Yep Rishi is going to allow you to buy a petrol car in 2032.
Sadly no manufacturer will be making them then as the worldwide market will have made them an expensive niche product.
This is the bit that the Tories and their PB stringers have missed. ICE is dead. We proposed a phasing out of pure ICE - hybrid only from 2030 then full EV from 2035. The EU had no Hybrid only stage.
The right have told us on here that this will save people the £40k expense of having to buy an EV. But it won't. Because the only ICE engines left will be hybrid before we get to the end of the decade.
The market is rapidly moving to EV. We had our shot at supporting the industry and being a player. Instead we lied to BMW last week and have united the entire industry against investing in Britain.
A tax on 3D printed boilers. I've scrapped it. A ban on the breeding of owls for meat. I've scrapped it. Proposals to force everyone to paint their cars green. I've scrapped that too.
Ouch. Rishi Sunak is talking down to women again. Looking very irritated (and quite aggressive) that @PippaCrerar pointed out he is watering down the net zero strategy. How dare a journalist ask a question! Ban them.
Trouble is, once you've seen the rabbit stuffed up the magician's sleeve, you can't unsee it;
I’ve been critical of Rishi Sunak. But I thought he at least had a serious side to him. And actually a bit of integrity. Inventing a series of imaginary proposals that your own government was never planning to introduce, then pretending to scrap them, is just embarrassing.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle has called out Sunak for the snivelling little shit he is.
Is this the real Rishi, do we think, or is he pandering to shore up his right flank for the GE?
Somebody has read too much into the Uxbridge & South Ruislip result.
It's desperate, isn't it. The national mood (becoming set in stone) is 'sick to the back teeth of the Tories, not at all scared of Labour' and I think they're running scared of a truly traumatic GE result. Hence all this flailing about.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 18m I’ve been critical of Rishi Sunak. But I thought he at least had a serious side to him. And actually a bit of integrity. Inventing a series of imaginary proposals that your own government was never planning to introduce, then pretending to scrap them, is just embarrassing.
The mood of Sunak's answers to the net zero questions was "I'm not really doing anything". Which is true, but sadly exposes the raw political motive for the speech.
Trouble is, once you've seen the rabbit stuffed up the magician's sleeve, you can't unsee it;
I’ve been critical of Rishi Sunak. But I thought he at least had a serious side to him. And actually a bit of integrity. Inventing a series of imaginary proposals that your own government was never planning to introduce, then pretending to scrap them, is just embarrassing.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
No, it's a an expression of the the modern view of immigration and it's effect on infrastructure & jobs.
With a very weird blind spot on housing affordability.
Build more houses. Literally millions more houses.
More people require more houses; yes, obviously. BUT. Those do not have to be privately built and owned houses. You can have state owned, high quality housing that is rented for under market price. Why do this? To create a standard of living threshold and a price for that in the market place. If we did what Vienna did and built high rises with access to green space and pools and gyms and rented them out dirt cheap instead of just building high rises and leave people to rot in them or sell of all our social housing stock, or define affordable housing as 80% of market value - people would have good options to choose over crappy flats owned by landlords.
The issue is - it doesn't matter who builds or owns these extra houses, but currently we're 8-10 million houses short for the population. If the state builds a few thousand extra and lets them out for under market rent, it's bully for those who get one (obviously there will be a massive waiting list), but it will make very little difference to the market clearing price for the rest.
Those of us with a cynical bent would observe that the shortage in housing and consequent rises in housing cost track quite nearly onto the immigration patterns for the last 20-30 years, and if we want to at least stop matters getting even worse we need to get net immigration to zero ASAP, rather than adding over half a million a year.
Planning permission is a major problem. I'm currently trying to buy a very burnt out 3 farmhouse in a nice place in the north (ish) - taking out the cost of other aspects of the deal (there's also 15 acres of low grade agricultural land) I'm paying around £150k just for a site with reasonable hope off getting planning permission to build one modest 3 bed, admittedly with a nice view. That's a lot of money for a lot considering the land (on which you'd never get planning) it's on is worth about £4k an acre.
Building regs (and particularly the energy efficiency) side of them are also making new houses more expensive. My parents have had a decent detached 4 build built, completed this year - it's cost well over £300k in build costs (ignoring the plot and planning costs). A lot of that is costs imposed on the construction fit out by building regs. Houses (especially those of the sort people actually want) are never going to be very affordable all the while build costs are at that level - which takes us back to where we started, that all the green regs are one of the reasons why life in the UK is increasingly unaffordable.
Poor old Rishi's really not great at the presentation thing, is he?
In particular, with his continual whining about wanting to depoliticize the argument. He does this often at PMQs, too - accusing questioners of "playing politics" at least twice in every session.
I mean, I get that he'd love to do away with politics and rule as a pure technocrat. But that's not the system we have.
If he doesn't want to be a politician, why doesn't he resign and go back to working for a bank?
On the EV vs petrol debate, we've got two cars, my Tesla and my wife's Audi. I much prefer zooming around in my wife's Audi than my Tesla. It's a 1.5L rocket engine in a teeny tiny A1. My Tesla, while very comfortable, is a bit dull.
"Sunak was appointed as leader on the grounds that he could hold the party together. If he now seems to be failing at this, his already weakened authority will only further diminish."
Me on why watering down net zero could be a big miscalculation
The mood of Sunak's answers to the net zero questions was "I'm not really doing anything". Which is true, but sadly exposes the raw political motive for the speech.
I expect the Tories polling to improve with this announcement as the YouGov shows it’s got good public support . Much depends on how well the opposition play this . The caveat here is the situation changes if the car industry start pulling the plug on recent promises to invest . Not sure how watertight those guarantees are .
What's this thing about "we won't tell you how many passengers you can carry in your car"?
I've never heard of such a proposal.
Is he talking about High Occupancy Lanes and Slug Lines? And promising not to do them so as to maximise congestion / inefficiency?
It's already a legal requirement anyway. Everyone in a car has to have a seatbelt on, ergo conform to the maximum number of seats. PLus to have valid insurance you mustn't overcrowd.
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Trouble is, once you've seen the rabbit stuffed up the magician's sleeve, you can't unsee it;
I’ve been critical of Rishi Sunak. But I thought he at least had a serious side to him. And actually a bit of integrity. Inventing a series of imaginary proposals that your own government was never planning to introduce, then pretending to scrap them, is just embarrassing.
To be fair to Big G, my first thought when I heard this proposal was "it's going to make getting to Llandudno a pain in the arse. I'll probably end up going to Formby or Lytham instead." The reality probably doesn't add up to that. There must be, what, about 4 miles of 30mph roads between the A55 and the beach at Llandudno? So at worst, what could take 8 minutes will take 12. An extra 4 minutes on an hour and a half's journey really us neither here nor there, even if it does feel longer when you're doing it. Similar driving around it. It won't make that much of a differencein journey times. But it will feel interminable.
It won't save many lives, because the problems aren't the law abiding drivers who drive at 30, it's those who do 50 in a 30 zone. It's another example of "people aren't obeying the laws - let's make harsher ones" that some in tge political class are so fond of.
Sorry but there is just a few hundred yards over the Orme and nowhere near 4 miles
Indeed travel from Old Colwyn to Llandudno and that is the only short 30mph zone with much smaller 40mph, before it reduces to 20mph
Along a road used by cyclists and pedesetrians?
Any road other than a motorway can have cyclists and pedestrians can't it? What am I missing?
Edinburgh ring road. But that's a national speed limit road.
Several roads in Scotland are notMotorway. A720 City Bypass. A1 Dunbar Expressway. A90 AWPR. Not a motorway. But a special road. Which is legally what makes a motorway a motorway.
The tell is that the speed limit is 70mph, not NSL. Because special roads in Scotland do not apply the national speed limit. So when your notMotorway has 70 roundels, you know its a motorway with green signs.
So between the A55 and Llandudno beach is 4.1 miles along the A470.
How much of it do you suppose is a 20 zone?
Actually you just demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the area as the main route used from the A55 to Llandudno West bound is from the West End through Rhos on Sea and Penrhyn Bay or along the promenade in Old Colwyn
Today is an act of weakness from a desperate, directionless Prime Minister, dancing to the tune of a small minority of his party.
Liz Truss crashed the economy and Rishi Sunak is trashing our economic future.
