Now lets look at practicalities. In this country we are reliant on fossil fuel for power generation - and that isn't going to change in the near future. You can buy 'green' electricity, but don't kid yourself that using extra 'green' electricity doesn't result in more CO2 emissions - because every unit of 'green' electricity you buy and use to charge a car isn't available to replace coal/oil/gas produced electricity being used by others. In other words, if you use a unit of electricity to charge your car, then somewhere a gas/oil/coal powered station has to turn it's output up to create a unit to sell to someone else.
We are already reliant on imported energy - nuclear generated power from France, oil and gas from various places. If pretty well any of these suppliers were to turn off the switch, then we'd have a deficit and in all probability have a rolling blackout program (that's how little reserve capacity and diversity we have now). Anyone recall the 70's ?
Add lots of electric cars to the grid - and it won't be able to supply them. Try to charge a lot of them at once - and the distribution network couldn't carry the extra load either in most places.
There are alternatives. Synthetic methanol production is just one - it's a liquid fuel, easily transported and retailed using existing infrastructure, and new vehicles could be made 'flex fuel' by fairly minor changes for very little cost. It's miscible (mixes with) petrol and ethanol in any proportion, and it's actually safer in case of fire or spillage than petrol. It's also less harmful than petrol if ingested or inhaled.
Being liquid it's easily transported by unpressurised tankers - including ships - so it can be made anywhere there is the power to produce it. All it needs is CO2 from the air, and hydrogen. If made in sunnier places, the hydrogen can be obtained by electrolytic cracking of water using photo-voltaic generated power. And overall, it is carbon neutral to create and use.
Simon Hobson
Post a Comment