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.
I suspect Uxbridge has provided a party with a classic by-election bum steer.
The message that has been taken by the Conservatives is that there is strong appetite for a broad, anti-environmentalism agenda. Whereas actually it was a much more limited point about outer-London car drivers fearing they were about to be hit with a significant personal cost (the fear was probably exaggerated in terms of numbers affected but that was the fear). I suspect they will learn that they are alienating more people than they attract by broadening out, but we shall see.
This is reminiscent of a couple of other classic by-election bum steers - both affecting the Lib Dems rather than Tories. Richmond Park in 2016 was taken as a sign that full-throated Remoaning was a winning strategy, just because it got a result in just about the most solidly Remain constituency in the UK, against an MP who was a radical Brexiteer. Eastleigh in 2013 was taken as meaning Lib Dems could retain lots more seats than was ever realistic in 2015, leading to massive over-targeting and loss of some seats that perhaps could have been held had others been abandoned to their fate.
There's sometimes a bit of a winner's curse with by-elections. They are great in terms of creating positive vibes around the winner, but pretty bad in terms of providing a template to win elsewhere.
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)
They need to promote international consensus on what to go about what is a global problem.
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
We agree generally but I do expect the pressure to see a general review of the changes and sensible review
Andrew RT Davies (who) is terrible and labour will still likely win the next Senedd 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.
Because they're not really interested in industry or business.
The bulk of the people the Conservatives are interested in are retired. The rest are professional middlemen and moneymen.
But people who make stuff and try to sell it to others to turn an honest quid? That's Oldthink.
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.
Just like Truss, here's a new economic policy we'll crunch the numbers later. Any normal business would give someone the boot for such actions.
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 is a big assumption here; that the price of EV vehicles worldwide continues to decrease in price - and that EV demand follows. That may happen, but it's far from certain. I can easily imagine other countries in the EU and elsewhere delaying their pure-EV plans over the next few years.
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.
At the risk of being provocative I actually think you and Barty think similarly. At various points in the past I've speculated that you both are a particular economist (Liam Halligan).
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.
So if this is the case, and I am sure it is, then why all the angst and anger from people ?
It’s all rather futile getting worked up about this when it is happening anyway.
Carmakers do not have to offer ICE engines. They won’t so the market will decide. This is just politics.
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?
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.
At the risk of being provocative I actually think you and Barty think similarly. At various points in the past I've speculated that you both are a particular economist (Liam Halligan).
Barty Bobbins is the libertarian that loves telling you what to do.
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.
Do you have any data to back that up?
It's pretty obvious. That happiness peaked prior to smartphones and social media may not be coincidental.
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.
Isn't it mostly semantics? They'll be making hybrids, which are ICE in all but name. These were to be allowed until 2035, I think?
A plug in hybrid with a 20 or so mile range on electric is not really going to change the world.
Channel 4 News poll: 40.7% of voters say they are less likely to vote Conservative if they don't stick to commitments on climate change. Field work done today.
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.
It feels weirdly similar to the arse end of the last Labour government, when Gordon Brown went mad chucking out policies that would either be reversed by the next government (60% top rate tax, all the creepy ID card database stuff) or stuff that plainly was never going to happen.
When is Sunak announcing his Gulags For Slags policy?
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
We agree generally but I do expect the pressure to see a general review of the changes and sensible review
Andrew RT Davies (who) is terrible and labour will still likely win the next Senedd election
Andrew Russia Today Davies is destroying all credibility for Welsh Conservatives - but they dont seem to have any alternative.
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.
I understand the free market.
Its the total incompetence that astounds me. Or would astound me if I didn't already think the Government is utterly incompetent.
If you're going to pick a fight in politics, try to pick one that might be productive.
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.
So if this is the case, and I am sure it is, then why all the angst and anger from people ?
It’s all rather futile getting worked up about this when it is happening anyway.
Carmakers do not have to offer ICE engines. They won’t so the market will decide. This is just politics.
Two reasons:
1) The government is virtue signalling that the climate change crisis is a con. Not something we need to worry about. On one hand a load or cost if we act, on the other hand no cost at all if we don't. This is dangerously stupid, and given the global consensus on both the issues and actions makes our ministers look like wazzocks on the global stage as we saw over the last few days
2) Sunak needs the car industry to invest in Britain. Last week he committed to 2030 to secure BMW's investment, then a week later stands in front of a "long term decisions" lecturn to announce that he lied to BMW. The reaction from the manufacturing and tech sectors has been very strong - they ask what the point is in even considering investing here?
Channel 4 News poll: 40.7% of voters say they are less likely to vote Conservative if they don't stick to commitments on climate change. Field work done today.
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
We agree generally but I do expect the pressure to see a general review of the changes and sensible review
Andrew RT Davies (who) is terrible and labour will still likely win the next Senedd election
Andrew Russia Today Davies is destroying all credibility for Welsh Conservatives - but they dont seem to have any alternative.
I would volunteer but I don't want to do a Joe Biden !
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.
So if this is the case, and I am sure it is, then why all the angst and anger from people ?
It’s all rather futile getting worked up about this when it is happening anyway.
Carmakers do not have to offer ICE engines. They won’t so the market will decide. This is just politics.
Two reasons:
1) The government is virtue signalling that the climate change crisis is a con. Not something we need to worry about. On one hand a load or cost if we act, on the other hand no cost at all if we don't. This is dangerously stupid, and given the global consensus on both the issues and actions makes our ministers look like wazzocks on the global stage as we saw over the last few days
2) Sunak needs the car industry to invest in Britain. Last week he committed to 2030 to secure BMW's investment, then a week later stands in front of a "long term decisions" lecturn to announce that he lied to BMW. The reaction from the manufacturing and tech sectors has been very strong - they ask what the point is in even considering investing here?
Sunak has all the integrity of Boris Johnson.
Lost track now of the amount of times he's said one thing then done the other.
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.
I understand the free market.
Its the total incompetence that astounds me. Or would astound me if I didn't already think the Government is utterly incompetent.
If you're going to pick a fight in politics, try to pick one that might be productive.
If you're gonna pick a fight, pick one you've already won
Channel 4 News poll: 40.7% of voters say they are less likely to vote Conservative if they don't stick to commitments on climate change. Field work done 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.
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.
So if this is the case, and I am sure it is, then why all the angst and anger from people ?
It’s all rather futile getting worked up about this when it is happening anyway.
Carmakers do not have to offer ICE engines. They won’t so the market will decide. This is just politics.
Two reasons:
1) The government is virtue signalling that the climate change crisis is a con. Not something we need to worry about. On one hand a load or cost if we act, on the other hand no cost at all if we don't. This is dangerously stupid, and given the global consensus on both the issues and actions makes our ministers look like wazzocks on the global stage as we saw over the last few days
2) Sunak needs the car industry to invest in Britain. Last week he committed to 2030 to secure BMW's investment, then a week later stands in front of a "long term decisions" lecturn to announce that he lied to BMW. The reaction from the manufacturing and tech sectors has been very strong - they ask what the point is in even considering investing here?
As WSC said,
Some regard private enterprise as if it were a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look upon it as a cow that they can milk. Only a handful see it for what it really is--the strong horse that pulls the whole cart.
How does this government regard private enterprise? The ingénue to be groomed, f@#£ed and dumped?