Doesn’t EM get over ruled by Sir Keir on Green stuff? Blair has been warning that making Brits pay for climate stuff is futile if China don’t play hall
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Re your last sentence I agree and he has certainly posed questions for labour
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Johnson won the 2019 election on a manifesto to make people poorer so it would be perfectly possible even if it were true. But Starmer is frit. It should be the get net zero done election.
Thanks. The principles here are not complicated and run with human nature, except for a few idealists, many of whom are rich enough to purchase a device for running a car on fruit salad. Very few intend to articulate them:
1) The public don't believe Net Zero will happen in any known timescale (eg 2050) because it requires universal global not national implementation and the tragedy of the commons means this won't happen. After several decades of politics there is precisely zero evidence that this view is incorrect.
2) If (1) is true then a single nation busting a gut to do it cannot save the world. Though it may (or may not) have other good side effects
3) The majority of the UK public will therefore support all actions that are:
free or done by others or easy and cheap or a long time off - long enough to change your mind nearer the time.
This view is not irrational and will affect voting patterns.
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Lots of people are very, very cross today as it's the first sign in a couple of years that the Conservatives are going to get up off their knees and actually try to make a fight out of the next election.
They'll still lose in the end probably, but hopefully we may now get a genuine contest...
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Labour have said they will commit to 2030. And will have the combined chiefs of the car industry in their corner explaining why there won't be any pure ICE cars on sale in 2030 whether Sunak likes it or not.
You think this is gift week for the Tories? Its the opposite. Labour can campaign on saving all of those jobs that people think is coming in electric cars, batteries, turbines, CCS etc etc etc.
Sunak just through inward investment in the bin - its a catastrophe for UK PLC. You don't lie to BMW and then tell people that Nothing Has Changed. The Lizaster trashed the economy with a short sharp shock. Sunak is following up by shutting down industrial investment.
Thanks. The principles here are not complicated and run with human nature, except for a few idealists, many of whom are rich enough to purchase a device for running a car on fruit salad. Very few intend to articulate them:
1) The public don't believe Net Zero will happen in any known timescale (eg 2050) because it requires universal global not national implementation and the tragedy of the commons means this won't happen. After several decades of politics there is precisely zero evidence that this view is incorrect.
2) If (1) is true then a single nation busting a gut to do it cannot save the world. Though it may (or may not) have other good side effects
3) The majority of the UK public will therefore support all actions that are:
free or done by others or easy and cheap or a long time off - long enough to change your mind nearer the time.
This view is not irrational and will affect voting patterns.
But completely ignores the original aim of the 2030 date being ahead of the EU which was to encourage car makers to build new factories here, and ignores the wider race the UK is part of (and should have the opportunity to prosper from) to secure the investment and productivity gains associated with the energy transition.
It's happening whether Tories like it or not. In 30 years time we're not going to be chugging around in diesels or burning gas in boilers. We'll either be importing all that new technology from elsewhere - quite possibly the US if the IRA has the desired effect - or we'll be making and profiting from it here.
Again I'll say it, luddism and the asset sweating mentality of British administrations is in danger of shutting us out from the next industrial revolution.
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Johnson won the 2019 election on a manifesto to make people poorer so it would be perfectly possible even if it were true. But Starmer is frit. It should be the get net zero done election.
The OECD's revised figures show otherwise.
This Net Zero issue is very simple doorstep stuff. Labour is going to drive your living standards down so that Starmer can posture at international conferences, meanwhile China will continue to do what the fuck it likes. Labour would be crazy to allow Sunak to make this is a wedge issue, and my prediction is that they'll cave.
So between the A55 and Llandudno beach is 4.1 miles along the A470.
How much of it do you suppose is a 20 zone?
Actually you just demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the area as the main route used from the A55 to Llandudno West bound is from the West End through Rhos on Sea and Penrhyn Bay or along the promenade in Old Colwyn
If you come from the east perhaps. What if you've come along the A55 from the west? Or if you're coming from Llansanffraid? Do you drive all the way along to Colwyn Bay just to double back on slower roads? No, you don't.
The majority of traffic especially holiday makers come from the east and the Welsh border
I am only commenting on the Old Colwyn to Llandudno area
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Re your last sentence I agree and he has certainly posed questions for labour
The problem Sunak has is whether anyone actually hears him anymore. This announcement is clearly all about posing questions for Labour. But that is a weakness, not a strength, when you have lost the benefit of the doubt. If all voters see is an attempt to create a dividing line, they are not going to take it seriously. Meat taxes, seven bins, forced car sharing etc are just silly mistakes in that light.
It would be quite something if 400 votes at a by-election changed the course of history as the Tories grasped that straw and did a major policy u-turn which was very popular .
Okay that’s the Hollywood scriptwriter bit !
The problem for the Tories is there’s so many things currently wrong with the country and so much anti Tory feeling that people might have already tuned out and just don’t believe Sunak could even deliver this policy u-turn .
My wife has just come back from her WI meeting, where there was a report on a persistent problem over a ‘required’ zebra crossing. The authorities have said that as there hasn’t been a fatality at the point there’s no need for a crossing. I should say it’s to get from part of the town to the only local supermarket. I offered to put a post on our Facebook asking for a sacrificial volunteer but was told firmly not to!
Just shove a pensioner in front of a car. According to PB they are all selfish parasite ballast existences depleting the vitality of ze MASTER! RACE! and our PRECIOUS! VITAL! ESSENCE!
{no signal}
FLASH FLASH SET ALL CRM-114 to "OPE". REPEAT. SET ALL CRM-114 TO "OPE". INITIATE PLAN R FOR RIPPER ENDS
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Lots of people are very, very cross today as it's the first sign in a couple of years that the Conservatives are going to get up off their knees and actually try to make a fight out of the next election.
They'll still lose in the end probably, but hopefully we may now get a genuine contest...
I have not seen any Labour response so I may be behind the facts here. But I think Starmer is going to have to quietly suggest that the Labour timetable may have to be similar to the new Tory one, perhaps because 'Tory failure has so slowed things down towards Net Zero that even Tories acknowledge there is sadly no choice...'
As to facts, with cars I suspect the market and big business will decide this; as to heat pumps I still think as I always have that particular bird won't fly. For most people a better answer is needed.
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Johnson won the 2019 election on a manifesto to make people poorer so it would be perfectly possible even if it were true. But Starmer is frit. It should be the get net zero done election.
The OECD's revised figures show otherwise.
This Net Zero issue is very simple doorstep stuff. Labour is going to drive your living standards down so that Starmer can posture at international conferences, meanwhile China will continue to do what the fuck it likes. Labour would be crazy to allow Sunak to make this is a wedge issue, and my prediction is that they'll cave.
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Lots of people are very, very cross today as it's the first sign in a couple of years that the Conservatives are going to get up off their knees and actually try to make a fight out of the next election.
They'll still lose in the end probably, but hopefully we may now get a genuine contest...
Don't you think people have a kind of instinct about the kind of out-and-out fraud Sunak has become, though?
To present himself as a truth-telling politician making hard choices, while quite blatantly trying to flog a pre-election giveaway?
Thanks. The principles here are not complicated and run with human nature, except for a few idealists, many of whom are rich enough to purchase a device for running a car on fruit salad. Very few intend to articulate them:
1) The public don't believe Net Zero will happen in any known timescale (eg 2050) because it requires universal global not national implementation and the tragedy of the commons means this won't happen. After several decades of politics there is precisely zero evidence that this view is incorrect.
2) If (1) is true then a single nation busting a gut to do it cannot save the world. Though it may (or may not) have other good side effects
3) The majority of the UK public will therefore support all actions that are:
free or done by others or easy and cheap or a long time off - long enough to change your mind nearer the time.
This view is not irrational and will affect voting patterns.
It is indeed true that we as humans are too selfish to do anything about global warming, even when we see it happening all around us.
Sunak was very keen to repeatedly emphasise how 'hard-pressed' British families are, and how little money so many of us have to spare due to the 'cost of living crisis', to justify his plans to allegedly reduce the cost to families of reaching net zero.
I'm not convinced that it's a great strategy for a Tory PM to go on so much about how so many of us are struggling to make ends meet after 13 years of Tory-led government.
Thanks. The principles here are not complicated and run with human nature, except for a few idealists, many of whom are rich enough to purchase a device for running a car on fruit salad. Very few intend to articulate them:
1) The public don't believe Net Zero will happen in any known timescale (eg 2050) because it requires universal global not national implementation and the tragedy of the commons means this won't happen. After several decades of politics there is precisely zero evidence that this view is incorrect.
