From:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...hold-that-sig/



"Taxpayers have been left with a £17,000 bill for every household that
signed up to the Governments failed flagship energy efficiency scheme,
the Green Deal.

Ministers wasted a total of £240 million on the ill-fated programme,
which was launched in 2013 with the intention of upgrading Britains
entire housing stock, a damning National Audit Office report found.

The Green Deal was supposed to encourage households to take out loans to
fund the cost of installing measures such as insulation or double
glazing, with the cost paid back out of the resulting savings on their
energy bills.

Yet the scheme was eventually abandoned in July last year after just
14,000 households signed up, taking out loans worth just £50 million -
on average less than £3,600 each. By contrast the Department of Energy
and Climate Change (DECC) had spent £240 million €“ more than £17,000 per
household €“ on setting up, promoting and helping administer the scheme.

The Green Deal did not deliver value for money and €œfailed to deliver
any meaningful benefit€�, Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, concluded.

The NAO also criticised the Government for the costly design of another
energy efficiency scheme, the Energy Company Obligation (ECO), which
required gas and electricity suppliers to upgrade homes.

The £3bn scheme was paid for on energy bills and was almost three times
more expensive per tonne or carbon saved than previous schemes, so
increasing energy bills, the NAO said.

The DECC said the energy efficiency schemes would together €œdeliver over
£6 billion of energy bill savings to the most vulnerable€� and had helped
make more than one million homes warmer.

It said it had already taken action €œto address the issues in this
report€� by ceasing funding for the company that issued the loans and
launching an independent review of the energy efficiency sector."



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 02:02:00 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
From:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...hold-that-sig/



"Taxpayers have been left with a £17,000 bill for every household that
signed up to the Government's failed flagship energy efficiency scheme,
the Green Deal.

Ministers wasted a total of £240 million on the ill-fated programme,
which was launched in 2013 with the intention of upgrading Britain's
entire housing stock, a damning National Audit Office report found.

The Green Deal was supposed to encourage households to take out loans to
fund the cost of installing measures such as insulation or double
glazing, with the cost paid back out of the resulting savings on their
energy bills.

Yet the scheme was eventually abandoned in July last year after just
14,000 households signed up, taking out loans worth just £50 million -
on average less than £3,600 each. By contrast the Department of Energy
and Climate Change (DECC) had spent £240 million - more than £17,000 per
household - on setting up, promoting and helping administer the scheme.

The Green Deal did not deliver value for money and "failed to deliver
any meaningful benefit", Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, concluded.

The NAO also criticised the Government for the costly design of another
energy efficiency scheme, the Energy Company Obligation (ECO), which
required gas and electricity suppliers to upgrade homes.

The £3bn scheme was paid for on energy bills and was almost three times
more expensive per tonne or carbon saved than previous schemes, so
increasing energy bills, the NAO said.

The DECC said the energy efficiency schemes would together "deliver over
£6 billion of energy bill savings to the most vulnerable" and had helped
make more than one million homes warmer.

It said it had already taken action "to address the issues in this
report" by ceasing funding for the company that issued the loans and
launching an independent review of the energy efficiency sector."

How on earth did this wheeze cost them £240m?


NT

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

quote

"Taxpayers have been left with a £17,000 bill for every household that signed up to the
Government's failed flagship energy efficiency scheme, the Green Deal.

Ministers wasted a total of £240 million on the ill-fated programme,
The Green Deal was supposed to encourage households to take out loans to fund the cost
of installing measures such as insulation or double glazing, with the cost paid back
out of the resulting savings on their energy bills.

Yet the scheme was eventually abandoned in July last year after just 14,000 households
signed up,

The DECC said the energy efficiency schemes would together "deliver over £6 billion of
energy bill savings to the most vulnerable" and had helped make more than one million
homes warmer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...hold-that-sig/


/ quote

Leaving aside the cost of previous programmes, Trident went fully operational
in 1994. The system cost £12.6 bn at 1996 prices and costs £280m a year to
maintain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...d_Kingdom#Cost


While the estimated cost of replacing the four Trident submarines, a necessity by 2020
has risen to 31bn

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6745416.html


In case anyone has forgotten, The Berlin Wall came down in 1989, and the Soviet Union
broke up in 1991. Fully 3 years before the first Trident submarine sailed.*

The Green energy scheme was clearly misguided and overoptimistic its forecasts
as how many would take up the scheme, but at least in principle if their harebrained
projections had been nearer the mark there would have been clear beneficiaries

Perhaps those who are clearly exercised about this waste, might care to explain what
value for money the UK taxpayer is getting exactly having spent £17.6 billion on the
current
Trident programme, at the cost £280 million per year, with a further £31.bn in 2010
given that the Soviet Union never even existed throughout the whole of that time.