Channel 4 News poll: 40.7% of voters say they are less likely to vote Conservative if they don't stick to commitments on climate change. Field work done today.
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.
It feels weirdly similar to the arse end of the last Labour government, when Gordon Brown went mad chucking out policies that would either be reversed by the next government (60% top rate tax, all the creepy ID card database stuff) or stuff that plainly was never going to happen.
When is Sunak announcing his Gulags For Slags policy?
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.
I understand the free market.
Its the total incompetence that astounds me. Or would astound me if I didn't already think the Government is utterly incompetent.
If you're going to pick a fight in politics, try to pick one that might be productive.
If you're gonna pick a fight, pick one you've already won
But he's picking a fight that had been won, by switching onto the losing side.
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.
I think that the Ford statement today makes the case against that.
Their point is that if you're Ford, or any other car company, you listen to what the policy is and ideally you want to make investments based on that policy actually being the policy. If you do that well, you're being efficient as a business and this gives you gain a jump on others - that's how competition works.
So in this case, Ford invested and planned to transition their activities and investments in the UK based on a stated 2030 commitment. But that commitment wasn't real, so they now need to re-plan at significant cost, given it will, in fact, be possible to sell new ICE cars in the UK in 2030-35, meaning they damned well need to have right hand drive ICE cars available, and fewer EVs than they thought.
They are spitting blood over it, not just because this particular flagship policy has been changed on a whim, without discussion with them and at significant cost to them, but because how does a business plan anything based on any announced policy if they can't have confidence that there is any real commitment from the UK Government and its spineless PM to do what they say?
Channel 4 News poll: 40.7% of voters say they are less likely to vote Conservative if they don't stick to commitments on climate change. Field work done today.
Channel 4 News poll: 40.7% of voters say they are less likely to vote Conservative if they don't stick to commitments on climate change. Field work done 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?
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.
I understand the free market.
Its the total incompetence that astounds me. Or would astound me if I didn't already think the Government is utterly incompetent.
If you're going to pick a fight in politics, try to pick one that might be productive.
If you're gonna pick a fight, pick one you've already won
But he's picking a fight that had been won, by switching onto the losing side.
That's just bizarre.
You seem to think that the producer interest is the important thing. Truss/Sunak are for the consumer interest
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.
So if this is the case, and I am sure it is, then why all the angst and anger from people ?
It’s all rather futile getting worked up about this when it is happening anyway.
Carmakers do not have to offer ICE engines. They won’t so the market will decide. This is just politics.
Two reasons:
1) The government is virtue signalling that the climate change crisis is a con. Not something we need to worry about. On one hand a load or cost if we act, on the other hand no cost at all if we don't. This is dangerously stupid, and given the global consensus on both the issues and actions makes our ministers look like wazzocks on the global stage as we saw over the last few days
2) Sunak needs the car industry to invest in Britain. Last week he committed to 2030 to secure BMW's investment, then a week later stands in front of a "long term decisions" lecturn to announce that he lied to BMW. The reaction from the manufacturing and tech sectors has been very strong - they ask what the point is in even considering investing here?
" The government is virtue signalling that the climate change crisis is a con."
No, it really isn't. But it is a recognition that green issues are just one of the myriad of issues that faces the country, such as the cost-of-living crisis. Like many things, it's a compromise between conflicting issues.
As it happens, I'd keep the 2030 target as an aspiration, but have in the back of my mind that we may well not hit it.
I'd also remind everyone of the massive strides that have been made towards green energy since 2000 (or 1990, if you want to go back that far...)
Away from all of this I was interested to read that the Germans are now in the same camp as the UK, Italy and seeming France wrt to illegal immigration. Surely there's a window to push through reforms of the ECHR to allow for easy deportation of failed asylum seekers and instant deportation for people arriving on banned routes as well as off shore processing centres.
With the four major countries in Europe all singing from the same hymn sheet it's surely time to start those discussions because all four countries have the same goal of stopping illegal immigration and deporting failed asylum seekers and many European countries have indicated they would also pursue the Rwanda policy.
Rishi and Giorgia need to get Macron on board and then push the Germans into it by using the spectre of AfD getting >30% at 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.
I think that the Ford statement today makes the case against that.
Their point is that if you're Ford, or any other car company, you listen to what the policy is and ideally you want to make investments based on that policy actually being the policy. If you do that well, you're being efficient as a business and this gives you gain a jump on others - that's how competition works.
So in this case, Ford invested and planned to transition their activities and investments in the UK based on a stated 2030 commitment. But that commitment wasn't real, so they now need to re-plan at significant cost, given it will, in fact, be possible to sell new ICE cars in the UK in 2030-35, meaning they damned well need to have right hand drive ICE cars available, and fewer EVs than they thought.
They are spitting blood over it, not just because this particular flagship policy has been changed on a whim, without discussion with them and at significant cost to them, but because how does a business plan anything based on any announced policy if they can't have confidence that there is any real commitment from the UK Government and its spineless PM to do what they say?
So Ford are geared up to only be selling new electric vehicles in the UK from 2030. If they are the only Fords available then the people who only will drive Fords will buy the electric ones, as they would if this policy wasn’t pushed back. Same for any carmaker who makes right hand drive models - if they choose to stick to the 2030 timetable which they have all geared towards then the market brings in the 2030 timetable anyway. Which car maker thinks it’s worth switching their plans for all electric anyway at this stage?
If a car co suddenly thinks, hang on a minute, there’s a big market for five years to build ICE cars then they will, but they won’t.
This policy will make fuck all difference and is merely cynical politics which might work but as Sunak is crap at politics it obviously won’t, unless it does.
Good news for Sunak though, he announced this all on a breezy and fairly chilly day rather than the unseasonable heatwave of last week, with no forest fires currently raging in Europe and no catastrophic hurricane ripping across the Caribbean. So weather wise it was quite sensible timing.
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.
I think that the Ford statement today makes the case against that.
Their point is that if you're Ford, or any other car company, you listen to what the policy is and ideally you want to make investments based on that policy actually being the policy. If you do that well, you're being efficient as a business and this gives you gain a jump on others - that's how competition works.
So in this case, Ford invested and planned to transition their activities and investments in the UK based on a stated 2030 commitment. But that commitment wasn't real, so they now need to re-plan at significant cost, given it will, in fact, be possible to sell new ICE cars in the UK in 2030-35, meaning they damned well need to have right hand drive ICE cars available, and fewer EVs than they thought.
They are spitting blood over it, not just because this particular flagship policy has been changed on a whim, without discussion with them and at significant cost to them, but because how does a business plan anything based on any announced policy if they can't have confidence that there is any real commitment from the UK Government and its spineless PM to do what they say?
This is true but reflects the fact that the whole transition policy involves coercing the market using the power of the state. If it were genuinely a decision of 'the market', then the government postponing the date would have no impact on Ford at all.
I suspect Uxbridge has provided a party with a classic by-election bum steer.
The message that has been taken by the Conservatives is that there is strong appetite for a broad, anti-environmentalism agenda. Whereas actually it was a much more limited point about outer-London car drivers fearing they were about to be hit with a significant personal cost (the fear was probably exaggerated in terms of numbers affected but that was the fear). I suspect they will learn that they are alienating more people than they attract by broadening out, but we shall see.
