Best Of

Why does energy policy have to be a zero-sum game, it is so frustrating.

I believe strongly in a massive expansion in renewables and nuclear, we need huge investments (from government and privately) and a long-term plan.

But we also need to use fossil fuels and to use our own supplies.

Why can't parties just support both?

Some of it is about energy being a proxy for other stuff. So a lot of the opposition to renewable energy is good old-fashioned NIMBYism. That has always started with the visceral bit (I don't want to see it from my window) and worked back to more rational arguments against.

Some of it is good old-fashined vested interests. Shrewder petrostates know that the oil age might not end due to lack of oil, but it's tempting to keep the party going for one more song. The difference between North Sea production as planned and with "drill baby drill" is pretty tiny, and has been hyped out of all proportion on a national scale, but it does put off the death of some inevitably dying industries for a bit longer.

Some of it- on both sides- is about not wanting to update mental maps. That renewable+battery is a workable solution for 90-95% of the problem is mind-blowing, really. So we shield our minds from being blown. (I think that means that SMRs aren't the answer, unless you tie them to specific users who want their own 24/7/365 supply. Most of the time, they cost more and you can't switch them off.)

And some of it is that our system is terrible at making huge long-term investments. And when we do have a long-term plan, the tendency is to keep quibbling, filddling and trimming, even if the effect is nearly always to increase cost and reduce effectiveness. Look at HS2.

What if we are still all stuck in a Left v Right framework and therefore missing the point of what is actiually happening.

I think it was Solzhenitsyn who said the problem wasn't so much the Communist ideology but ideology itself, the way we can become so committed to an ideal or way of thinking that we become blinkered. We start to suffer from chronic comfirmation bias, believing the things we like and dismissing those we don't.

What if what we are seeing isn't a struggle between Left and Right but rather between Rational and Emotional, between what we can prove is true and what we want to believe .

It doesn't matter if what Reform or the Greens are offering those who want change doesn't work, if people are willing to vote for it because they want to believe it will work.

One thing that draws me to this is the fact that for all the attempts that Harris and the Democrats made to successfully show that much of what Trump proposed from Trade to Investment and Tax cuts was close to Bonkers, people still were willing to vote for it it the hope it wasn't.

If systematically demolishing the other sides economic policies can be overcome by them calling you Radical Marxist Haters and voters believe them how do you fight that?

I watched reform at Holyrood claim they could save £2bn from a £6.5bn budget by cutting many of Scotlands 130+ Qango's and giving power to MSP's and a slimmed down Civil Service. Problem is of the total administrative cost of all of them is estimated at under £700m. Benefits Scotland administers £6.3bn but it's admin cost is only £320m. You can't save three times the admin budget by cutting the admin budget.

It doesn't take much to dismantle this kind of thing and it applies to all parties including the SNP, but the challenges seem to be ineffectual. We seem to be in a kind of doom loop that the bigger the lie ,the more popular it is and the more votes you get, from an electorate that says they don't trust politicians because they all lie.

Peter.

I think this is the right question but you have it back to front.

It is the establishment, for want of a better word, that is wedded to an ideological view of the world and the dissidents of both right and left who are pointing out the many hypocrisies and absurdities of that ideology.

Well the very fact that you used the meaningless term "The Establishment!" shows waht an Ideologue you are. It's like the "Metroploitain Elite"; it's not an accurate discription of anything, it's just a Trump style insult to throw at the other side.

3/10 must try harder.

Peter.

Are you trolling or just being overly defensive?

Let's take a specific example: the claim that "diversity is our strength" is both highly ideological and officially sanctioned, but it's an emotional rather than a rational claim.

The advantages of diverse teams is proven fact, e.g. https://rrapp.spia.princeton.edu/diversity-as-a-tool-in-enhancing-profitability-efficiency-and-quality-of-decision-making/

MAGA was never about winning wars in the middle east. So no reason to think a calamity in Iran will change much.

MAGA is me. Trump has said this and all indications are that he's correct. It's a personality cult in other words. And he does, tbf, have a strong personality. I find it utterly repellent, he has none of the traits I like or admire in a human being and just about all the ones I can't stand, but the cult members love him to bits. It's an unconditional and enduring love, a love that lasts forever, a love that has no past (preceding him). Can't say I understand it. Can't say I want to.