2) If (1) is true then a single nation busting a gut to do it cannot save the world. Though it may (or may not) have other good side effects
3) The majority of the UK public will therefore support all actions that are:
free or done by others or easy and cheap or a long time off - long enough to change your mind nearer the time.
This view is not irrational and will affect voting patterns.
But completely ignores the original aim of the 2030 date being ahead of the EU which was to encourage car makers to build new factories here, and ignores the wider race the UK is part of (and should have the opportunity to prosper from) to secure the investment and productivity gains associated with the energy transition.
It's happening whether Tories like it or not. In 30 years time we're not going to be chugging around in diesels or burning gas in boilers. We'll either be importing all that new technology from elsewhere - quite possibly the US if the IRA has the desired effect - or we'll be making and profiting from it here.
Again I'll say it, luddism and the asset sweating mentality of British administrations is in danger of shutting us out from the next industrial revolution.
The next Industrial Revolution is AI, it certainly isn’t the switch from ICE to EV. The latter is less significant by orders of magnitude
For a start, if AI fulfils half its promise, in 30 years time it will be transporting us in autonomous AI vehicles, that can fly swim and scoot, and who cares how they are fuelled
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Re your last sentence I agree and he has certainly posed questions for labour
The problem Sunak has is whether anyone actually hears him anymore. This announcement is clearly all about posing questions for Labour. But that is a weakness, not a strength, when you have lost the benefit of the doubt. If all voters see is an attempt to create a dividing line, they are not going to take it seriously. Meat taxes, seven bins, forced car sharing etc are just silly mistakes in that light.
I think the media coverage will interest the public and is long overdue
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Labour have said they will commit to 2030. And will have the combined chiefs of the car industry in their corner explaining why there won't be any pure ICE cars on sale in 2030 whether Sunak likes it or not.
You think this is gift week for the Tories? Its the opposite. Labour can campaign on saving all of those jobs that people think is coming in electric cars, batteries, turbines, CCS etc etc etc.
Sunak just through inward investment in the bin - its a catastrophe for UK PLC. You don't lie to BMW and then tell people that Nothing Has Changed. The Lizaster trashed the economy with a short sharp shock. Sunak is following up by shutting down industrial investment.
They should not have said anything so stupid; this was a massive bear trap, with 'bear trap' written on a big sign. Has any party ever gone into an election telling people they're going to arbitrarily make them pay more for everything? Ban them from getting a new gas boiler when theirs breaks down and insist they get a shitty heat pump?
Have to say though, after almost two years in the sin bin, and not not really taking much notice of politics outside of the headlines (leadership changes/currygate), no one is going to give a toss about this kind of thing - genuinely, barely anyone talks about it in normal life
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Lots of people are very, very cross today as it's the first sign in a couple of years that the Conservatives are going to get up off their knees and actually try to make a fight out of the next election.
They'll still lose in the end probably, but hopefully we may now get a genuine contest...
I have not seen any Labour response so I may be behind the facts here. But I think Starmer is going to have to quietly suggest that the Labour timetable may have to be similar to the new Tory one, perhaps because 'Tory failure has so slowed things down towards Net Zero that even Tories acknowledge there is sadly no choice...'
As to facts, with cars I suspect the market and big business will decide this; as to heat pumps I still think as I always have that particular bird won't fly. For most people a better answer is needed.
Labour's best bet might be to pivot to the American approach, which many have been urging anyway, which is to go two footed into proper industrial strategy and subsidies for green tech. The European approach has been regulation / sticks, the US one is carrots. It should pay for itself if we get the investment and capital spending.
I still struggle to understand why everyone still treats heat pumps as an exotic novelty that might not work, when they are installed as a matter of course across the continent. I'm having one fitted in the barn I'm converting in France and there wasn't even any question of other heating options. There's no mains gas for a start. We are uniquely dependent on gas heating here.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
No, it's a an expression of the the modern view of immigration and it's effect on infrastructure & jobs.
With a very weird blind spot on housing affordability.
Build more houses. Literally millions more houses.
More people require more houses; yes, obviously. BUT. Those do not have to be privately built and owned houses. You can have state owned, high quality housing that is rented for under market price. Why do this? To create a standard of living threshold and a price for that in the market place. If we did what Vienna did and built high rises with access to green space and pools and gyms and rented them out dirt cheap instead of just building high rises and leave people to rot in them or sell of all our social housing stock, or define affordable housing as 80% of market value - people would have good options to choose over crappy flats owned by landlords.
The issue is - it doesn't matter who builds or owns these extra houses, but currently we're 8-10 million houses short for the population. If the state builds a few thousand extra and lets them out for under market rent, it's bully for those who get one (obviously there will be a massive waiting list), but it will make very little difference to the market clearing price for the rest.
Those of us with a cynical bent would observe that the shortage in housing and consequent rises in housing cost track quite nearly onto the immigration patterns for the last 20-30 years, and if we want to at least stop matters getting even worse we need to get net immigration to zero ASAP, rather than adding over half a million a year.
Planning permission is a major problem. I'm currently trying to buy a very burnt out 3 farmhouse in a nice place in the north (ish) - taking out the cost of other aspects of the deal (there's also 15 acres of low grade agricultural land) I'm paying around £150k just for a site with reasonable hope off getting planning permission to build one modest 3 bed, admittedly with a nice view. That's a lot of money for a lot considering the land (on which you'd never get planning) it's on is worth about £4k an acre.
Building regs (and particularly the energy efficiency) side of them are also making new houses more expensive. My parents have had a decent detached 4 build built, completed this year - it's cost well over £300k in build costs (ignoring the plot and planning costs). A lot of that is costs imposed on the construction fit out by building regs. Houses (especially those of the sort people actually want) are never going to be very affordable all the while build costs are at that level - which takes us back to where we started, that all the green regs are one of the reasons why life in the UK is increasingly unaffordable.
Perhaps we should hold a seance and try to get hold of Harold Macmillan?
He was one of the main driving forces behind the surge of new building in the mid 1930s, and then later managed to get almost 4 million new houses and flats built during his 12 years as housing minister, chancellor, and PM.
GDP in the late 50s was about 4.5x less than it is now in real terms. Surely it shouldn't be beyond us to build 8 million by 2035?
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Re your last sentence I agree and he has certainly posed questions for labour
The problem Sunak has is whether anyone actually hears him anymore. This announcement is clearly all about posing questions for Labour. But that is a weakness, not a strength, when you have lost the benefit of the doubt. If all voters see is an attempt to create a dividing line, they are not going to take it seriously. Meat taxes, seven bins, forced car sharing etc are just silly mistakes in that light.
I think the media coverage will interest the public and is long overdue
Some of her coverage- even from people who ought to be supportive like Dan "Currygate" Hodges- is about how Rishi is just making up stuff.
If people like that are saying that out loud about our PM, he has a problem.
I welcome the delay on banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars as well as the delay on the ban on oil and gas boilers. This is particularly important for rural areas. 1/2
Thanks. The principles here are not complicated and run with human nature, except for a few idealists, many of whom are rich enough to purchase a device for running a car on fruit salad. Very few intend to articulate them:
1) The public don't believe Net Zero will happen in any known timescale (eg 2050) because it requires universal global not national implementation and the tragedy of the commons means this won't happen. After several decades of politics there is precisely zero evidence that this view is incorrect.
2) If (1) is true then a single nation busting a gut to do it cannot save the world. Though it may (or may not) have other good side effects
3) The majority of the UK public will therefore support all actions that are:
free or done by others or easy and cheap or a long time off - long enough to change your mind nearer the time.
This view is not irrational and will affect voting patterns.
But completely ignores the original aim of the 2030 date being ahead of the EU which was to encourage car makers to build new factories here, and ignores the wider race the UK is part of (and should have the opportunity to prosper from) to secure the investment and productivity gains associated with the energy transition.
It's happening whether Tories like it or not. In 30 years time we're not going to be chugging around in diesels or burning gas in boilers. We'll either be importing all that new technology from elsewhere - quite possibly the US if the IRA has the desired effect - or we'll be making and profiting from it here.
Again I'll say it, luddism and the asset sweating mentality of British administrations is in danger of shutting us out from the next industrial revolution.
I don't disagree. But there are three separate but connected subjects. I am discussing the thoughts of a majority of voters, and giving a steer as where I think the sad truth lies; you are discussing long term industrial strategy and yours is excellent; thirdly in the mix is the raw politics of how to trip up your opponents when you are behind in the race.