This is reminiscent of a couple of other classic by-election bum steers - both affecting the Lib Dems rather than Tories. Richmond Park in 2016 was taken as a sign that full-throated Remoaning was a winning strategy, just because it got a result in just about the most solidly Remain constituency in the UK, against an MP who was a radical Brexiteer. Eastleigh in 2013 was taken as meaning Lib Dems could retain lots more seats than was ever realistic in 2015, leading to massive over-targeting and loss of some seats that perhaps could have been held had others been abandoned to their fate.
There's sometimes a bit of a winner's curse with by-elections. They are great in terms of creating positive vibes around the winner, but pretty bad in terms of providing a template to win elsewhere.
Darlington 1983 being a case in point, which stopped Labour ditching Michael Foot.
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.
I understand the free market.
Its the total incompetence that astounds me. Or would astound me if I didn't already think the Government is utterly incompetent.
If you're going to pick a fight in politics, try to pick one that might be productive.
If you're gonna pick a fight, pick one you've already won
But he's picking a fight that had been won, by switching onto the losing side.
That's just bizarre.
You seem to think that the producer interest is the important thing. Truss/Sunak are for the consumer interest
What consumer interest?
If producers aren't going to produce the vehicles, then consumers won't be able to buy them either way.
But as far as producers are concerned, yes, they should have been in the loop. To literally last week to commit to the policy to the producers, then this week its reversed, is just madness.
It would be less mad if last week they'd said "we have [these] concerns, so the policy is under review" rather than to commit to one thing and then do the opposite which just makes your word worthless.
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.
So if this is the case, and I am sure it is, then why all the angst and anger from people ?
It’s all rather futile getting worked up about this when it is happening anyway.
Carmakers do not have to offer ICE engines. They won’t so the market will decide. This is just politics.
All the froth and anger is because at least some car makers will offer ICE cars, because that's what a substantial sector of the public want to buy. I'd hazzard a guess that Toyota will continue to offer a petrol manual Yaris (or equivalent size) car as long as its legally possible to sell one, and it's sale figures and profitability will be strong, particularly if other manufacturers have stopped competing and aren't offering cars either with ICEs or at its price point.
That's why the howls of rage from some parts of the car industry, who thought they'd got things stitched up nicely so cheap cars were going to be a thing of the past, and they could make loads of money leasing high end cars to people who could never afford them*.
If this change to 2035 wasn't going to have any effect, there would be no reason for all the froth and anger. As it is, it's a, just another well deserved nail in the German auto industry's coffin. (I've worked for VAG - a more arrogant bunch of idiots it's hard to imagine).
*they are almost certainly wrong about this, as Chinese EVs are going to undercut them and steal their lunch anyway - hence all the current bluster about EU import tarrifs for Chinese EVs.
Away from all of this I was interested to read that the Germans are now in the same camp as the UK, Italy and seeming France wrt to illegal immigration. Surely there's a window to push through reforms of the ECHR to allow for easy deportation of failed asylum seekers and instant deportation for people arriving on banned routes as well as off shore processing centres.
With the four major countries in Europe all singing from the same hymn sheet it's surely time to start those discussions because all four countries have the same goal of stopping illegal immigration and deporting failed asylum seekers and many European countries have indicated they would also pursue the Rwanda policy.
Rishi and Giorgia need to get Macron on board and then push the Germans into it by using the spectre of AfD getting >30% at the next election.
Asylum as a 'right' is the root cause of so many of the problems. Until that's revised then it's difficult to see anything changing.
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 insulation thing is actually quite mind-boggling: "people can't afford to pay up to £8k to make their homes more efficient". It's actually not very far from the argument that Insulate Britain made, that the public should be taking on the cost of upgrading people's homes.
But these are homeowners that we're talking about - people with assets. And the upgrades will reduce their running costs and increase the value of their home.
So, by all means, create some low-interest loan schemes. And maybe subsidise some training to increase the pool of people available to do the work. But the "we'll just live in shite mouldy homes and leave ourselves vulnerable to the next spike in energy costs" stuff makes them look really stupid.
The central premise of today's Sunak announcement is that he expects the Tory cost of living crisis to continue until at least the end of the decade. That seems a pretty important point.
Labour's position now confirmed - will oppose the lifting of the 2030 time limit on the sale of new diesel and petrol cars.
Even if the next election is 23rd January 2025? Doesn't give them much time.
Who? Labour? What does that matter - the car companies are committed to 2030 whatever Sunak says. 7 years away is tomorrow in the cycle of a big car manufacturer.
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 is a big assumption here; that the price of EV vehicles worldwide continues to decrease in price - and that EV demand follows. That may happen, but it's far from certain. I can easily imagine other countries in the EU and elsewhere delaying their pure-EV plans over the next few years.
The improvements in battery performance and reduced cost that back these assumptions are already baked in. That is are leaving the lab and are heading to the production lines.
What is not often understood is that even small changes take years to productionise. There is a conveyer belt of such upgrades and improvements - and we can make quite accurate precautions about max costs and capabilities years from now, because of it.
A compound progression of a bit more power density, a bit cheaper etc, year on year.
This leaves out radical changes, such as completely new cell chemistries, which could be even better.
Away from all of this I was interested to read that the Germans are now in the same camp as the UK, Italy and seeming France wrt to illegal immigration. Surely there's a window to push through reforms of the ECHR to allow for easy deportation of failed asylum seekers and instant deportation for people arriving on banned routes as well as off shore processing centres.
With the four major countries in Europe all singing from the same hymn sheet it's surely time to start those discussions because all four countries have the same goal of stopping illegal immigration and deporting failed asylum seekers and many European countries have indicated they would also pursue the Rwanda policy.
Rishi and Giorgia need to get Macron on board and then push the Germans into it by using the spectre of AfD getting >30% at the next election.
Asylum as a 'right' is the root cause of so many of the problems. Until that's revised then it's difficult to see anything changing.
Yes, I think that's where the reforms of the ECHR need to be focussed. Declaration of countries that aren't eligible for asylum (India, Pakistan etc...) and will result in instant deportation with no right to an asylum process.
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.
I understand the free market.
Its the total incompetence that astounds me. Or would astound me if I didn't already think the Government is utterly incompetent.
If you're going to pick a fight in politics, try to pick one that might be productive.
If you're gonna pick a fight, pick one you've already won
But he's picking a fight that had been won, by switching onto the losing side.
That's just bizarre.
You seem to think that the producer interest is the important thing. Truss/Sunak are for the consumer interest
What consumer interest?
If producers aren't going to produce the vehicles, then consumers won't be able to buy them either way.
But as far as producers are concerned, yes, they should have been in the loop. To literally last week to commit to the policy to the producers, then this week its reversed, is just madness.
It would be less mad if last week they'd said "we have [these] concerns, so the policy is under review" rather than to commit to one thing and then do the opposite which just makes your word worthless.
BMW needed assurances and cash to commit to building MINI in the UK. That commitment has, only a week later, been revealed to be a lie. Expect BMW to quietly close out their plans for the UK. I doubt we'll see a big announcement. They'll just announce the withdrawal of the remaining petrol engines made in Birmingham, and the award of manufacture to factories elsewhere, then the factories are already shut due to lack of orders.