I hope it dies without him, but it's consequences will be felt for a long time. They might break up a little to compete to see who is the Trumpiest, for a start.

I do wonder if the Trump kids will try to 'lead' it after he eventually dies, but none of them have his level of horrible charisma.

Oliver Cromwell, Richard Cromwell...

What if we are still all stuck in a Left v Right framework and therefore missing the point of what is actiually happening.

I think it was Solzhenitsyn who said the problem wasn't so much the Communist ideology but ideology itself, the way we can become so committed to an ideal or way of thinking that we become blinkered. We start to suffer from chronic comfirmation bias, believing the things we like and dismissing those we don't.

What if what we are seeing isn't a struggle between Left and Right but rather between Rational and Emotional, between what we can prove is true and what we want to believe .

It doesn't matter if what Reform or the Greens are offering those who want change doesn't work, if people are willing to vote for it because they want to believe it will work.

One thing that draws me to this is the fact that for all the attempts that Harris and the Democrats made to successfully show that much of what Trump proposed from Trade to Investment and Tax cuts was close to Bonkers, people still were willing to vote for it it the hope it wasn't.

If systematically demolishing the other sides economic policies can be overcome by them calling you Radical Marxist Haters and voters believe them how do you fight that?

I watched reform at Holyrood claim they could save £2bn from a £6.5bn budget by cutting many of Scotlands 130+ Qango's and giving power to MSP's and a slimmed down Civil Service. Problem is of the total administrative cost of all of them is estimated at under £700m. Benefits Scotland administers £6.3bn but it's admin cost is only £320m. You can't save three times the admin budget by cutting the admin budget.

It doesn't take much to dismantle this kind of thing and it applies to all parties including the SNP, but the challenges seem to be ineffectual. We seem to be in a kind of doom loop that the bigger the lie ,the more popular it is and the more votes you get, from an electorate that says they don't trust politicians because they all lie.

Peter.

I think this is the right question but you have it back to front.

It is the establishment, for want of a better word, that is wedded to an ideological view of the world and the dissidents of both right and left who are pointing out the many hypocrisies and absurdities of that ideology.

Well the very fact that you used the meaningless term "The Establishment!" shows waht an Ideologue you are. It's like the "Metroploitain Elite"; it's not an accurate discription of anything, it's just a Trump style insult to throw at the other side.

3/10 must try harder.

Peter.

You can add other lazy reductive platitudes to the list. 'Right Wing Press', 'Mainstream Media', 'The Blob', 'Ruling Class'. And some really stupid ones like 'Caliphate', 'Notting Hill set' and whathaveyou.

It's convenient for everyone to have some kind of bogeyman establishment to rail against, exaggerating their power, influence and wickedness and uselessness or whatever.

Such entities aren't entirely imaginary, but their prevalence is invariably overstated and their characteristics exaggerated, depending on ones personal politics and current grievances.

And the actual authorities that matter are not necessarily the same for every individual. They coexist and indeed compete with one another. Life feels different depending who makes the decisions that actually impact on you.

"I didn't drive and I had no interest in cars," says Nicola Sturgeon when asked why she never discussed Peter Murrell's purchase of a Jaguar worth £80,000.

From the "I don't sweat" box of excuses.

This is nonsense. Why would Sturgeon as part of a couple both earning very good salaries, modest house, no children and oodles of discretionary income, be suspicious of her husband being able to afford an £80K car, when she is in a 24/7 job, away a lot, and has no interest in cars anyway?

The only slightly interesting thing about it is the relatively small amounts of money involved.

It wasn't one car though, it was 3 vehicles, plus the 87 kettles, 43 coffee machines, pens, watches, etc etc etc.

If I buy even one of those kind of toys Mrs U is straight on to me about how much, did I really need it etc.