The jigsaw pieces are from different jigsaws. Don't expect them to fit.
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Re your last sentence I agree and he has certainly posed questions for labour
Whilst this is actually true, it also poses questions for the Conservatives. What do they believe in? What do Labour believe in?
Are we continually going to flip-flop as policies go in and out of fashion? Why did this policy come in? (Boris had a greenie partner). Why did this policy go out? (Sunak is desperate) Do they know what the eff they are doing? (No. They genuinely don't). Either party? (Nope. They are both clueless)
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Johnson won the 2019 election on a manifesto to make people poorer so it would be perfectly possible even if it were true. But Starmer is frit. It should be the get net zero done election.
The OECD's revised figures show otherwise.
This Net Zero issue is very simple doorstep stuff. Labour is going to drive your living standards down so that Starmer can posture at international conferences, meanwhile China will continue to do what the fuck it likes. Labour would be crazy to allow Sunak to make this is a wedge issue, and my prediction is that they'll cave.
Wedge issue? There will be no ICE cars on the market because the manufacturers are stopping manufacturing of them. I remember "Vote Conservative to Save the Pound" - an abject failure as the pound wasn't under threat. This is similarly stupid - "Vote Conservative to Save the Petrol Car". Except there won't be any.
I welcome the delay on banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars as well as the delay on the ban on oil and gas boilers. This is particularly important for rural areas. 1/2
Thanks. The principles here are not complicated and run with human nature, except for a few idealists, many of whom are rich enough to purchase a device for running a car on fruit salad. Very few intend to articulate them:
1) The public don't believe Net Zero will happen in any known timescale (eg 2050) because it requires universal global not national implementation and the tragedy of the commons means this won't happen. After several decades of politics there is precisely zero evidence that this view is incorrect.
2) If (1) is true then a single nation busting a gut to do it cannot save the world. Though it may (or may not) have other good side effects
3) The majority of the UK public will therefore support all actions that are:
free or done by others or easy and cheap or a long time off - long enough to change your mind nearer the time.
This view is not irrational and will affect voting patterns.
But completely ignores the original aim of the 2030 date being ahead of the EU which was to encourage car makers to build new factories here, and ignores the wider race the UK is part of (and should have the opportunity to prosper from) to secure the investment and productivity gains associated with the energy transition.
It's happening whether Tories like it or not. In 30 years time we're not going to be chugging around in diesels or burning gas in boilers. We'll either be importing all that new technology from elsewhere - quite possibly the US if the IRA has the desired effect - or we'll be making and profiting from it here.
Again I'll say it, luddism and the asset sweating mentality of British administrations is in danger of shutting us out from the next industrial revolution.
The next Industrial Revolution is AI, it certainly isn’t the switch from ICE to EV. The latter is less significant by orders of magnitude
For a start, if AI fulfils half its promise, in 30 years time it will be transporting us in autonomous AI vehicles, that can fly swim and scoot, and who cares how they are fuelled
The next industrial revolution is the entirety of the transition to net zero, of which EVs are one small part. We are completely transforming how we capture, transmit and use energy just like we did when we invented steam. AI will help us get there.
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Labour have said they will commit to 2030. And will have the combined chiefs of the car industry in their corner explaining why there won't be any pure ICE cars on sale in 2030 whether Sunak likes it or not.
You think this is gift week for the Tories? Its the opposite. Labour can campaign on saving all of those jobs that people think is coming in electric cars, batteries, turbines, CCS etc etc etc.
Sunak just through inward investment in the bin - its a catastrophe for UK PLC. You don't lie to BMW and then tell people that Nothing Has Changed. The Lizaster trashed the economy with a short sharp shock. Sunak is following up by shutting down industrial investment.
They should not have said anything so stupid; this was a massive bear trap, with 'bear trap' written on a big sign. Has any party ever gone into an election telling people they're going to arbitrarily make them pay more for everything? Ban them from getting a new gas boiler when theirs breaks down and insist they get a shitty heat pump?
You'll be telling me they're going to ban proper fuels and make people buy cars that can use shitty unleaded next.
You see that "oh fuck we're about to run out of gas because we're reliant on Russia" crisis we just had? That is why we're moving away from gas boilers. Over the next decade. The market will set the price - heat pumps and alternate fuels will crash in price, with legacy crap like inefficient gas boilers getting more expensive.
Lizaster thought she could tell the markets what to do. She was wrong. What makes you think Sunak can tell the markets what to do. Are Ford going to reverse their plans to phase out pure petrol engines because Sunak says so?
Thanks. The principles here are not complicated and run with human nature, except for a few idealists, many of whom are rich enough to purchase a device for running a car on fruit salad. Very few intend to articulate them:
1) The public don't believe Net Zero will happen in any known timescale (eg 2050) because it requires universal global not national implementation and the tragedy of the commons means this won't happen. After several decades of politics there is precisely zero evidence that this view is incorrect.
2) If (1) is true then a single nation busting a gut to do it cannot save the world. Though it may (or may not) have other good side effects
3) The majority of the UK public will therefore support all actions that are:
free or done by others or easy and cheap or a long time off - long enough to change your mind nearer the time.
This view is not irrational and will affect voting patterns.
But completely ignores the original aim of the 2030 date being ahead of the EU which was to encourage car makers to build new factories here, and ignores the wider race the UK is part of (and should have the opportunity to prosper from) to secure the investment and productivity gains associated with the energy transition.
It's happening whether Tories like it or not. In 30 years time we're not going to be chugging around in diesels or burning gas in boilers. We'll either be importing all that new technology from elsewhere - quite possibly the US if the IRA has the desired effect - or we'll be making and profiting from it here.
Again I'll say it, luddism and the asset sweating mentality of British administrations is in danger of shutting us out from the next industrial revolution.
I don't disagree. But there are three separate but connected subjects. I am discussing the thoughts of a majority of voters, and giving a steer as where I think the sad truth lies; you are discussing long term industrial strategy and yours is excellent; thirdly in the mix is the raw politics of how to trip up your opponents when you are behind in the race.
The jigsaw pieces are from different jigsaws. Don't expect them to fit.
Labour need to get on the industrial strategy messaging. The Lib Dems have already framed it almost entirely in those terms in what they've put out today.
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Labour have said they will commit to 2030. And will have the combined chiefs of the car industry in their corner explaining why there won't be any pure ICE cars on sale in 2030 whether Sunak likes it or not.
You think this is gift week for the Tories? Its the opposite. Labour can campaign on saving all of those jobs that people think is coming in electric cars, batteries, turbines, CCS etc etc etc.
Sunak just through inward investment in the bin - its a catastrophe for UK PLC. You don't lie to BMW and then tell people that Nothing Has Changed. The Lizaster trashed the economy with a short sharp shock. Sunak is following up by shutting down industrial investment.
They should not have said anything so stupid; this was a massive bear trap, with 'bear trap' written on a big sign. Has any party ever gone into an election telling people they're going to arbitrarily make them pay more for everything? Ban them from getting a new gas boiler when theirs breaks down and insist they get a shitty heat pump?
You'll be telling me they're going to ban proper fuels and make people buy cars that can use shitty unleaded next.
You see that "oh fuck we're about to run out of gas because we're reliant on Russia" crisis we just had? That is why we're moving away from gas boilers. Over the next decade. The market will set the price - heat pumps and alternate fuels will crash in price, with legacy crap like inefficient gas boilers getting more expensive.
Lizaster thought she could tell the markets what to do. She was wrong. What makes you think Sunak can tell the markets what to do. Are Ford going to reverse their plans to phase out pure petrol engines because Sunak says so?
Have a word with yourself. He has delayed a ban. That is the opposite of telling people what to do.
Has Rishi announced any relief for those heating large domestic swimming pools? 😈
Yes. He said he is going to take a pragmatic, common-sense, non-political, non-ideological approach to hard-pressed families who, through no fault of their own, are struggling to meet the costs of heating their swimming pools.
So between the A55 and Llandudno beach is 4.1 miles along the A470.
How much of it do you suppose is a 20 zone?
Actually you just demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the area as the main route used from the A55 to Llandudno West bound is from the West End through Rhos on Sea and Penrhyn Bay or along the promenade in Old Colwyn
If you come from the east perhaps. What if you've come along the A55 from the west? Or if you're coming from Llansanffraid? Do you drive all the way along to Colwyn Bay just to double back on slower roads? No, you don't.