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
We agree generally but I do expect the pressure to see a general review of the changes and sensible review
Andrew RT Davies (who) is terrible and labour will still likely win the next Senedd election
Andrew Russia Today Davies is destroying all credibility for Welsh Conservatives - but they dont seem to have any alternative.
I would volunteer but I don't want to do a Joe Biden !
Away from all of this I was interested to read that the Germans are now in the same camp as the UK, Italy and seeming France wrt to illegal immigration. Surely there's a window to push through reforms of the ECHR to allow for easy deportation of failed asylum seekers and instant deportation for people arriving on banned routes as well as off shore processing centres.
With the four major countries in Europe all singing from the same hymn sheet it's surely time to start those discussions because all four countries have the same goal of stopping illegal immigration and deporting failed asylum seekers and many European countries have indicated they would also pursue the Rwanda policy.
Rishi and Giorgia need to get Macron on board and then push the Germans into it by using the spectre of AfD getting >30% at the next election.
Asylum as a 'right' is the root cause of so many of the problems. Until that's revised then it's difficult to see anything changing.
Asylum as a right was created after WW2 in response to the holocaust and the failure of the world to protect the Jews against genocide. By all means advocate for that right to be taken away if you want to, but don't pretend it's not there for a reason.
On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.
On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.
Yep, totally agree. From a strategic and policy perspective it makes absolutely no sense and will only disincentivise investment. But Sunak is looking for dividing lines which he hopes will either win - or mitigate the loss of - a general election. He's not thinking beyond that.
Away from all of this I was interested to read that the Germans are now in the same camp as the UK, Italy and seeming France wrt to illegal immigration. Surely there's a window to push through reforms of the ECHR to allow for easy deportation of failed asylum seekers and instant deportation for people arriving on banned routes as well as off shore processing centres.
With the four major countries in Europe all singing from the same hymn sheet it's surely time to start those discussions because all four countries have the same goal of stopping illegal immigration and deporting failed asylum seekers and many European countries have indicated they would also pursue the Rwanda policy.
Rishi and Giorgia need to get Macron on board and then push the Germans into it by using the spectre of AfD getting >30% at the next election.
Asylum as a 'right' is the root cause of so many of the problems. Until that's revised then it's difficult to see anything changing.
Asylum as a right was created after WW2 in response to the holocaust and the failure of the world to protect the Jews against genocide. By all means advocate for that right to be taken away if you want to, but don't pretend it's not there for a reason.
It offers a false sense of security and gives us a false sense of altruism. It might have been created with good intentions but it's not sustainable in a world of 8 billion people and easy global travel.
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
We agree generally but I do expect the pressure to see a general review of the changes and sensible review
Andrew RT Davies (who) is terrible and labour will still likely win the next Senedd election
Andrew Russia Today Davies is destroying all credibility for Welsh Conservatives - but they dont seem to have any alternative.
I would volunteer but I don't want to do a Joe Biden !
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.
I understand the free market.
Its the total incompetence that astounds me. Or would astound me if I didn't already think the Government is utterly incompetent.
If you're going to pick a fight in politics, try to pick one that might be productive.
If you're gonna pick a fight, pick one you've already won
But he's picking a fight that had been won, by switching onto the losing side.
That's just bizarre.
You seem to think that the producer interest is the important thing. Truss/Sunak are for the consumer interest
What consumer interest?
If producers aren't going to produce the vehicles, then consumers won't be able to buy them either way.
But as far as producers are concerned, yes, they should have been in the loop. To literally last week to commit to the policy to the producers, then this week its reversed, is just madness.
It would be less mad if last week they'd said "we have [these] concerns, so the policy is under review" rather than to commit to one thing and then do the opposite which just makes your word worthless.
BMW needed assurances and cash to commit to building MINI in the UK. That commitment has, only a week later, been revealed to be a lie. Expect BMW to quietly close out their plans for the UK. I doubt we'll see a big announcement. They'll just announce the withdrawal of the remaining petrol engines made in Birmingham, and the award of manufacture to factories elsewhere, then the factories are already shut due to lack of orders.
They won't exit, they'll just push it all back by 3-5 years.
The smarter choice was to announce a £10bn electrification fund for manufacturers and charging station companies for matched investment for UK based companies and subsidiaries. Over 7 years it's like £1.4bn per year so not very much but it would mean we would probably only need a 2 year delay to 2032 and we'd get loads of battery, EV and charging station investment.
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
We agree generally but I do expect the pressure to see a general review of the changes and sensible review
Andrew RT Davies (who) is terrible and labour will still likely win the next Senedd election
Andrew Russia Today Davies is destroying all credibility for Welsh Conservatives - but they dont seem to have any alternative.
I would volunteer but I don't want to do a Joe Biden !
@Jim_Miller asked for my views on what appropriate compensation should be and what action I would take against those responsible.
Those responsible first.
Fujitsu
- No government contracts for Fujitsu until they have paid ample compensation. I am talking about millions of ounces worth of compensation not some token amount. No money, no work.
- All senior Fujitsu personnel responsible for the Horizon project during the relevant time to be barred from any government posts.
- Fujitsu witnesses during the trials and subsequent legal cases and the inquiry to be investigated with a view to determining whether there is a basis for bring charges of perjury / conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
- The Policing Minister and the London Mayor to meet with the head of the Met to ask for a detailed account of what steps the Met have taken to investigate the 2 Fujitsu employees referred to the Met by the DPP in 2020, who has been put in charge of this etc. If nothing has been done, the Met needs to be told to do its job and that while the investigation must be done properly so as not to prejudice a fair trial should charges be laid, those to whom the Met is responsible expect regular updates to ensure that this is being done properly, expeditiously and with the proper legal and other expertise supporting it. There must be no question of it being put in the "Too Difficult, Let's Forget About It" box.
The Post Office
- The CEO's and Board members in charge during this scandal to have all public honours revoked, to be removed from any positions in government bodies or quangos and to be told in very clear terms to reflect on whether they should in positions of responsibility anywhere else, given what they presided over. If they wail that they did not know, tell them that being in charge is making sure that they do know and that such an excuse runs out at about the age of 5. - If there is evidence to disqualify them from being directors, that step should be taken. - If it is possible to claw back bonuses paid, that too should be done. - If there is evidence of perjury/conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, they too should be investigated and where appropriate charged. - The current Board should be told that there will be no bonuses for any of them or senior executives until the inquiry has finished, reported and all those subpostmasters affected have been compensated. - The Post Office should be ordered to stop opposing appeals against conviction. - The government needs to take steps to overturn the convictions of those who pleaded guilty on the basis of Horizon evidence. None of the prosecutions based on this system must be allowed to stand.
On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.
Yep, totally agree. From a strategic and policy perspective it makes absolutely no sense and will only disincentivise investment. But Sunak is looking for dividing lines which he hopes will either win - or mitigate the loss of - a general election. He's not thinking beyond that.
If we were going to delay to 2035 the time to do it was the day after the EU announcement or in 2029. Doing it now is unnecessary and damaging.
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 is a big assumption here; that the price of EV vehicles worldwide continues to decrease in price - and that EV demand follows. That may happen, but it's far from certain. I can easily imagine other countries in the EU and elsewhere delaying their pure-EV plans over the next few years.
The improvements in battery performance and reduced cost that back these assumptions are already baked in. That is are leaving the lab and are heading to the production lines.