So who exactly are the beneficiaries supposed to be of the Trident nuclear submarine
programme, excepting workers in the respective industries ?

And no, don't even go there -

"The Chinese population is equivalent to 18.72% of the total world population. "

http://www.google.co.uk/url?url=http...ZpRm6VT 5-l0Q

Against which four puny submarines, even £31 bn worth are a proverbial flea bite.

So where's the value for money there ?


michael adams

* When looking this up I didn't realise this myself. So, as the old saying goes, I stand
to be
corrected as to these precise dates.

....

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 09:53:42 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

quote

"Taxpayers have been left with a £17,000 bill for every household that signed up to the
Government's failed flagship energy efficiency scheme, the Green Deal.

Ministers wasted a total of £240 million on the ill-fated programme,
The Green Deal was supposed to encourage households to take out loans to fund the cost
of installing measures such as insulation or double glazing, with the cost paid back
out of the resulting savings on their energy bills.

Yet the scheme was eventually abandoned in July last year after just 14,000 households
signed up,

The DECC said the energy efficiency schemes would together "deliver over £6 billion of
energy bill savings to the most vulnerable" and had helped make more than one million
homes warmer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...hold-that-sig/

The Green energy scheme was clearly misguided and overoptimistic its forecasts
as how many would take up the scheme, but at least in principle if their harebrained
projections had been nearer the mark there would have been clear beneficiaries

Had it spent a sane amount of money the benefit might have been worth the cost. But £240m to set up a loan scheme is some wild abuse of money.


Perhaps those who are clearly exercised about this waste, might care to explain what
value for money the UK taxpayer is getting exactly having spent £17.6 billion on the
current
Trident programme, at the cost £280 million per year, with a further £31.bn in 2010

do you not know why we have military spending?

given that the Soviet Union never even existed throughout the whole of that time.

Russia still exists, so does the middle east etc.


"The Chinese population is equivalent to 18.72% of the total world population. "

is, not is equivalent to


four puny submarines, even £31 bn worth are a proverbial flea bite.

not on my planet.


NT

In article ,
wrote:
Perhaps those who are clearly exercised about this waste, might care
to explain what value for money the UK taxpayer is getting exactly
having spent £17.6 billion on the current Trident programme, at the
cost £280 million per year, with a further £31.bn in 2010

do you not know why we have military spending?

What sort of military spending has been of actual use since the last WW?

That spent on conventional weapons, etc. And the conventional side of the
navy. And in both of those, we are badly under strength at the present
time. I'd hate to think what the outcome would be today if there was
another Falklands war.

So spending a large proportion of the military cake on a 'deterrent' with
no other uses is a nonsense, while starving the important side of cash.

given that the Soviet Union never even existed throughout the whole of
that time.

Russia still exists, so does the middle east etc.

Neither of which is likely to start a nuclear war. If the religious
terrorists of the middle east were capable of it, they'd already have done
so.

--
*I dropped out of communism class because of lousy Marx.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

wrote in message
...

do you not know why we have military spending?

Yes.

And what's that got to do with the Trident programme.

Please explain why in your own words why the Trident
programme represents good value for money, as against
lesser sums which might have been spent, in recognition
of the changed world situation.


michael adams

....

On 14/04/2016 11:41, michael adams wrote:
wrote in message
...

do you not know why we have military spending?

Yes.

And what's that got to do with the Trident programme.

Please explain why in your own words why the Trident
programme represents good value for money, as against
lesser sums which might have been spent, in recognition
of the changed world situation.


michael adams

...



Russia was never likely to start a nuclear war.
However the growing number of militant lead states might use a nuke if
they can get one.
They will think twice about it if they have a few mervs pointing at them.

You do realise that the money mostly goes in wages so if it isn't spent
on wages the economy will be worse off? What else can they spend it on,
more windmills?

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 11:41:35 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...

do you not know why we have military spending?

Yes.

And what's that got to do with the Trident programme.

Please explain why in your own words why the Trident

sorry but this really has nothing to do with the green deal.


NT

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 15:32:18 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:

Russia was never likely to start a nuclear war.

You're certainly humorous. Russia tried to start a nuclear war in 1983. Just one person saved the day, thank god. Russia planned for and even intended to partly survive nuclear war.


However the growing number of militant lead states might use a nuke if
they can get one.
They will think twice about it if they have a few mervs pointing at them.

You do realise that the money mostly goes in wages so if it isn't spent
on wages the economy will be worse off?

I suspect the economy would do a lot better if billions weren't sucked from it

What else can they spend it on,
more windmills?