The majority of traffic especially holiday makers come from the east and the Welsh border
I am only commenting on the Old Colwyn to Llandudno area
I just had a look on Google Timeline* and the last time I was there visiting a friend we drove out of Llandudno via... the A470. And then east to the border and so back up to Scotland. We had come in from the west, we'd been to Ynys Mon first, and we came in via Pentywyn Road which was probably a mistake. But at no point did we drive through Rhos on Sea. This is 7 years ago, obviously before all the 20mph stuff. Probably would take the same route out today as I did back then.
*yeah I've got a track of everywhere I've been for the last ten years or more.
Fair comment but the majority of traffic comes from the east
And yes, you would be wise to use the same way to the A55 especially with the new 20mph restrictions
And the petition has just gone through 300,000 (and shows no sign of abating) which is astonishing for Wales (300,795)
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Johnson won the 2019 election on a manifesto to make people poorer so it would be perfectly possible even if it were true. But Starmer is frit. It should be the get net zero done election.
The OECD's revised figures show otherwise.
This Net Zero issue is very simple doorstep stuff. Labour is going to drive your living standards down so that Starmer can posture at international conferences, meanwhile China will continue to do what the fuck it likes. Labour would be crazy to allow Sunak to make this is a wedge issue, and my prediction is that they'll cave.
Wedge issue? There will be no ICE cars on the market because the manufacturers are stopping manufacturing of them. I remember "Vote Conservative to Save the Pound" - an abject failure as the pound wasn't under threat. This is similarly stupid - "Vote Conservative to Save the Petrol Car". Except there won't be any.
Come to Brexit Island, where we think that we are somehow able to dictate global market norms!
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Labour have said they will commit to 2030. And will have the combined chiefs of the car industry in their corner explaining why there won't be any pure ICE cars on sale in 2030 whether Sunak likes it or not.
You think this is gift week for the Tories? Its the opposite. Labour can campaign on saving all of those jobs that people think is coming in electric cars, batteries, turbines, CCS etc etc etc.
Sunak just through inward investment in the bin - its a catastrophe for UK PLC. You don't lie to BMW and then tell people that Nothing Has Changed. The Lizaster trashed the economy with a short sharp shock. Sunak is following up by shutting down industrial investment.
They should not have said anything so stupid; this was a massive bear trap, with 'bear trap' written on a big sign. Has any party ever gone into an election telling people they're going to arbitrarily make them pay more for everything? Ban them from getting a new gas boiler when theirs breaks down and insist they get a shitty heat pump?
You'll be telling me they're going to ban proper fuels and make people buy cars that can use shitty unleaded next.
You see that "oh fuck we're about to run out of gas because we're reliant on Russia" crisis we just had? That is why we're moving away from gas boilers. Over the next decade. The market will set the price - heat pumps and alternate fuels will crash in price, with legacy crap like inefficient gas boilers getting more expensive.
Lizaster thought she could tell the markets what to do. She was wrong. What makes you think Sunak can tell the markets what to do. Are Ford going to reverse their plans to phase out pure petrol engines because Sunak says so?
Have a word with yourself. He has delayed a ban. That is the opposite of telling people what to do.
He's promised that people will be able to buy new petrol and diesel cars until 2035.
How the frigging friggity frig is the Government so frigging incompetent that they announce a change in industrial laws without checking with the frigging industry their intentions first?
So they're going to have ICE cars available for sale after 2030, but manufacturer after manufacturer is coming out saying they have no intention of having any available for sale?
So between the A55 and Llandudno beach is 4.1 miles along the A470.
How much of it do you suppose is a 20 zone?
Actually you just demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the area as the main route used from the A55 to Llandudno West bound is from the West End through Rhos on Sea and Penrhyn Bay or along the promenade in Old Colwyn
If you come from the east perhaps. What if you've come along the A55 from the west? Or if you're coming from Llansanffraid? Do you drive all the way along to Colwyn Bay just to double back on slower roads? No, you don't.
The majority of traffic especially holiday makers come from the east and the Welsh border
I am only commenting on the Old Colwyn to Llandudno area
I just had a look on Google Timeline* and the last time I was there visiting a friend we drove out of Llandudno via... the A470. And then east to the border and so back up to Scotland. We had come in from the west, we'd been to Ynys Mon first, and we came in via Pentywyn Road which was probably a mistake. But at no point did we drive through Rhos on Sea. This is 7 years ago, obviously before all the 20mph stuff. Probably would take the same route out today as I did back then.
*yeah I've got a track of everywhere I've been for the last ten years or more.
Fair comment but the majority of traffic comes from the east
And yes, you would be wise to use the same way to the A55 especially with the new 20mph restrictions
And the petition has just gone through 300,000 (and shows no sign of abating) which is astonishing for Wales (300,795)
"Large-scale business investments in the industries of the future, like electric vehicles and low-carbon heating technologies, and their accompanying supply chains, are only possible if there are stable, long-term policies in place. The constant uncertainty that comes with changes in target dates and commitments, simply makes it harder to attract the investment we need to boost the UK economy and reach our legally binding Net Zero goals. The risk now is that the UK will continue to fall behind in the global race for green investment, and our homegrown businesses will lose out"
“The 2030 deadline set a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles but not a ban on the ownership or use of them, or the buying and selling of them in the used car market. The deadline gave the industry certainty on which to invest, which was supported by consumer and industrial strategy. Car manufacturers subsequently invested billions of pounds in new electric vehicles, their control systems and the battery technology and production required to support them. At the same time, they are having to support and fund a declining supply chain for internal combustion engine vehicles, which will become more costly and complex to secure over time.
“Whilst delaying this deadline allows for more time for transition to electric vehicles and investment to be made in related infrastructure, we have already seen that big concerns are being raised by some of the automotive industry about the impact of this decision on investment plans, the consumer desire to transition to EVs, and the certainty that business can have in the new deadline.”
The Sun and the Mail will love this whether it’s a good idea or not and I think the Tories will now start dropping positions on things where they can be cynical and look like they are acting for the average person and dare Labour to go against it and “take more money from people”.
If there are constant situations like that where Labour either have to say they will do the costly thing or have to agree to stick to Tory plans then it will undermine them as some of their vote will be fucking furious and the Lib Dem’s will work on them and others will say that Labour are either dishonest or the same as the Tories.
How many times will Labour be able to say “we will not change x policy” without losing appeal.
It’s cynical and probably crap for the country but it could be the difference between wipeout for the Tories or no Lab majority.
Labour are clearly very cross. But are they actually saying that they'll bring back 2030 as the ICE ban date, and make people replace their boilers with heat pumps? It makes the GE into a simple bread and butter choice - you will be poorer under Labour. That would be 'brave', and SKS has not been noted for his bravery so far.
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
Labour have said they will commit to 2030. And will have the combined chiefs of the car industry in their corner explaining why there won't be any pure ICE cars on sale in 2030 whether Sunak likes it or not.
You think this is gift week for the Tories? Its the opposite. Labour can campaign on saving all of those jobs that people think is coming in electric cars, batteries, turbines, CCS etc etc etc.
Sunak just through inward investment in the bin - its a catastrophe for UK PLC. You don't lie to BMW and then tell people that Nothing Has Changed. The Lizaster trashed the economy with a short sharp shock. Sunak is following up by shutting down industrial investment.
They should not have said anything so stupid; this was a massive bear trap, with 'bear trap' written on a big sign. Has any party ever gone into an election telling people they're going to arbitrarily make them pay more for everything? Ban them from getting a new gas boiler when theirs breaks down and insist they get a shitty heat pump?
You'll be telling me they're going to ban proper fuels and make people buy cars that can use shitty unleaded next.
You see that "oh fuck we're about to run out of gas because we're reliant on Russia" crisis we just had? That is why we're moving away from gas boilers. Over the next decade. The market will set the price - heat pumps and alternate fuels will crash in price, with legacy crap like inefficient gas boilers getting more expensive.
Lizaster thought she could tell the markets what to do. She was wrong. What makes you think Sunak can tell the markets what to do. Are Ford going to reverse their plans to phase out pure petrol engines because Sunak says so?
Have a word with yourself. He has delayed a ban. That is the opposite of telling people what to do.
No, he hasn't. The arbiter of whether legacy manufacturers continue to develop and manufacture vehicles is the market. They are all rapidly heading towards the removal of pure petrol vehicles, just as the market has already largely removed diesel.