What is not often understood is that even small changes take years to productionise. There is a conveyer belt of such upgrades and improvements - and we can make quite accurate precautions about max costs and capabilities years from now, because of it.
A compound progression of a bit more power density, a bit cheaper etc, year on year.
This leaves out radical changes, such as completely new cell chemistries, which could be even better.
"The improvements in battery performance and reduced cost that back these assumptions are already baked in."
You should try a slot at a comedy club...
I mean, seriously. I *really* hope you are correct, but we're talking about six years. Six years. And as you (I think!) keep on saying, battery chemistry is a compromise of five or six different characteristics. Unless I've missed something, I haven't seen any breakthrough that matches what is required. And the idea they're 'baked in' is rather optimistic.
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.
I think that the Ford statement today makes the case against that.
Their point is that if you're Ford, or any other car company, you listen to what the policy is and ideally you want to make investments based on that policy actually being the policy. If you do that well, you're being efficient as a business and this gives you gain a jump on others - that's how competition works.
So in this case, Ford invested and planned to transition their activities and investments in the UK based on a stated 2030 commitment. But that commitment wasn't real, so they now need to re-plan at significant cost, given it will, in fact, be possible to sell new ICE cars in the UK in 2030-35, meaning they damned well need to have right hand drive ICE cars available, and fewer EVs than they thought.
They are spitting blood over it, not just because this particular flagship policy has been changed on a whim, without discussion with them and at significant cost to them, but because how does a business plan anything based on any announced policy if they can't have confidence that there is any real commitment from the UK Government and its spineless PM to do what they say?
This is true but reflects the fact that the whole transition policy involves coercing the market using the power of the state. If it were genuinely a decision of 'the market', then the government postponing the date would have no impact on Ford at all.
Of course the state has to coerce the market, because climate change is the result of market failure, namely the fact that polluters don't face the cost of the externality they produce. If there were a market mechanism that forced petrol car drivers to compensate future generations for making the world much more hostile to human life then this whole problem would never have arisen. But there isn't, so we fall back on the wholly imperfect mechanism of intergovernmental cooperation and changes to the law - which Sunak is undermining. His footnote in history will be damning.
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.
I think that the Ford statement today makes the case against that.
Their point is that if you're Ford, or any other car company, you listen to what the policy is and ideally you want to make investments based on that policy actually being the policy. If you do that well, you're being efficient as a business and this gives you gain a jump on others - that's how competition works.
So in this case, Ford invested and planned to transition their activities and investments in the UK based on a stated 2030 commitment. But that commitment wasn't real, so they now need to re-plan at significant cost, given it will, in fact, be possible to sell new ICE cars in the UK in 2030-35, meaning they damned well need to have right hand drive ICE cars available, and fewer EVs than they thought.
They are spitting blood over it, not just because this particular flagship policy has been changed on a whim, without discussion with them and at significant cost to them, but because how does a business plan anything based on any announced policy if they can't have confidence that there is any real commitment from the UK Government and its spineless PM to do what they say?
So Ford are geared up to only be selling new electric vehicles in the UK from 2030. If they are the only Fords available then the people who only will drive Fords will buy the electric ones, as they would if this policy wasn’t pushed back. Same for any carmaker who makes right hand drive models - if they choose to stick to the 2030 timetable which they have all geared towards then the market brings in the 2030 timetable anyway. Which car maker thinks it’s worth switching their plans for all electric anyway at this stage?
If a car co suddenly thinks, hang on a minute, there’s a big market for five years to build ICE cars then they will, but they won’t.
This policy will make fuck all difference and is merely cynical politics which might work but as Sunak is crap at politics it obviously won’t, unless it does.
You seem to be assuming that people go out to buy a Ford rather than going out to buy a car.
So Ford's assumption based on the policy was that someone buying a new car past 2030 in the UK literally couldn't get a new ICE so, obviously, they'd not supply them - and, crucially, nor would any of their competitors.
But now, that isn't clear. So there will actually be a market for new ICE cars in 2030-35 (if the new policy survives), and Ford not offering an ICE option while Honda (say) do is bad news for Ford. Therefore Ford, and indeed Honda, will have to re-plan to ensure ICE models are available (and fewer EVs) because otherwise a competitor will gain a jump on them.
I think you're wrong to believe car companies won't re-plan. They are in a difficult position because they might reason that actually Labour will get in and stick with 2030 - but that's a gamble as they might not be and it's two elections away. But in any event, yesterday they were sure it was 2030, now they aren't, and risk has a cost.
And that's all apart from the separate point that the change more generally signals policy is inconsistent and even capricious in the UK. What other policy commitments aren't really policy commitments? How do you make investment decisions? It just injects risk into the system, and you might well shy away from investments.
Away from all of this I was interested to read that the Germans are now in the same camp as the UK, Italy and seeming France wrt to illegal immigration. Surely there's a window to push through reforms of the ECHR to allow for easy deportation of failed asylum seekers and instant deportation for people arriving on banned routes as well as off shore processing centres.
With the four major countries in Europe all singing from the same hymn sheet it's surely time to start those discussions because all four countries have the same goal of stopping illegal immigration and deporting failed asylum seekers and many European countries have indicated they would also pursue the Rwanda policy.
Rishi and Giorgia need to get Macron on board and then push the Germans into it by using the spectre of AfD getting >30% at the next election.
Asylum as a 'right' is the root cause of so many of the problems. Until that's revised then it's difficult to see anything changing.
Asylum as a right was created after WW2 in response to the holocaust and the failure of the world to protect the Jews against genocide. By all means advocate for that right to be taken away if you want to, but don't pretend it's not there for a reason.
It offers a false sense of security and gives us a false sense of altruism. It might have been created with good intentions but it's not sustainable in a world of 8 billion people and easy global travel.
People said the same thing in the 1930s, when the global population was also far higher than it had ever been before and global travel infinitely easier than it had been, too. There's always a reason to turn your back if that's what you want to do, but we learned a humbling lesson on what that implied. It's sad that that lesson is now being forgotten.
On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.
Yep, totally agree. From a strategic and policy perspective it makes absolutely no sense and will only disincentivise investment. But Sunak is looking for dividing lines which he hopes will either win - or mitigate the loss of - a general election. He's not thinking beyond that.
If we were going to delay to 2035 the time to do it was the day after the EU announcement or in 2029. Doing it now is unnecessary and damaging.
Yep - we are throwing away an actual, real life, potential Brexit benefit. There are not many of those that you can point to currently, so why voluntarily get rid of one? But this is all about dividing lines, nothing more. It is a reflection of how desperate Sunak is.
Away from all of this I was interested to read that the Germans are now in the same camp as the UK, Italy and seeming France wrt to illegal immigration. Surely there's a window to push through reforms of the ECHR to allow for easy deportation of failed asylum seekers and instant deportation for people arriving on banned routes as well as off shore processing centres.
With the four major countries in Europe all singing from the same hymn sheet it's surely time to start those discussions because all four countries have the same goal of stopping illegal immigration and deporting failed asylum seekers and many European countries have indicated they would also pursue the Rwanda policy.
Rishi and Giorgia need to get Macron on board and then push the Germans into it by using the spectre of AfD getting >30% at the next election.