I can think of some things I'd spend more money on.


NT

On 14/04/2016 15:42, wrote:
On Thursday, 14 April 2016 15:32:18 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:

Russia was never likely to start a nuclear war.

You're certainly humorous. Russia tried to start a nuclear war in
1983. Just one person saved the day, thank god. Russia planned for
and even intended to partly survive nuclear war.

Who do you think was going to press the button in '83.
Who put ss20 short range missiles in Germany before the Russians started
to put them in Cuba?


However the growing number of militant lead states might use a nuke
if they can get one. They will think twice about it if they have a
few mervs pointing at them.

You do realise that the money mostly goes in wages so if it isn't
spent on wages the economy will be worse off?

I suspect the economy would do a lot better if billions weren't
sucked from it

Where are they sucked too?


What else can they spend it on, more windmills?

I can think of some things I'd spend more money on.

Such as?

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 15:32:18 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 14/04/2016 11:41, michael adams wrote:
wrote in message
...

do you not know why we have military spending?

Yes.

And what's that got to do with the Trident programme.

Please explain why in your own words why the Trident
programme represents good value for money, as against
lesser sums which might have been spent, in recognition
of the changed world situation.


michael adams

...



Russia was never likely to start a nuclear war.
However the growing number of militant lead states might use a nuke if
they can get one.
They will think twice about it if they have a few mervs pointing at them.

You do realise that the money mostly goes in wages so if it isn't spent
on wages the economy will be worse off? What else can they spend it on,
more windmills?

They need celebraties so their plebs have something to spend money on such as tattoos and cars.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Russia was never likely to start a nuclear war.
However the growing number of militant lead states might use a nuke if
they can get one.

They will think twice about it if they have a few mervs pointing at them.

You'd like to believe that, wouldn't you? Since when did anyone worry
about retribution when waging war? They do so because they think they can
win. Or get rewarded in heaven, like suicide bombers.

--
*What happens if you get scared half to death twice? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 14/04/2016 16:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Russia was never likely to start a nuclear war.
However the growing number of militant lead states might use a nuke if
they can get one.

They will think twice about it if they have a few mervs pointing at them.

You'd like to believe that, wouldn't you? Since when did anyone worry
about retribution when waging war? They do so because they think they can
win. Or get rewarded in heaven, like suicide bombers.


Suicide bombers aren't governments.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...

Russia was never likely to start a nuclear war.
However the growing number of militant lead states might use a nuke if they can get
one.

The USA have 14 Ohio Class ballistic nuclear missile equipped nuclear
submarines.

France currently has 4 Triomphe Class ballistic nuclear missile
equipped nuclear submarines.

In what circumstances do you forsee the US allowing either the UK
or France to initiate a nuclear war ? Rather than getting full
"value for money" for their own 14 subs ? See [1] below.


They will think twice about it if they have a few mervs pointing at them.

If you're talking about Moslem fundamentalists then they sincerely believe
that all Moslems including millions of innocent civialans wasted by nukes
are all destined for heaven as martyrs. Even if the virgins
bit is a mistranslation. In their case "deterrence" rather
than being a deterrent, is actually a positive encouragement.


You do realise that the money mostly goes in wages

Oh really ? And where do most of any wages go? If you care to look
it up you'll find that the UK's nuclear missiles are only "leased"
from the USA.

quote

The UK does not own its Trident missiles—they are leased from
the USA. UK Trident submarines must regularly visit the US base
at King's Bay, Georgia to return their missiles to the US
stockpile for maintenance and replace them with others.

/quote

http://www.publications.parliament.u...86/986we13.htm

So much for the "value for money" of our "independent deterrent"

Basically the only possible "value for money" is if, after having most
of Great Britain turned into a nuclear wasteland so as to sustain
our "special relationship" with the USA, some surviving politician deep
in some bunker somewhere will at least be able to say "when it came down
to it at least the people of this great country of ours, Great Britain
did their bit. Even if they're all now dead"


michael adams

....

wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 14 April 2016 11:41:35 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...

do you not know why we have military spending?

Yes.

And what's that got to do with the Trident programme.

Please explain why in your own words why the Trident

sorry but this really has nothing to do with the green deal.

Neither had your question about military spending.

I was simply pointing out which was by far, the biggest waste
of taxpayers money.


michael adams

...













NT

wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 14 April 2016 09:53:42 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

quote

"Taxpayers have been left with a £17,000 bill for every household that
signed up to the
Government's failed flagship energy efficiency scheme, the Green Deal.

