Lepista Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12549291 In this, it says that £5million has been wasted on consultancy fees. Fair enough. However there is this quote in the article: Labour have described it as "a tragic waste of money." Didn't Labour start the consultancy period? How can they now blame the coalition for cancelling it? what nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk...-wales-12549291 In this, it says that £5million has been wasted on consultancy fees. Fair enough. However there is this quote in the article: Didn't Labour start the consultancy period? How can they now blame the coalition for cancelling it? what nonsense. Labour are finally admitting that their tenure was a tragic waste of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Labour are finally admitting that their tenure was a tragic waste of money. As it always is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UK Debt Slave Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Labour are finally admitting that their tenure was a tragic waste of money. They'll never admit to that. They are far too vain and arrogant to face the possibility that they are wrong about anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Another thing they're implying is that no matter what the consultants had come up with Labour would have paid up and still gone ahead and spent the likely £30-40 billion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montesquieu Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Another thing they're implying is that no matter what the consultants had come up with Labour would have paid up and still gone ahead and spent the likely £30-40 billion. If you know anything at all about consulting contracts you would know that huge sums were spent in the privatisations of Thatcher and Major. Everything in modern politics - from SPADS to consultants, spin doctors to PFI (called PPP in those days) date from Tory administrations. It's not specifically a Labour problem at all. Having said that Labour accusing anybody of waste is a bit rich .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Eagle Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Labour are finally admitting that their tenure was a tragic waste of money. ANY government is a waste of money. In Belgium they are discovering that life goes on as usual (if not actually better) without a government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Didn't Labour start the consultancy period? How can they now blame the coalition for cancelling it? what nonsense. ...the problem with LABOUR is they don't know their ar..holes from their elbows ...and still think everyone is as stupid as themselves.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 If you know anything at all about consulting contracts you would know that huge sums were spent in the privatisations of Thatcher and Major. Everything in modern politics - from SPADS to consultants, spin doctors to PFI (called PPP in those days) date from Tory administrations. It's not specifically a Labour problem at all. Having said that Labour accusing anybody of waste is a bit rich .... I agree about the waste and the sums of money but I think you're missing the point I'm making. You don't really need to know anything about the detail of consulting contracts to know about the huge sums spent by them all - all you need to do is take note of the news. The point is that despite the dire straits the UK finds itself in Labour implicitly say they would still have spent the £30-40 billions and it wouldn't really have mattered what the consultants had come up with they would have paid them as well. In fact they almost certainly knew the consultants advice would be positive - that would likely be in the brief. The possibility that some government from days gone by might have had the same attitude to their own pet projects as well doesn't make it right now - even if the attitude does seem to have become endemic in the UK's porker politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonb Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 ANY government is a waste of money. In Belgium they are discovering that life goes on as usual (if not actually better) without a government. Belgium still has a government. There is a king making all the decisions, and a civil service carrying them out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Another thing they're implying is that no matter what the consultants had come up with Labour would have paid up and still gone ahead and spent the likely £30-40 billion. I think you're missing the point of what the consultants are there for. They're not there to aid the decision making process, someone has already decided that they want the project to go ahead and the consultants will come to whatever conclusion the person in charge wants. They're there so that when it all goes tits up the people in charge can say "not our fault, we just did what our advisors told us to". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diver Dan Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Belgium still has a government. There is a king making all the decisions, and a civil service carrying them out. And presumably the local council organises the bins and makes sure that someone switches the streetlights on and off. Everyone else just gets on with their lives Do you really need much more government than that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Jackboots Smith now 'works' for KPMG, she signed off on a juicy contract whilst in office, it's a miraculous coincidence. You don't hear much from this Nu-Nu-Labour bunch, but Brown, Blair, Campbell, Prescott and Jacqui Smiff seem to be endlessly shilling themselves all over the place. Urgh. Guess who is behind this set up :- http://www.taylorhoon.co.uk/ "Our aim is to provide business with market intelligence on ways to gain competitive advantage", that sounds like a nice way of saying "One of the challenges that I'm really looking forward to is translating my knowledge and contacts about the international scene into something that, frankly, makes money". Edited February 23, 2011 by sillybear2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the shaping machine Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 And presumably the local council organises the bins and makes sure that someone switches the streetlights on and off. Everyone else just gets on with their lives Do you really need much more government than that? I wonder if leftists will now stop using Somalia as a bogyman when someone suggests we could live with a smaller state? (lets try it for size) "Cut spending!? Why don't you just go and live in Belgium?!" :angry: Doesn't really work does it? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 The Severn Barrage will probably become viable when oil hits $300 bbl, by which time it will be too expensive to build for exactly that reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the shaping machine Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 The Severn Barrage will probably become viable when oil hits $300 bbl, by which time it will be too expensive to build for exactly that reason. Nuclear power stations will always make more sense. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepLurker Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Nuclear power stations will always make more sense. You should be very careful about being so absolute. What happens if next year Griffin gets elected Prime Minister? Immediate embargo on nuclear tech & raw supplies, our power stations lie idle. Highly unlikely, I agree, but not impossible. So using the word "always" is ill-advised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Nuclear power stations will always make more sense. Including the radiation that shall last a 1000 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJAR Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Nuclear power stations will always make more sense. . actually the supply of uranium in the worl is even more limited than oil. we will ave to go back to coal until something better comes along - my money is on efficient solar power in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the shaping machine Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 You should be very careful about being so absolute. What happens if next year Griffin gets elected Prime Minister? Immediate embargo on nuclear tech & raw supplies, our power stations lie idle. Highly unlikely, I agree, but not impossible. So using the word "always" is ill-advised. Just as likely to affect the equipment in the barrage. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the shaping machine Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 actually the supply of uranium in the worl is even more limited than oil. we will ave to go back to coal until something better comes along - my money is on efficient solar power in the end. If we run out of uranium we can move on to thorium and fast breeder reactors. We could even extract the fissionable elements from coal. Solar has way more issues than nuclear. see :- My link . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the shaping machine Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Including the radiation that shall last a 1000 years. The elements that last 1000 years aren't a problem. The really dangerous stuff has a half life measured in days. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepLurker Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Just as likely to affect the equipment in the barrage. I think you've completely missed my point. Please re-read my post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the shaping machine Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I think you've completely missed my point. Please re-read my post. In the unlikely event society collapses to the extent we can't keep nuclear power stations running, I doubt any tidal barrage is going to stay working long, even if it could make up the difference. Remember nuclear power stations are 1950s technology, and much of it was developed here in the UK. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the shaping machine Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Some links for those who wish to read more on this subject :- My link My link . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.