The Dutch do a very good job of (a) processing asylum claims quickly, and (b) deporting failed asylum seekers. The Norwegians are also ECHR signatories, and have also managed to avoid any of these issues.
So, it is solvable without cooperation from others. Indeed, I think politicians like to pretend cooperation from others is needed, to avoid doing the hard work of actually solving the problem themselves.
I would also note that Rwanda would be a 10x better policy if Rwanda was where claims were processed, rather than where people who had been granted asylum were sent. The goal is to avoid having people who are waiting for asylum decisions disappearing into the informal economy; the current Rwanda plan does not do that.
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 is a big assumption here; that the price of EV vehicles worldwide continues to decrease in price - and that EV demand follows. That may happen, but it's far from certain. I can easily imagine other countries in the EU and elsewhere delaying their pure-EV plans over the next few years.
The improvements in battery performance and reduced cost that back these assumptions are already baked in. That is are leaving the lab and are heading to the production lines.
What is not often understood is that even small changes take years to productionise. There is a conveyer belt of such upgrades and improvements - and we can make quite accurate precautions about max costs and capabilities years from now, because of it.
A compound progression of a bit more power density, a bit cheaper etc, year on year.
This leaves out radical changes, such as completely new cell chemistries, which could be even better.
"The improvements in battery performance and reduced cost that back these assumptions are already baked in."
You should try a slot at a comedy club...
I mean, seriously. I *really* hope you are correct, but we're talking about six years. Six years. And as you (I think!) keep on saying, battery chemistry is a compromise of five or six different characteristics. Unless I've missed something, I haven't seen any breakthrough that matches what is required. And the idea they're 'baked in' is rather optimistic.
(Again, I hope I'm wrong...)
Lithium ion battery cell costs are long-term plummeting.
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.
And I messed up my biology O level. Still can't explain that. 7 As and a C.
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 insulation thing is actually quite mind-boggling: "people can't afford to pay up to £8k to make their homes more efficient". It's actually not very far from the argument that Insulate Britain made, that the public should be taking on the cost of upgrading people's homes.
But these are homeowners that we're talking about - people with assets. And the upgrades will reduce their running costs and increase the value of their home.
So, by all means, create some low-interest loan schemes. And maybe subsidise some training to increase the pool of people available to do the work. But the "we'll just live in shite mouldy homes and leave ourselves vulnerable to the next spike in energy costs" stuff makes them look really stupid.
It all depends what the saving is. I have a nice warm home. My gas bill is about £1k annually, a lot of which is hot water for showers/baths. I've a wood burning stove, for which I've never paid out a penny in fuel costs. The RoI of installing the woodburner was awesome - over 100% in 12 months. It's quite possible that the running cost of my house, suitably upgraded, would be lower with masses of insulation and a heat pump. But with a gas bill of only £1k a year even at current prices to go at in the first place, the payback time is going to be multiple decades.
The same goes for solar. My electric bill is around £80 a month. My parents have just had installed on their new house enough batteries and panels to pretty much never buy electricity from the grid. It cost them £14k. If I borrowed £14k to do my house, at current interest rates, the interest alone would cost £100 a month. If it was interest free, it's 15 years before I break even. That's not a viable RoI, even before considering that I'm probably going to be moving in the next two - four years, and after sticking £14k of solar panels on the roof I'd be lucky to get £5k extra for the house.
@Jim_Miller asked for my views on what appropriate compensation should be and what action I would take against those responsible.
Those responsible first.
Fujitsu
- No government contracts for Fujitsu until they have paid ample compensation. I am talking about millions of ounces worth of compensation not some token amount. No money, no work.
- All senior Fujitsu personnel responsible for the Horizon project during the relevant time to be barred from any government posts.
- Fujitsu witnesses during the trials and subsequent legal cases and the inquiry to be investigated with a view to determining whether there is a basis for bring charges of perjury / conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
- The Policing Minister and the London Mayor to meet with the head of the Met to ask for a detailed account of what steps the Met have taken to investigate the 2 Fujitsu employees referred to the Met by the DPP in 2020, who has been put in charge of this etc. If nothing has been done, the Met needs to be told to do its job and that while the investigation must be done properly so as not to prejudice a fair trial should charges be laid, those to whom the Met is responsible expect regular updates to ensure that this is being done properly, expeditiously and with the proper legal and other expertise supporting it. There must be no question of it being put in the "Too Difficult, Let's Forget About It" box.
The Post Office
- The CEO's and Board members in charge during this scandal to have all public honours revoked, to be removed from any positions in government bodies or quangos and to be told in very clear terms to reflect on whether they should in positions of responsibility anywhere else, given what they presided over. If they wail that they did not know, tell them that being in charge is making sure that they do know and that such an excuse runs out at about the age of 5. - If there is evidence to disqualify them from being directors, that step should be taken. - If it is possible to claw back bonuses paid, that too should be done. - If there is evidence of perjury/conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, they too should be investigated and where appropriate charged. - The current Board should be told that there will be no bonuses for any of them or senior executives until the inquiry has finished, reported and all those subpostmasters affected have been compensated. - The Post Office should be ordered to stop opposing appeals against conviction. - The government needs to take steps to overturn the convictions of those who pleaded guilty on the basis of Horizon evidence. None of the prosecutions based on this system must be allowed to stand.
.... to be continued....
- The government needs to appoint one or two independent directors whose sole responsibility is to ensure full compliance with the judge's inquiry - together with its own separate staff to ensure no backsliding by its staff. If this means having a new GC and internal / external lawyers untainted by what has happened so far, so be it. There need to be regular reports to the Business Department on progress.
Other professionals
- Those lawyers / law firms / consultants etc involved in this need to face the same civil and criminal consequences as Fujitsu and Post Office staff. - If there is insufficient evidence for criminal charges, they should be referred to their professional bodies. - The big law firms involved in advising the Post Office should be "invited" to contribute to a compensation fund, especially if they want to be put on the panel for future government work.
Awards - Nick Wallis, the journalists at Computer Weekly and some of those who blew the whistle and tried to do the right thing should be nominated for honours.
Once the inquiry is over, there should be a task force headed by someone tough and determined, to implement the recommendations within the Post Office eg a proper internal investigation team, whistleblowing programme etc. When they have finished with that, the template can be used in the many other organisations needing this.
Away from all of this I was interested to read that the Germans are now in the same camp as the UK, Italy and seeming France wrt to illegal immigration. Surely there's a window to push through reforms of the ECHR to allow for easy deportation of failed asylum seekers and instant deportation for people arriving on banned routes as well as off shore processing centres.
With the four major countries in Europe all singing from the same hymn sheet it's surely time to start those discussions because all four countries have the same goal of stopping illegal immigration and deporting failed asylum seekers and many European countries have indicated they would also pursue the Rwanda policy.
Rishi and Giorgia need to get Macron on board and then push the Germans into it by using the spectre of AfD getting >30% at the next election.
The Dutch do a very good job of (a) processing asylum claims quickly, and (b) deporting failed asylum seekers. The Norwegians are also ECHR signatories, and have also managed to avoid any of these issues.
So, it is solvable without cooperation from others. Indeed, I think politicians like to pretend cooperation from others is needed, to avoid doing the hard work of actually solving the problem themselves.