Ministers wasted a total of £240 million on the ill-fated programme,
The Green Deal was supposed to encourage households to take out loans
to fund the cost
of installing measures such as insulation or double glazing, with the
cost paid back
out of the resulting savings on their energy bills.

Yet the scheme was eventually abandoned in July last year after just
14,000 households
signed up,

The DECC said the energy efficiency schemes would together "deliver
over £6 billion of
energy bill savings to the most vulnerable" and had helped make more
than one million
homes warmer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...hold-that-sig/

The Green energy scheme was clearly misguided and overoptimistic its
forecasts
as how many would take up the scheme, but at least in principle if their
harebrained
projections had been nearer the mark there would have been clear
beneficiaries

Had it spent a sane amount of money the benefit might have been worth the
cost.
But £240m to set up a loan scheme is some wild abuse of money.


Perhaps those who are clearly exercised about this waste, might care to
explain what
value for money the UK taxpayer is getting exactly having spent £17.6
billion on the
current
Trident programme, at the cost £280 million per year, with a further
£31.bn in 2010

do you not know why we have military spending?

There is no good reason to have Trident now.

given that the Soviet Union never even existed throughout the whole of
that time.

Russia still exists, so does the middle east etc.

And Trident is completely useless with both of those.

"The Chinese population is equivalent to 18.72% of the total world
population. "

is, not is equivalent to

four puny submarines, even £31 bn worth are a proverbial flea bite.

not on my planet.

More fool your planet. Just who do you claim Trident stops ?

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 07:42:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Russia planned for and even intended to partly survive nuclear war.

So did we. UKWMO, RSG's, ROC, etc Just found this site:

http://www.ringbell.co.uk/ukwmo/index.htm

Warning: Could consume a lot of time.

And don't forget "Protect & Survive".

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 14/04/2016 16:43, michael adams wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 14 April 2016 11:41:35 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...

do you not know why we have military spending?

Yes.

And what's that got to do with the Trident programme.

Please explain why in your own words why the Trident

sorry but this really has nothing to do with the green deal.

Neither had your question about military spending.

I was simply pointing out which was by far, the biggest waste
of taxpayers money.

Indeed, I much prefer having the nukes...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
wrote

Perhaps those who are clearly exercised about this waste, might care
to explain what value for money the UK taxpayer is getting exactly
having spent £17.6 billion on the current Trident programme, at the
cost £280 million per year, with a further £31.bn in 2010

do you not know why we have military spending?

What sort of military spending has been of actual use since the last WW?

What was done in Malaya, Kenya, the Falklands etc.

That spent on conventional weapons, etc. And the conventional
side of the navy. And in both of those, we are badly under
strength at the present time. I'd hate to think what the
outcome would be today if there was another Falklands war.

There wouldn't be one. Britain would just accept the fact that it
didn't have the military capacity to do anything about it and would
just do what even Maggie did, hand Hong Kong back to China.

So spending a large proportion of the military cake
on a 'deterrent' with no other uses is a nonsense,

Particularly when with Trident there is nothing to deter.

while starving the important side of cash.

It makes absolutely no sense to be ****ing an immense amount of
money against the wall so Britain can hang on to a few useless islands
in the south atlantic that it never had any right to in the first place.

given that the Soviet Union never even
existed throughout the whole of that time.

Russia still exists, so does the middle east etc.

Neither of which is likely to start a nuclear war. If the religious
terrorists
of the middle east were capable of it, they'd already have done so.

Its more complicated than that with access to what is needed to do that.

And Trident would make absolutely no difference to middle
eastern terrorists doing what they chose to do anyway.

Even the vastly more capable US nuclear
system had absolutely no effect on 9/11 etc.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 14/04/2016 11:41, michael adams wrote:
wrote in message
...

do you not know why we have military spending?

Yes.

And what's that got to do with the Trident programme.

Please explain why in your own words why the Trident
programme represents good value for money, as against
lesser sums which might have been spent, in recognition
of the changed world situation.

Russia was never likely to start a nuclear war.

Yes.

However the growing number of militant lead states might use a nuke if
they can get one.
They will think twice about it if they have a few mervs pointing at them.

But given that none of those on Trident would be,
and its much more likely that some of the yankee
ones may do, that still doesn’t provide any point
in ****ing all that money against the wall on Trident.

You do realise that the money mostly goes in wages so if it isn't spent on
wages the economy will be worse off?

Not if the money is spent on something else
that makes a lot more sense to spend it on.

What else can they spend it on, more windmills?

That isnt the only alternative.

wrote
dennis@home wrote

Russia was never likely to start a nuclear war.

You're certainly humorous.

You're just pig ignorant.

Russia tried to start a nuclear war in 1983.