The claim is that Sunak needed to ask or else consumers be forced to spend £40k cash to buy an EV. But the 2030 was only to ban pure ICE - hybrid systems would have continued. I expect there to be an awful lot of plug-in hybrid vehicles as we get to the back end of the decade. But without the hybrid system? A few remaining "mild hybrid" vehicles and thats it.
You think BMW are going to make small / cheap RHD vehicles for us is small quantities when the market has already killed them off? Its legal to buy a diesel, but look how many do. So diesel has gone in the bin and diesel engines are being removed at the next refresh / relaunch. As will petrol.
There isn't really a huge link between material conditions and happiness. Most people were very happy in the summer of 1976 and had a lot less than people do today.
How the frigging friggity frig is the Government so frigging incompetent that they announce a change in industrial laws without checking with the frigging industry their intentions first?
So they're going to have ICE cars available for sale after 2030, but manufacturer after manufacturer is coming out saying they have no intention of having any available for sale?
How the frigging friggity frig is the Government so frigging incompetent that they announce a change in industrial laws without checking with the frigging industry their intentions first?
So they're going to have ICE cars available for sale after 2030, but manufacturer after manufacturer is coming out saying they have no intention of having any available for sale?
Utter incompetence.
I'm starting to think the ICE announcement probably isn't going to affect what's actually made except at the margins, it's just made it less likely new vehicles will be made in the UK.
For consumers though the insulation and energy efficiency standards changes are the most bizarre. Yes they need government support and subsidy, but nobody loves having a draughty poorly insulated house and skyrocketing heating bills.
There isn't really a huge link between material conditions and happiness. Most people were very happy in the summer of 1976 and had a lot less than people do today.
Sunak's gamble is that people will not realise that petrol and diesel cars were not going to be banned and that they were not going to be forced to replace their boilers. I guess it may work, but he needs a very pliant broadcast media to help out, as well as the usual client newspapers.
Thanks. The principles here are not complicated and run with human nature, except for a few idealists, many of whom are rich enough to purchase a device for running a car on fruit salad. Very few intend to articulate them:
1) The public don't believe Net Zero will happen in any known timescale (eg 2050) because it requires universal global not national implementation and the tragedy of the commons means this won't happen. After several decades of politics there is precisely zero evidence that this view is incorrect.
2) If (1) is true then a single nation busting a gut to do it cannot save the world. Though it may (or may not) have other good side effects
3) The majority of the UK public will therefore support all actions that are:
free or done by others or easy and cheap or a long time off - long enough to change your mind nearer the time.
This view is not irrational and will affect voting patterns.
But completely ignores the original aim of the 2030 date being ahead of the EU which was to encourage car makers to build new factories here, and ignores the wider race the UK is part of (and should have the opportunity to prosper from) to secure the investment and productivity gains associated with the energy transition.
It's happening whether Tories like it or not. In 30 years time we're not going to be chugging around in diesels or burning gas in boilers. We'll either be importing all that new technology from elsewhere - quite possibly the US if the IRA has the desired effect - or we'll be making and profiting from it here.
Again I'll say it, luddism and the asset sweating mentality of British administrations is in danger of shutting us out from the next industrial revolution.
The next Industrial Revolution is AI, it certainly isn’t the switch from ICE to EV. The latter is less significant by orders of magnitude
For a start, if AI fulfils half its promise, in 30 years time it will be transporting us in autonomous AI vehicles, that can fly swim and scoot, and who cares how they are fuelled
The next industrial revolution is the entirety of the transition to net zero, of which EVs are one small part. We are completely transforming how we capture, transmit and use energy just like we did when we invented steam. AI will help us get there.
No, getting to net zero is an evolution; one that perhaps started with the 1970's oil crisis, when we realised we could not just pump 'n burn.
I've no idea what the next revolution is going to be; it might be AI, as Leon says, but I have significant doubts. The chances are that in 2123 we'll look back on the next revolution and say; "Cor, why didn't they see teleportation coming? What idiots!"
edit: it's equally likely that we've had the 'next' revolution, or are living through it: computing and the Internet.
So between the A55 and Llandudno beach is 4.1 miles along the A470.
How much of it do you suppose is a 20 zone?
Actually you just demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the area as the main route used from the A55 to Llandudno West bound is from the West End through Rhos on Sea and Penrhyn Bay or along the promenade in Old Colwyn
If you come from the east perhaps. What if you've come along the A55 from the west? Or if you're coming from Llansanffraid? Do you drive all the way along to Colwyn Bay just to double back on slower roads? No, you don't.
The majority of traffic especially holiday makers come from the east and the Welsh border
I am only commenting on the Old Colwyn to Llandudno area
I just had a look on Google Timeline* and the last time I was there visiting a friend we drove out of Llandudno via... the A470. And then east to the border and so back up to Scotland. We had come in from the west, we'd been to Ynys Mon first, and we came in via Pentywyn Road which was probably a mistake. But at no point did we drive through Rhos on Sea. This is 7 years ago, obviously before all the 20mph stuff. Probably would take the same route out today as I did back then.
*yeah I've got a track of everywhere I've been for the last ten years or more.
Fair comment but the majority of traffic comes from the east
And yes, you would be wise to use the same way to the A55 especially with the new 20mph restrictions
And the petition has just gone through 300,000 (and shows no sign of abating) which is astonishing for Wales (300,795)
Labour are suffering from poorly communicating their policy. But nobody in their right minds will vote for Andrew RT Davies - and many have reservations about Plaid...so dont expect any change in the polls
There isn't really a huge link between material conditions and happiness. Most people were very happy in the summer of 1976 and had a lot less than people do today.
But they were enjoying sustained improvements in their standards of living.
There isn't really a huge link between material conditions and happiness. Most people were very happy in the summer of 1976 and had a lot less than people do today.
Notably that was the year that the UK had its lowest Gini coefficient. And a hot summer.
So between the A55 and Llandudno beach is 4.1 miles along the A470.
How much of it do you suppose is a 20 zone?
Actually you just demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the area as the main route used from the A55 to Llandudno West bound is from the West End through Rhos on Sea and Penrhyn Bay or along the promenade in Old Colwyn
If you come from the east perhaps. What if you've come along the A55 from the west? Or if you're coming from Llansanffraid? Do you drive all the way along to Colwyn Bay just to double back on slower roads? No, you don't.
The majority of traffic especially holiday makers come from the east and the Welsh border
I am only commenting on the Old Colwyn to Llandudno area
I just had a look on Google Timeline* and the last time I was there visiting a friend we drove out of Llandudno via... the A470. And then east to the border and so back up to Scotland. We had come in from the west, we'd been to Ynys Mon first, and we came in via Pentywyn Road which was probably a mistake. But at no point did we drive through Rhos on Sea. This is 7 years ago, obviously before all the 20mph stuff. Probably would take the same route out today as I did back then.
*yeah I've got a track of everywhere I've been for the last ten years or more.
Fair comment but the majority of traffic comes from the east
And yes, you would be wise to use the same way to the A55 especially with the new 20mph restrictions
And the petition has just gone through 300,000 (and shows no sign of abating) which is astonishing for Wales (300,795)
Prediction.
Welsh people will be very annoyed about this.
Very annoyed indeed.
And will then go and vote Labour again.
Yup
When Gateshead Council introduced a barking mad traffic measure stopping people from accessing the Tyne Bridge via Askew Road and implemented some hare brained scheme diverting traffic around Gateshead there was uproar about it. The council made a minor concession. Come the next council election they romped it.
How the frigging friggity frig is the Government so frigging incompetent that they announce a change in industrial laws without checking with the frigging industry their intentions first?
So they're going to have ICE cars available for sale after 2030, but manufacturer after manufacturer is coming out saying they have no intention of having any available for sale?
Utter incompetence.
Firstly, he's not saying ICE cars will be available for sale after 2030 he's saying that consumers will not be stopped by the state from buying one assuming they are there. Secondly, this alters demand and may make manufacturers produce ICE cars for longer - up to them.
So between the A55 and Llandudno beach is 4.1 miles along the A470.
How much of it do you suppose is a 20 zone?
Actually you just demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the area as the main route used from the A55 to Llandudno West bound is from the West End through Rhos on Sea and Penrhyn Bay or along the promenade in Old Colwyn
If you come from the east perhaps. What if you've come along the A55 from the west? Or if you're coming from Llansanffraid? Do you drive all the way along to Colwyn Bay just to double back on slower roads? No, you don't.