I would also note that Rwanda would be a 10x better policy if Rwanda was where claims were processed, rather than where people who had been granted asylum were sent. The goal is to avoid having people who are waiting for asylum decisions disappearing into the informal economy; the current Rwanda plan does not do that.
Away from all of this I was interested to read that the Germans are now in the same camp as the UK, Italy and seeming France wrt to illegal immigration. Surely there's a window to push through reforms of the ECHR to allow for easy deportation of failed asylum seekers and instant deportation for people arriving on banned routes as well as off shore processing centres.
With the four major countries in Europe all singing from the same hymn sheet it's surely time to start those discussions because all four countries have the same goal of stopping illegal immigration and deporting failed asylum seekers and many European countries have indicated they would also pursue the Rwanda policy.
Rishi and Giorgia need to get Macron on board and then push the Germans into it by using the spectre of AfD getting >30% at the next election.
Asylum as a 'right' is the root cause of so many of the problems. Until that's revised then it's difficult to see anything changing.
Asylum as a right was created after WW2 in response to the holocaust and the failure of the world to protect the Jews against genocide. By all means advocate for that right to be taken away if you want to, but don't pretend it's not there for a reason.
It offers a false sense of security and gives us a false sense of altruism. It might have been created with good intentions but it's not sustainable in a world of 8 billion people and easy global travel.
Labour's position now confirmed - will oppose the lifting of the 2030 time limit on the sale of new diesel and petrol cars.
Even if the next election is 23rd January 2025? Doesn't give them much time.
Again, compare with the final few years of the last Labour government. Cameron announced he'd scrap ID cards if he became the next prime minister. People believed that he would, and so all the various tech companies bidding for work on the ID system pulled out. The project was all but dead before the election even happened.
The same thing is likely to happen here. Businesses have already based their planning on the 2030 time limit. But now Sunak says he'll drop that time limit, and Labour say they'll reinstate it if they do.
How many businesses are going to change their plans, and continue to sell ICE-only cars after 2030? Only those who think Sunak is likely to win the next election...
Following @Penddu2 's RWC forecasts, I am going to try to beat the handicaps Ladbrokes are offering on four games this weekend. I am going for: - Namibia +69 to beat France (France can beat Namibia by more than this if they turn it on, but will be slowed downby second stringing it and Gallic indifference - South Africa to beat Ireland by more than 2. Sorry Ireland, but SAF look utterly unbeatable. - England to beat Chileby more than 48 - this is where England put in a strong performance against a weak team to give the temporary illusion of adequacy. - Australia with a point headstart to beat Wales. Losing to Fiji will give the Australians the impetus to put things right.
All that is 14.98/1. A succesful tenner here will keep me in beer and savoury snacks for the rest of the tournament.
That said, had I been in time, I would definitely have included Uruguay to run Italy close - which clearly didn't happen!
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 is a big assumption here; that the price of EV vehicles worldwide continues to decrease in price - and that EV demand follows. That may happen, but it's far from certain. I can easily imagine other countries in the EU and elsewhere delaying their pure-EV plans over the next few years.
The improvements in battery performance and reduced cost that back these assumptions are already baked in. That is are leaving the lab and are heading to the production lines.
What is not often understood is that even small changes take years to productionise. There is a conveyer belt of such upgrades and improvements - and we can make quite accurate precautions about max costs and capabilities years from now, because of it.
A compound progression of a bit more power density, a bit cheaper etc, year on year.
This leaves out radical changes, such as completely new cell chemistries, which could be even better.
"The improvements in battery performance and reduced cost that back these assumptions are already baked in."
You should try a slot at a comedy club...
I mean, seriously. I *really* hope you are correct, but we're talking about six years. Six years. And as you (I think!) keep on saying, battery chemistry is a compromise of five or six different characteristics. Unless I've missed something, I haven't seen any breakthrough that matches what is required. And the idea they're 'baked in' is rather optimistic.
(Again, I hope I'm wrong...)
Lithium ion battery cell costs are long-term plummeting.
There's been major developments in recent years such as massive lithium investments which is bringing the cost down even without chemical changes.
"Long-term plummeting"
Past performance is no guarantee of future results, etc, etc. Besides, there is more to this than just the cost: charging infrastructure being a big one: both locally for the consumer, and nationally.
Channel 4 News poll: 40.7% of voters say they are less likely to vote Conservative if they don't stick to commitments on climate change. Field work done 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.
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 is a big assumption here; that the price of EV vehicles worldwide continues to decrease in price - and that EV demand follows. That may happen, but it's far from certain. I can easily imagine other countries in the EU and elsewhere delaying their pure-EV plans over the next few years.
The improvements in battery performance and reduced cost that back these assumptions are already baked in. That is are leaving the lab and are heading to the production lines.
What is not often understood is that even small changes take years to productionise. There is a conveyer belt of such upgrades and improvements - and we can make quite accurate precautions about max costs and capabilities years from now, because of it.
A compound progression of a bit more power density, a bit cheaper etc, year on year.
This leaves out radical changes, such as completely new cell chemistries, which could be even better.
"The improvements in battery performance and reduced cost that back these assumptions are already baked in."
You should try a slot at a comedy club...
I mean, seriously. I *really* hope you are correct, but we're talking about six years. Six years. And as you (I think!) keep on saying, battery chemistry is a compromise of five or six different characteristics. Unless I've missed something, I haven't seen any breakthrough that matches what is required. And the idea they're 'baked in' is rather optimistic.
(Again, I hope I'm wrong...)
Do you think Sunak has changed course because he's studied the assumptions behind 2030 on technology and costs, and reluctantly decided 2030 is unrealistic? Or is it purely to create a dividing line in an increasingly desperate bid to shift the polls?
If you think the former, I've got a bridge to sell you. He certainly hasn't discussed the findings of this deep dive study of his with any of the car manufacturers who might know a bit more about it than him.
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.
I think that the Ford statement today makes the case against that.
Their point is that if you're Ford, or any other car company, you listen to what the policy is and ideally you want to make investments based on that policy actually being the policy. If you do that well, you're being efficient as a business and this gives you gain a jump on others - that's how competition works.
So in this case, Ford invested and planned to transition their activities and investments in the UK based on a stated 2030 commitment. But that commitment wasn't real, so they now need to re-plan at significant cost, given it will, in fact, be possible to sell new ICE cars in the UK in 2030-35, meaning they damned well need to have right hand drive ICE cars available, and fewer EVs than they thought.
They are spitting blood over it, not just because this particular flagship policy has been changed on a whim, without discussion with them and at significant cost to them, but because how does a business plan anything based on any announced policy if they can't have confidence that there is any real commitment from the UK Government and its spineless PM to do what they say?
So Ford are geared up to only be selling new electric vehicles in the UK from 2030. If they are the only Fords available then the people who only will drive Fords will buy the electric ones, as they would if this policy wasn’t pushed back. Same for any carmaker who makes right hand drive models - if they choose to stick to the 2030 timetable which they have all geared towards then the market brings in the 2030 timetable anyway. Which car maker thinks it’s worth switching their plans for all electric anyway at this stage?
If a car co suddenly thinks, hang on a minute, there’s a big market for five years to build ICE cars then they will, but they won’t.
This policy will make fuck all difference and is merely cynical politics which might work but as Sunak is crap at politics it obviously won’t, unless it does.
You seem to be assuming that people go out to buy a Ford rather than going out to buy a car.