Like hell it did. ALL it tried to do was increase
the deterrence of a full nuclear holocaust.

Just one person saved the day,

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

thank god. Russia planned for and even
intended to partly survive nuclear war.

Because that was the only sensible thing
to do in case some loon in the US did
decide that it would be viable to attempt
to nuke russia back to the stone age.

However the growing number of militant
lead states might use a nuke if they can get one.
They will think twice about it if they
have a few mervs pointing at them.

You do realise that the money mostly goes in wages so
if it isn't spent on wages the economy will be worse off?

I suspect the economy would do a lot
better if billions weren't sucked from it

Precisely.

What else can they spend it on, more windmills?

I can think of some things I'd spend more money on.

And it makes a lot more sense to not rip that immense
amount of money out of the economy and **** it against
the wall on Trident that is completely and utterly irrelevant
to anything and let the economy use that for much more
useful stuff.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
dennis@home wrote

Russia was never likely to start a nuclear war.
However the growing number of militant lead
states might use a nuke if they can get one.

They will think twice about it if they have a few mervs pointing at them.

You'd like to believe that, wouldn't you? Since when
did anyone worry about retribution when waging war?

All those times when war didn’t eventuate, stupid.

They do so because they think they can win.

And quite a bit of the time they realise they can't.

Even Maggy realised that and handed Hong
Kong back to China instead of going to war.

Or get rewarded in heaven, like suicide bombers.

Problem is that your relos who didn’t blow themselves
to bits deliberately don’t get rewarded in heaven when
the yanks respond by killing them.

michael adams wrote
dennis@home wrote

Russia was never likely to start a nuclear war.
However the growing number of militant lead states might use a nuke if
they can get one.

The USA have 14 Ohio Class ballistic nuclear missile equipped nuclear
submarines.

France currently has 4 Triomphe Class ballistic nuclear missile equipped
nuclear submarines.

**** all of which are ever in any position to be used.

In what circumstances do you forsee the US allowing either the UK or
France to initiate a nuclear war ?

The US gets no say on that.

They are hardly likely to nuke #10 if the current
PM doesn’t get them to sign off on that first.

Rather than getting full "value for money" for their own 14 subs ? See [1]
below.

See just above.

They will think twice about it if they have a few mervs pointing at them.

If you're talking about Moslem fundamentalists then they sincerely believe
that all Moslems including millions of innocent civialans wasted by nukes
are all destined for heaven as martyrs. Even if the virgins bit is a
mistranslation. In their case "deterrence" rather
than being a deterrent, is actually a positive encouragement.

You do realise that the money mostly goes in wages

Oh really ? And where do most of any wages go? If you care to look it up
you'll find that the UK's nuclear missiles are only "leased" from the USA.

quote

The UK does not own its Trident missiles—they are leased from
the USA. UK Trident submarines must regularly visit the US base
at King's Bay, Georgia to return their missiles to the US
stockpile for maintenance and replace them with others.

/quote

http://www.publications.parliament.u...86/986we13.htm

So much for the "value for money" of our "independent deterrent"

Basically the only possible "value for money" is if, after having most of
Great Britain turned into a nuclear wasteland so as to sustain our
"special relationship" with the USA,

That isnt going to happen if some moslem extremist
gets hold of a nuke from say Pakistan and fires it.

And they won't be letting it off in Britain anyway given
how completely irrelevant Britain is politically now.

some surviving politician deep in some bunker somewhere will at least be
able to say "when it came down to it at least the people of this great
country of ours, Great Britain did their bit. Even if they're all now
dead"

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 21:13:36 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
wrote

Perhaps those who are clearly exercised about this waste, might care
to explain what value for money the UK taxpayer is getting exactly
having spent £17.6 billion on the current Trident programme, at the
cost £280 million per year, with a further £31.bn in 2010

do you not know why we have military spending?

What sort of military spending has been of actual use since the last WW?

What was done in Malaya, Kenya, the Falklands etc.

That spent on conventional weapons, etc. And the conventional
side of the navy. And in both of those, we are badly under
strength at the present time. I'd hate to think what the
outcome would be today if there was another Falklands war.

There wouldn't be one. Britain would just accept the fact that it
didn't have the military capacity to do anything about it and would
just do what even Maggie did, hand Hong Kong back to China.

So spending a large proportion of the military cake
on a 'deterrent' with no other uses is a nonsense,

Particularly when with Trident there is nothing to deter.

while starving the important side of cash.

It makes absolutely no sense to be ****ing an immense amount of
money against the wall so Britain can hang on to a few useless islands
in the south atlantic that it never had any right to in the first place.