The majority of traffic especially holiday makers come from the east and the Welsh border
I am only commenting on the Old Colwyn to Llandudno area
I just had a look on Google Timeline* and the last time I was there visiting a friend we drove out of Llandudno via... the A470. And then east to the border and so back up to Scotland. We had come in from the west, we'd been to Ynys Mon first, and we came in via Pentywyn Road which was probably a mistake. But at no point did we drive through Rhos on Sea. This is 7 years ago, obviously before all the 20mph stuff. Probably would take the same route out today as I did back then.
*yeah I've got a track of everywhere I've been for the last ten years or more.
Fair comment but the majority of traffic comes from the east
And yes, you would be wise to use the same way to the A55 especially with the new 20mph restrictions
And the petition has just gone through 300,000 (and shows no sign of abating) which is astonishing for Wales (300,795)
Labour are suffering from poorly communicating their policy. But nobody in their right minds will vote for Andrew RT Davies - and many have reservations about Plaid...so dont expect any change in the polls
How the frigging friggity frig is the Government so frigging incompetent that they announce a change in industrial laws without checking with the frigging industry their intentions first?
So they're going to have ICE cars available for sale after 2030, but manufacturer after manufacturer is coming out saying they have no intention of having any available for sale?
Utter incompetence.
I'm starting to think the ICE announcement probably isn't going to affect what's actually made except at the margins, it's just made it less likely new vehicles will be made in the UK.
For consumers though the insulation and energy efficiency standards changes are the most bizarre. Yes they need government support and subsidy, but nobody loves having a draughty poorly insulated house and skyrocketing heating bills.
The true horror in the latest uturn is that Tory landlords are letting Tory landlords screw over their tenants. Millions of people are reliant on the rentier class to invest in pinko commie luxuries like heating and not having rising damp and mould spores. This would cost money, so its clearly in their interest not to bother. And thanks to the new uturn they don't have to. Trebles all round!
Thanks. The principles here are not complicated and run with human nature, except for a few idealists, many of whom are rich enough to purchase a device for running a car on fruit salad. Very few intend to articulate them:
1) The public don't believe Net Zero will happen in any known timescale (eg 2050) because it requires universal global not national implementation and the tragedy of the commons means this won't happen. After several decades of politics there is precisely zero evidence that this view is incorrect.
2) If (1) is true then a single nation busting a gut to do it cannot save the world. Though it may (or may not) have other good side effects
3) The majority of the UK public will therefore support all actions that are:
free or done by others or easy and cheap or a long time off - long enough to change your mind nearer the time.
This view is not irrational and will affect voting patterns.
But completely ignores the original aim of the 2030 date being ahead of the EU which was to encourage car makers to build new factories here, and ignores the wider race the UK is part of (and should have the opportunity to prosper from) to secure the investment and productivity gains associated with the energy transition.
It's happening whether Tories like it or not. In 30 years time we're not going to be chugging around in diesels or burning gas in boilers. We'll either be importing all that new technology from elsewhere - quite possibly the US if the IRA has the desired effect - or we'll be making and profiting from it here.
Again I'll say it, luddism and the asset sweating mentality of British administrations is in danger of shutting us out from the next industrial revolution.
Sunak put great emphasis in his speech on how far ahead we are of other countries.
Now, that's as much by accident as design - but he's right, we are ahead. And there's likely to be a reasonable first-mover advantage to be had as a result.
Not just in encouraging car makers, but also from energy-intensive industries such as datacentres, and for plenty of organisations in the service sector who are increasingly keen on things like Carbon Value Modelling to track the carbon footprint of pretty much everything they do. By maintaining our lead, we make ourselves a more attractive place to do business.
But now we're proposing to throw away a large chunk of that advantage. Why? To try to save a few red wall seats in the next election?
How the frigging friggity frig is the Government so frigging incompetent that they announce a change in industrial laws without checking with the frigging industry their intentions first?
So they're going to have ICE cars available for sale after 2030, but manufacturer after manufacturer is coming out saying they have no intention of having any available for sale?
Utter incompetence.
Firstly, he's not saying ICE cars will be available for sale after 2030 he's saying that consumers will not be stopped by the state from buying one assuming they are there. Secondly, this alters demand and may make manufacturers produce ICE cars for longer - up to them.
Quite. Really rather bizarre that an avowed libertarian needs a gentle explanation of the free market but hey.
How the frigging friggity frig is the Government so frigging incompetent that they announce a change in industrial laws without checking with the frigging industry their intentions first?
So they're going to have ICE cars available for sale after 2030, but manufacturer after manufacturer is coming out saying they have no intention of having any available for sale?
Utter incompetence.
I'm starting to think the ICE announcement probably isn't going to affect what's actually made except at the margins, it's just made it less likely new vehicles will be made in the UK.
For consumers though the insulation and energy efficiency standards changes are the most bizarre. Yes they need government support and subsidy, but nobody loves having a draughty poorly insulated house and skyrocketing heating bills.
Well there’s an easy solution to that. I insulated my loft for a small cost, and added lap vents to ensure adequate airflow.
I’m sure people are more than capable of doing the same.
Comments
@fleetstreetfox
HELICOPTERS FOR ALL
The right have told us on here that this will save people the £40k expense of having to buy an EV. But it won't. Because the only ICE engines left will be hybrid before we get to the end of the decade.
The market is rapidly moving to EV. We had our shot at supporting the industry and being a player. Instead we lied to BMW last week and have united the entire industry against investing in Britain.
"My target to run a marathon remains. It's just that I can't be arsed to do any training" sums up today's BS.
@BestForBritain
Note to all politicians: four of your own staff applauding far too enthusiastically is significantly more embarrassing than nobody applauding. ~AA
https://x.com/BestForBritain/status/1704527453580865706?s=20
Have a good evening, all.
A tax on 3D printed boilers. I've scrapped it.
A ban on the breeding of owls for meat. I've scrapped it.
Proposals to force everyone to paint their cars green. I've scrapped that too.
Ouch. Rishi Sunak is talking down to women again. Looking very irritated (and quite aggressive) that
@PippaCrerar
pointed out he is watering down the net zero strategy. How dare a journalist ask a question! Ban them.
“This isn’t about politics” says the actual Prime Minister.
I’ve been critical of Rishi Sunak. But I thought he at least had a serious side to him. And actually a bit of integrity. Inventing a series of imaginary proposals that your own government was never planning to introduce, then pretending to scrap them, is just embarrassing.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1704525968423964985
@DPJHodges
·
18m
I’ve been critical of Rishi Sunak. But I thought he at least had a serious side to him. And actually a bit of integrity. Inventing a series of imaginary proposals that your own government was never planning to introduce, then pretending to scrap them, is just embarrassing.
The mood of Sunak's answers to the net zero questions was "I'm not really doing anything". Which is true, but sadly exposes the raw political motive for the speech.
"Do you think filthy Brits should be able to destroy the planet with their cars for 5 more years" or some such.
Those of us with a cynical bent would observe that the shortage in housing and consequent rises in housing cost track quite nearly onto the immigration patterns for the last 20-30 years, and if we want to at least stop matters getting even worse we need to get net immigration to zero ASAP, rather than adding over half a million a year.
Planning permission is a major problem. I'm currently trying to buy a very burnt out 3 farmhouse in a nice place in the north (ish) - taking out the cost of other aspects of the deal (there's also 15 acres of low grade agricultural land) I'm paying around £150k just for a site with reasonable hope off getting planning permission to build one modest 3 bed, admittedly with a nice view. That's a lot of money for a lot considering the land (on which you'd never get planning) it's on is worth about £4k an acre.
Building regs (and particularly the energy efficiency) side of them are also making new houses more expensive. My parents have had a decent detached 4 build built, completed this year - it's cost well over £300k in build costs (ignoring the plot and planning costs). A lot of that is costs imposed on the construction fit out by building regs. Houses (especially those of the sort people actually want) are never going to be very affordable all the while build costs are at that level - which takes us back to where we started, that all the green regs are one of the reasons why life in the UK is increasingly unaffordable.
In particular, with his continual whining about wanting to depoliticize the argument. He does this often at PMQs, too - accusing questioners of "playing politics" at least twice in every session.
I mean, I get that he'd love to do away with politics and rule as a pure technocrat. But that's not the system we have.
If he doesn't want to be a politician, why doesn't he resign and go back to working for a bank?
"Sunak was appointed as leader on the grounds that he could hold the party together. If he now seems to be failing at this, his already weakened authority will only further diminish."
Me on why watering down net zero could be a big miscalculation
https://x.com/RMCunliffe/status/1704531875576868930?s=20
Today is an act of weakness from a desperate, directionless Prime Minister, dancing to the tune of a small minority of his party.