The Flying Pig column in the Aberdeen P&J is spot on. Worth a look.
Link here: https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-press-and-journal-inverness-highlands-and-islands/20260530/282312506735233

Extract:

"Fit wid you buy wi’ £400 thoosand? Being hon­est, I’d prob­ably ging big on booze, Haribo and fags, but it turns oot if yer nae hon­est, like ex-SNP supremo Peter Mur­rell, the answer is cars, a camper­van, funcy watches, space pens, cof­fee machines, a 1K tele­scope, video game con­soles and some Loc­tite Super­glue. At’s the weird­est Gen­er­a­tion Game con­veyor belt iver, is it?

"He spent o’er twa thoosand on salt & pep­per grinders. Fit the hell? At’s jist unas­sept­able, ‘at. Fit are they, like? Robot eens fit walk on to yer plate and per­fectly sea­son yer food files singing ‘Food Glor­i­ous Food’? Nae just ‘at, he spent mair than a thoosand on a cof­fee machine and mair than three thou­sand on an emer­gency backup cof­fee machine. He’ll hiv been up a’ night drink­ing ‘at much cof­fee, fit explains the eight thoosand Amazon pur­chases. I da even think he used half the stuff. Foo mony Nin­ten­dos and Dyson hairdry­ers dis a bal­die man­nie in his 50s really need?"

"I didn't drive and I had no interest in cars," says Nicola Sturgeon when asked why she never discussed Peter Murrell's purchase of a Jaguar worth £80,000.

From the "I don't sweat" box of excuses.

This is nonsense. Why would Sturgeon as part of a couple both earning very good salaries, modest house, no children and oodles of discretionary income, be suspicious of her husband being able to afford an £80K car, when she is in a 24/7 job, away a lot, and has no interest in cars anyway?

The only slightly interesting thing about it is the relatively small amounts of money involved.

It wasn't one car though, it was 3 vehicles, plus the 87 kettles, 43 coffee machines, pens, watches, etc etc etc. And at no point went Pete, love, are you sure we can afford all this stuff.

If I buy even one of those kind of toys Mrs U is straight on to me about how much, did I really need it etc. Mrs U is absolutely not interested in cars in the slightest, you can be absolutely certain she wants to know to the penny how any new motor cost.

This high salary thing, £100k a year is high, but its not footballer money. In todays day and age, it is not the sort of salary where you are just buring £20's for the LOLs.

People who earn the same money live very different lifestyles.

For a couple earning £150-200k between them, some will spend £50k a year, others £100k, and some will spend it all plus any debt they are allowed to on top.

"Re-allocate £1bn currently spent on net zero projects!"

Thanks for that although as stated it still doesn't make the £1bn cut from Qango's feasible.

Looking at net zero within Scottish Government control in terms of actual public money spent the figure I can find is around £400m a year so good luck saving a billion from that!

Peter.

Also, does the economic analysis done by Reform include the impact of abandoning Net Zero on the 105 000 mostly skilled and engineering jobs comprising 4.9% of Scotlands economy?

https://eciu.net/media/press-releases/3-000-businesses-now-driving-scotlands-net-zero-economy-analysis

There was an interesting piece on Fridays C4 News where the Reform Mayor of Hull could not answer straight-forward questions on the impact of abandoning Net Zero on Hull's economy whith its strong renewables sector.

That is a different issue, though I'm sure Reform has very strong views on the relationship on the broader push toward Net Zero and jobs.

This is about the Scottish Government spending an insane amount of money on Net Zero projects (Reform say £1bn, Peter Cairns says £400mn) when Net Zero is not a devolved matter.

A large part of net zero spending covers things like Social Housing which Reform wants to expand. The problem with just tagging it as "Crazy Net Zero Policies!" is that a lot of things like better insulation are actually good investnents that pay for themselves and can also to a lesser degree create jobs.

Like Solzhenitsyn it's ideology. Reform have portrayed those pursuing Net Zero as ideologies while being ones' themselves.

It's what populists do. Characture their opponents and respnd with characature policies.

£400m is only an insane amount of money if you think spending just over 0.5% of the annual budget on a range of environmental policies across the whole of government can't be justified. I think if you broke it down you'd find some to object too ,but many that would probably be spent anyway in some other form.

Peter.