The Argentinians have no right to be in Argentina
You have no right to be in Australia.

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 15:32:18 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 14/04/2016 11:41, michael adams wrote:
wrote in message
...

do you not know why we have military spending?

Yes.

And what's that got to do with the Trident programme.

Please explain why in your own words why the Trident
programme represents good value for money, as against
lesser sums which might have been spent, in recognition
of the changed world situation.


michael adams

...



Russia was never likely to start a nuclear war.


http://www.history.com/news/history-...ar-close-calls


However the growing number of militant lead states might use a nuke if
they can get one.
They will think twice about it if they have a few mervs pointing at them.

You do realise that the money mostly goes in wages so if it isn't spent
on wages the economy will be worse off? What else can they spend it on,
more windmills?

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 16:24:54 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Russia was never likely to start a nuclear war.
However the growing number of militant lead states might use a nuke if
they can get one.

They will think twice about it if they have a few mervs pointing at them.

You'd like to believe that, wouldn't you? Since when did anyone worry
about retribution when waging war? They do so because they think they can
win. Or get rewarded in heaven, like suicide bombers.

Mutual Assured Destruction.
The Russians knew they couldn't win.

However Islamonuts are another matter entirely.
The world has never been more dangerous.

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 16:30:09 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 14/04/2016 16:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Russia was never likely to start a nuclear war.
However the growing number of militant lead states might use a nuke if
they can get one.

They will think twice about it if they have a few mervs pointing at them.

You'd like to believe that, wouldn't you? Since when did anyone worry
about retribution when waging war? They do so because they think they can
win. Or get rewarded in heaven, like suicide bombers.


Suicide bombers aren't governments.

Oh yes they are.
They are funded by Saudi Arabia and maybe Iran.

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 16:43:15 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 14 April 2016 11:41:35 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...

do you not know why we have military spending?

Yes.

And what's that got to do with the Trident programme.

Please explain why in your own words why the Trident

sorry but this really has nothing to do with the green deal.

Neither had your question about military spending.

I was simply pointing out which was by far, the biggest waste
of taxpayers money.


michael adams

..













NT

Military spend is vitally neccesary.
The world has never been a more dangerous place.

If the Ukrainians had kept their nuclear weapons, do you think the Russians would have invaded them?

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 20:26:19 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 14 April 2016 09:53:42 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

quote

"Taxpayers have been left with a £17,000 bill for every household that
signed up to the
Government's failed flagship energy efficiency scheme, the Green Deal.

Ministers wasted a total of £240 million on the ill-fated programme,
The Green Deal was supposed to encourage households to take out loans
to fund the cost
of installing measures such as insulation or double glazing, with the
cost paid back
out of the resulting savings on their energy bills.

Yet the scheme was eventually abandoned in July last year after just
14,000 households
signed up,

The DECC said the energy efficiency schemes would together "deliver
over £6 billion of
energy bill savings to the most vulnerable" and had helped make more
than one million
homes warmer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...hold-that-sig/

The Green energy scheme was clearly misguided and overoptimistic its
forecasts
as how many would take up the scheme, but at least in principle if their
harebrained
projections had been nearer the mark there would have been clear
beneficiaries

Had it spent a sane amount of money the benefit might have been worth the
cost.
But £240m to set up a loan scheme is some wild abuse of money.


Perhaps those who are clearly exercised about this waste, might care to
explain what
value for money the UK taxpayer is getting exactly having spent £17.6
billion on the
current
Trident programme, at the cost £280 million per year, with a further
£31.bn in 2010

do you not know why we have military spending?

There is no good reason to have Trident now.

given that the Soviet Union never even existed throughout the whole of
that time.

Russia still exists, so does the middle east etc.

And Trident is completely useless with both of those.

"The Chinese population is equivalent to 18.72% of the total world
population. "

is, not is equivalent to

four puny submarines, even £31 bn worth are a proverbial flea bite.

not on my planet.

More fool your planet. Just who do you claim Trident stops ?

Anybody else with nuclear weapons ****-fer-brains.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 14/04/2016 16:43, michael adams wrote:

I was simply pointing out which was by far, the biggest waste
of taxpayers money.

Indeed, I much prefer having the nukes...

Indeed. Why waste £ 240 million, of taxpayers money on
an ill-conceived "green" scheme to upgrade Britain's entire
housing stock by installing insulation, and double glazing,
when for only 758 times as much, (£18.2 billions and counting)
the UK can be granted the privilege of leasing a completely
useless nuclear weapons system from the USA.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...86/986we13.htm


It's impossible to concieve of better value for money than that
really, short of being granted permission to apply to become
the 51st State of the Union.