Liz Truss crashed the economy and Rishi Sunak is trashing our economic future.
What's this thing about "we won't tell you how many passengers you can carry in your car"?
I've never heard of such a proposal.
Is he talking about High Occupancy Lanes and Slug Lines? And promising not to do them so as to maximise congestion / inefficiency?
Is he going to repeal that?
I haven't seen Sunak's speech - his delivery is never particularly good, but it reads well and he's right.
(Seriously, carry on, I am very much enjoying this conversation).
See also Pathetic Motorways: https://pathetic.org.uk/
1) The public don't believe Net Zero will happen in any known timescale (eg 2050) because it requires universal global not national implementation and the tragedy of the commons means this won't happen. After several decades of politics there is precisely zero evidence that this view is incorrect.
2) If (1) is true then a single nation busting a gut to do it cannot save the world. Though it may (or may not) have other good side effects
3) The majority of the UK public will therefore support all actions that are:
free or
done by others or
easy and cheap or
a long time off - long enough to change your mind nearer the time.
This view is not irrational and will affect voting patterns.
They'll still lose in the end probably, but hopefully we may now get a genuine contest...
You think this is gift week for the Tories? Its the opposite. Labour can campaign on saving all of those jobs that people think is coming in electric cars, batteries, turbines, CCS etc etc etc.
Sunak just through inward investment in the bin - its a catastrophe for UK PLC. You don't lie to BMW and then tell people that Nothing Has Changed. The Lizaster trashed the economy with a short sharp shock. Sunak is following up by shutting down industrial investment.
It's happening whether Tories like it or not. In 30 years time we're not going to be chugging around in diesels or burning gas in boilers. We'll either be importing all that new technology from elsewhere - quite possibly the US if the IRA has the desired effect - or we'll be making and profiting from it here.
Again I'll say it, luddism and the asset sweating mentality of British administrations is in danger of shutting us out from the next industrial revolution.
This Net Zero issue is very simple doorstep stuff. Labour is going to drive your living standards down so that Starmer can posture at international conferences, meanwhile China will continue to do what the fuck it likes. Labour would be crazy to allow Sunak to make this is a wedge issue, and my prediction is that they'll cave.
I am only commenting on the Old Colwyn to Llandudno area
Okay that’s the Hollywood scriptwriter bit !
The problem for the Tories is there’s so many things currently wrong with the country and so much anti Tory feeling that people might have already tuned out and just don’t believe Sunak could even deliver this policy u-turn .
{no signal}
FLASH FLASH
SET ALL CRM-114 to "OPE". REPEAT. SET ALL CRM-114 TO "OPE".
INITIATE PLAN R FOR RIPPER
ENDS
As to facts, with cars I suspect the market and big business will decide this; as to heat pumps I still think as I always have that particular bird won't fly. For most people a better answer is needed.
To present himself as a truth-telling politician making hard choices, while quite blatantly trying to flog a pre-election giveaway?
We are the frog that is being boiled.
I'm not convinced that it's a great strategy for a Tory PM to go on so much about how so many of us are struggling to make ends meet after 13 years of Tory-led government.
For a start, if AI fulfils half its promise, in 30 years time it will be transporting us in autonomous AI vehicles, that can fly swim and scoot, and who cares how they are fuelled
I still struggle to understand why everyone still treats heat pumps as an exotic novelty that might not work, when they are installed as a matter of course across the continent. I'm having one fitted in the barn I'm converting in France and there wasn't even any question of other heating options. There's no mains gas for a start. We are uniquely dependent on gas heating here.
He was one of the main driving forces behind the surge of new building in the mid 1930s, and then later managed to get almost 4 million new houses and flats built during his 12 years as housing minister, chancellor, and PM.
GDP in the late 50s was about 4.5x less than it is now in real terms. Surely it shouldn't be beyond us to build 8 million by 2035?
If people like that are saying that out loud about our PM, he has a problem.
I welcome the delay on banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars as well as the delay on the ban on oil and gas boilers. This is particularly important for rural areas. 1/2
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1704536615698211157
The jigsaw pieces are from different jigsaws. Don't expect them to fit.
Are we continually going to flip-flop as policies go in and out of fashion? Why did this policy come in? (Boris had a greenie partner). Why did this policy go out? (Sunak is desperate) Do they know what the eff they are doing? (No. They genuinely don't). Either party? (Nope. They are both clueless)
You see that "oh fuck we're about to run out of gas because we're reliant on Russia" crisis we just had? That is why we're moving away from gas boilers. Over the next decade. The market will set the price - heat pumps and alternate fuels will crash in price, with legacy crap like inefficient gas boilers getting more expensive.
Lizaster thought she could tell the markets what to do. She was wrong. What makes you think Sunak can tell the markets what to do. Are Ford going to reverse their plans to phase out pure petrol engines because Sunak says so?
And yes, you would be wise to use the same way to the A55 especially with the new 20mph restrictions
And the petition has just gone through 300,000 (and shows no sign of abating) which is astonishing for Wales (300,795)
So they're going to have ICE cars available for sale after 2030, but manufacturer after manufacturer is coming out saying they have no intention of having any available for sale?
Utter incompetence.
Welsh people will be very annoyed about this.
Very annoyed indeed.
And will then go and vote Labour again.
“The 2030 deadline set a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles but not a ban on the ownership or use of them, or the buying and selling of them in the used car market. The deadline gave the industry certainty on which to invest, which was supported by consumer and industrial strategy. Car manufacturers subsequently invested billions of pounds in new electric vehicles, their control systems and the battery technology and production required to support them. At the same time, they are having to support and fund a declining supply chain for internal combustion engine vehicles, which will become more costly and complex to secure over time.
“Whilst delaying this deadline allows for more time for transition to electric vehicles and investment to be made in related infrastructure, we have already seen that big concerns are being raised by some of the automotive industry about the impact of this decision on investment plans, the consumer desire to transition to EVs, and the certainty that business can have in the new deadline.”
https://x.com/SimonVirley/status/1704540242949075401?s=20
If there are constant situations like that where Labour either have to say they will do the costly thing or have to agree to stick to Tory plans then it will undermine them as some of their vote will be fucking furious and the Lib Dem’s will work on them and others will say that Labour are either dishonest or the same as the Tories.
How many times will Labour be able to say “we will not change x policy” without losing appeal.
It’s cynical and probably crap for the country but it could be the difference between wipeout for the Tories or no Lab majority.
The claim is that Sunak needed to ask or else consumers be forced to spend £40k cash to buy an EV. But the 2030 was only to ban pure ICE - hybrid systems would have continued. I expect there to be an awful lot of plug-in hybrid vehicles as we get to the back end of the decade. But without the hybrid system? A few remaining "mild hybrid" vehicles and thats it.
You think BMW are going to make small / cheap RHD vehicles for us is small quantities when the market has already killed them off? Its legal to buy a diesel, but look how many do. So diesel has gone in the bin and diesel engines are being removed at the next refresh / relaunch. As will petrol.
They told BMW they were sticking to 2030.
Last week.
"Long term decisions"
For consumers though the insulation and energy efficiency standards changes are the most bizarre. Yes they need government support and subsidy, but nobody loves having a draughty poorly insulated house and skyrocketing heating bills.
I've no idea what the next revolution is going to be; it might be AI, as Leon says, but I have significant doubts. The chances are that in 2123 we'll look back on the next revolution and say; "Cor, why didn't they see teleportation coming? What idiots!"
edit: it's equally likely that we've had the 'next' revolution, or are living through it: computing and the Internet.
When Gateshead Council introduced a barking mad traffic measure stopping people from accessing the Tyne Bridge via Askew Road and implemented some hare brained scheme diverting traffic around Gateshead there was uproar about it. The council made a minor concession. Come the next council election they romped it.
Now, that's as much by accident as design - but he's right, we are ahead. And there's likely to be a reasonable first-mover advantage to be had as a result.
Not just in encouraging car makers, but also from energy-intensive industries such as datacentres, and for plenty of organisations in the service sector who are increasingly keen on things like Carbon Value Modelling to track the carbon footprint of pretty much everything they do. By maintaining our lead, we make ourselves a more attractive place to do business.
But now we're proposing to throw away a large chunk of that advantage. Why? To try to save a few red wall seats in the next election?
I’m sure people are more than capable of doing the same.
Why should people need a subsidy to do this ?