But there again, even if there are any British taxpayers who
still baulk at wasting, sorry spending £18.2 billions on this
wonderful opportunity to lease these useless missiles, as Tim
Streater says in a two party system as mainly applies in the
UK the voters always have the chance to vote out of office any
party that supports such a policy. Er, except that both of them
do of course.


michael adams

....

harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
wrote

Perhaps those who are clearly exercised about this waste, might care
to explain what value for money the UK taxpayer is getting exactly
having spent £17.6 billion on the current Trident programme, at the
cost £280 million per year, with a further £31.bn in 2010

do you not know why we have military spending?

What sort of military spending has been of actual use since the last WW?

What was done in Malaya, Kenya, the Falklands etc.

That spent on conventional weapons, etc. And the conventional
side of the navy. And in both of those, we are badly under
strength at the present time. I'd hate to think what the
outcome would be today if there was another Falklands war.

There wouldn't be one. Britain would just accept the fact that it
didn't have the military capacity to do anything about it and would
just do what even Maggie did, hand Hong Kong back to China.

So spending a large proportion of the military cake
on a 'deterrent' with no other uses is a nonsense,

Particularly when with Trident there is nothing to deter.

while starving the important side of cash.

It makes absolutely no sense to be ****ing an immense amount of
money against the wall so Britain can hang on to a few useless islands
in the south atlantic that it never had any right to in the first place.

The Argentinians have no right to be in Argentina

Wrong, they swamped the locals.

You have no right to be in Australia.

Wrong, we swamped the locals, just like your anglo saxon
ancestors did with the barbarians that were there before them.

harry wrote
dennis@home wrote
michael adams wrote
wrote

do you not know why we have military spending?

Yes.

And what's that got to do with the Trident programme.

Please explain why in your own words why the Trident
programme represents good value for money, as against
lesser sums which might have been spent, in recognition
of the changed world situation.

Russia was never likely to start a nuclear war.

http://www.history.com/news/history-...ar-close-calls

They were never close calls for nuclear war.

However the growing number of militant lead states might use a nuke if
they can get one.
They will think twice about it if they have a few mervs pointing at them.

You do realise that the money mostly goes in wages so if it isn't spent
on wages the economy will be worse off? What else can they spend it on,
more windmills?

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 14 April 2016 16:24:54 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Russia was never likely to start a nuclear war.
However the growing number of militant lead states might use a nuke if
they can get one.

They will think twice about it if they have a few mervs pointing at
them.

You'd like to believe that, wouldn't you? Since when did anyone worry
about retribution when waging war? They do so because they think they can
win. Or get rewarded in heaven, like suicide bombers.

Mutual Assured Destruction.
The Russians knew they couldn't win.

However Islamonuts are another matter entirely.
The world has never been more dangerous.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant on that last than you usually manage.

Even if they do manage to get one from say Pakistan, that would be
no worse than Hiroshima or Nagasaki and we survived those fine.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 14 April 2016 16:30:09 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 14/04/2016 16:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Russia was never likely to start a nuclear war.
However the growing number of militant lead states might use a nuke if
they can get one.

They will think twice about it if they have a few mervs pointing at
them.

You'd like to believe that, wouldn't you? Since when did anyone worry
about retribution when waging war? They do so because they think they
can
win. Or get rewarded in heaven, like suicide bombers.


Suicide bombers aren't governments.

Oh yes they are.

Pigs arse they are.

They are funded by Saudi Arabia and maybe Iran.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 14 April 2016 16:43:15 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 14 April 2016 11:41:35 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...

do you not know why we have military spending?

Yes.

And what's that got to do with the Trident programme.

Please explain why in your own words why the Trident

sorry but this really has nothing to do with the green deal.

Neither had your question about military spending.

I was simply pointing out which was by far, the biggest waste
of taxpayers money.

Military spend is vitally neccesary.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

The world has never been a more dangerous place.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

If the Ukrainians had kept their nuclear weapons, do
you think the Russians would have invaded them?

Yep. Because they knew they wouldn't be stupid enough to use them.

And no one except the yanks could invade
Britain even if it didn't have Trident anyway.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 14 April 2016 20:26:19 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 14 April 2016 09:53:42 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

quote

"Taxpayers have been left with a £17,000 bill for every household
that
signed up to the
Government's failed flagship energy efficiency scheme, the Green
Deal.

Ministers wasted a total of £240 million on the ill-fated programme,
The Green Deal was supposed to encourage households to take out
loans
to fund the cost
of installing measures such as insulation or double glazing, with
the
cost paid back
out of the resulting savings on their energy bills.

Yet the scheme was eventually abandoned in July last year after just
14,000 households
signed up,

The DECC said the energy efficiency schemes would together "deliver
over £6 billion of
energy bill savings to the most vulnerable" and had helped make more
than one million
homes warmer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...hold-that-sig/

The Green energy scheme was clearly misguided and overoptimistic its
forecasts
as how many would take up the scheme, but at least in principle if
their
harebrained
projections had been nearer the mark there would have been clear
beneficiaries

Had it spent a sane amount of money the benefit might have been worth
the
cost.
But £240m to set up a loan scheme is some wild abuse of money.


Perhaps those who are clearly exercised about this waste, might care
to
explain what
value for money the UK taxpayer is getting exactly having spent £17.6
billion on the
current
Trident programme, at the cost £280 million per year, with a further
£31.bn in 2010

do you not know why we have military spending?

There is no good reason to have Trident now.

given that the Soviet Union never even existed throughout the whole of
that time.

Russia still exists, so does the middle east etc.

And Trident is completely useless with both of those.

"The Chinese population is equivalent to 18.72% of the total world
population. "

is, not is equivalent to

four puny submarines, even £31 bn worth are a proverbial flea bite.

not on my planet.

More fool your planet. Just who do you claim Trident stops ?

Anybody else with nuclear weapons

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

Pakistan isnt stopped from invading Britain by Trident.

Neither is France.

Or Israel.

If the yanks chose to **** you lot over, you wouldn't even
be able to use Trident, because it's their missiles, stupid.

In article ,
michael adams wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 14/04/2016 16:43, michael adams wrote:

I was simply pointing out which was by far, the biggest waste
of taxpayers money.

Indeed, I much prefer having the nukes...

Indeed. Why waste £ 240 million, of taxpayers money on
an ill-conceived "green" scheme to upgrade Britain's entire
housing stock by installing insulation, and double glazing,
when for only 758 times as much, (£18.2 billions and counting)
the UK can be granted the privilege of leasing a completely
useless nuclear weapons system from the USA.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...86/986we13.htm


It's impossible to concieve of better value for money than that
really, short of being granted permission to apply to become
the 51st State of the Union.

But there again, even if there are any British taxpayers who
still baulk at wasting, sorry spending £18.2 billions on this
wonderful opportunity to lease these useless missiles, as Tim
Streater says in a two party system as mainly applies in the
UK the voters always have the chance to vote out of office any
party that supports such a policy. Er, except that both of them
do of course.

With a united Europe the costs of a nuclear deterrent could be shared by
all members. But those who want out probably consider many of those
countries enemies anyway. ;-)

As regards the insulation scheme, I'd have been very interested if it had
offered options for the common older Victorian house. And allowed at least
a degree of DIY. But as it was implemented it looked like just another
pressure group (insulating firms etc) persuading the government it would
be a good idea. For only them, of course.

--
*Husband and cat lost -- reward for cat

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Friday, 15 April 2016 07:20:33 UTC+1, harry wrote:

The Argentinians have no right to be in Argentina
You have no right to be in Australia.

Well we don't want him here do we so leave him where he is !

On Friday, 15 April 2016 11:16:24 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


With a united Europe

lok at the moneky see teh monkey hear the monkey.


the costs of a nuclear deterrent could be shared by
all members.

Which it hasn;t done and should which proves just how useful Eurpore actiualy is when doing something important.


But those who want out probably consider many of those
countries enemies anyway. ;-)

So why don't we have a nuclear detternt for europe paid for buy the EU rather than the UK.





As regards the insulation scheme, I'd have been very interested if it had
offered options for the common older Victorian house. And allowed at least
a degree of DIY. But as it was implemented it looked like just another
pressure group (insulating firms etc) persuading the government it would
be a good idea. For only them, of course.

That's what the majority of the shemes are for including PAT testing.

On 15/04/2016 07:23, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 14 April 2016 15:32:18 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 14/04/2016 11:41, michael adams wrote:
wrote in message
...

do you not know why we have military spending?

Yes.

And what's that got to do with the Trident programme.

Please explain why in your own words why the Trident
programme represents good value for money, as against
lesser sums which might have been spent, in recognition
of the changed world situation.


michael adams

...



Russia was never likely to start a nuclear war.


http://www.history.com/news/history-...ar-close-calls



Why don't you read that?
Why don't you ever read what you link too?

If you do then you may notice that it was the yanks that nearly went to
war in each case where aggression was present.

The two that were errors it was the Russians that decided not to go to war.

It was the yanks that were going to war over Cuba too, they decided it
was fine to have short range nukes in Germany aimed at Russia but it was
worth destruction to stop the same short range missiles in Cuba.