So Ford's assumption based on the policy was that someone buying a new car past 2030 in the UK literally couldn't get a new ICE so, obviously, they'd not supply them - and, crucially, nor would any of their competitors.
But now, that isn't clear. So there will actually be a market for new ICE cars in 2030-35 (if the new policy survives), and Ford not offering an ICE option while Honda (say) do is bad news for Ford. Therefore Ford, and indeed Honda, will have to re-plan to ensure ICE models are available (and fewer EVs) because otherwise a competitor will gain a jump on them.
I think you're wrong to believe car companies won't re-plan. They are in a difficult position because they might reason that actually Labour will get in and stick with 2030 - but that's a gamble as they might not be and it's two elections away. But in any event, yesterday they were sure it was 2030, now they aren't, and risk has a cost.
And that's all apart from the separate point that the change more generally signals policy is inconsistent and even capricious in the UK. What other policy commitments aren't really policy commitments? How do you make investment decisions? It just injects risk into the system, and you might well shy away from investments.
If electric cars are better and/or cheaper than ICE by 2030 then why would anyone buy an ICE car?
All the manufacturers have to do is make sure they are and there won't be a problem.
If the manufacturers worry that, actually, we aren't really sure that we'll cross that threshold by 2030, then isn't the government also right to be worried that it will be imposing costs in order to meet an arbitrary deadline?
Away from all of this I was interested to read that the Germans are now in the same camp as the UK, Italy and seeming France wrt to illegal immigration. Surely there's a window to push through reforms of the ECHR to allow for easy deportation of failed asylum seekers and instant deportation for people arriving on banned routes as well as off shore processing centres.
With the four major countries in Europe all singing from the same hymn sheet it's surely time to start those discussions because all four countries have the same goal of stopping illegal immigration and deporting failed asylum seekers and many European countries have indicated they would also pursue the Rwanda policy.
Rishi and Giorgia need to get Macron on board and then push the Germans into it by using the spectre of AfD getting >30% at the next election.
The Dutch do a very good job of (a) processing asylum claims quickly, and (b) deporting failed asylum seekers. The Norwegians are also ECHR signatories, and have also managed to avoid any of these issues.
So, it is solvable without cooperation from others. Indeed, I think politicians like to pretend cooperation from others is needed, to avoid doing the hard work of actually solving the problem themselves.
I would also note that Rwanda would be a 10x better policy if Rwanda was where claims were processed, rather than where people who had been granted asylum were sent. The goal is to avoid having people who are waiting for asylum decisions disappearing into the informal economy; the current Rwanda plan does not do that.
Sent to apply in Rwanda, for Rwandan asylum, not allowed to claim here.
(For illegal entries to the UK only)
Ah, OK, I misunderstood.
What I would prefer is that the UK set up proper (well funded) off-shore processing centres. And I would funnel the vast majority of asylum seekers through them, because the fundamental issue with the Rwanda policy is that it fails to appreciate that a great many asylum seekers (whatever their mode of entry) primary desire is to enter the informal UK economy.
On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.
Yep, totally agree. From a strategic and policy perspective it makes absolutely no sense and will only disincentivise investment. But Sunak is looking for dividing lines which he hopes will either win - or mitigate the loss of - a general election. He's not thinking beyond that.
Mitigate the loss, I think. Or rather derisk the worst case catastrophic result. The centre has gone so he has to shore up to the right. Similar rationale to Labour embracing Ref2 for GE19. Lock in a bad defeat but take catastrophe off the table. In that case (for Labour) being challenged by the LDs for main opposition party status. It all makes sense in a grim reductive way.
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 is a big assumption here; that the price of EV vehicles worldwide continues to decrease in price - and that EV demand follows. That may happen, but it's far from certain. I can easily imagine other countries in the EU and elsewhere delaying their pure-EV plans over the next few years.
The improvements in battery performance and reduced cost that back these assumptions are already baked in. That is are leaving the lab and are heading to the production lines.
What is not often understood is that even small changes take years to productionise. There is a conveyer belt of such upgrades and improvements - and we can make quite accurate precautions about max costs and capabilities years from now, because of it.
A compound progression of a bit more power density, a bit cheaper etc, year on year.
This leaves out radical changes, such as completely new cell chemistries, which could be even better.
"The improvements in battery performance and reduced cost that back these assumptions are already baked in."
You should try a slot at a comedy club...
I mean, seriously. I *really* hope you are correct, but we're talking about six years. Six years. And as you (I think!) keep on saying, battery chemistry is a compromise of five or six different characteristics. Unless I've missed something, I haven't seen any breakthrough that matches what is required. And the idea they're 'baked in' is rather optimistic.
(Again, I hope I'm wrong...)
Lithium ion battery cell costs are long-term plummeting.
There's been major developments in recent years such as massive lithium investments which is bringing the cost down even without chemical changes.
"Long-term plummeting"
Past performance is no guarantee of future results, etc, etc. Besides, there is more to this than just the cost: charging infrastructure being a big one: both locally for the consumer, and nationally.
Past performance in this instance is an indicator of future results, because in this instance the drops in Li costs haven't yet fed through to on the road costs, but they will do.
Furthermore the investments in Li production in Nevada and Oregon etc coming online should continue to reduce Li cell costs for the foreseeable future. Nascent industries like this do tend to get economies of scale and falling costs as the industry matures and there's a plethora of reasons to believe that'll be the case here.
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.
And I messed up my biology O level. Still can't explain that. 7 As and a C.
Reminds me of a girl in my class who struggled with a difficult question on O level biology. She wrote about the difference between an organism and an orgasm. The question was actually to explain the difference between an organism and an organ.
To have been a fly on the wall at that marking session!
Away from all of this I was interested to read that the Germans are now in the same camp as the UK, Italy and seeming France wrt to illegal immigration. Surely there's a window to push through reforms of the ECHR to allow for easy deportation of failed asylum seekers and instant deportation for people arriving on banned routes as well as off shore processing centres.
With the four major countries in Europe all singing from the same hymn sheet it's surely time to start those discussions because all four countries have the same goal of stopping illegal immigration and deporting failed asylum seekers and many European countries have indicated they would also pursue the Rwanda policy.
Rishi and Giorgia need to get Macron on board and then push the Germans into it by using the spectre of AfD getting >30% at the next election.
The Dutch do a very good job of (a) processing asylum claims quickly, and (b) deporting failed asylum seekers. The Norwegians are also ECHR signatories, and have also managed to avoid any of these issues.
So, it is solvable without cooperation from others. Indeed, I think politicians like to pretend cooperation from others is needed, to avoid doing the hard work of actually solving the problem themselves.
I would also note that Rwanda would be a 10x better policy if Rwanda was where claims were processed, rather than where people who had been granted asylum were sent. The goal is to avoid having people who are waiting for asylum decisions disappearing into the informal economy; the current Rwanda plan does not do that.
Sent to apply in Rwanda, for Rwandan asylum, not allowed to claim here.
(For illegal entries to the UK only)
Ah, OK, I misunderstood.
What I would prefer is that the UK set up proper (well funded) off-shore processing centres. And I would funnel the vast majority of asylum seekers through them, because the fundamental issue with the Rwanda policy is that it fails to appreciate that a great many asylum seekers (whatever their mode of entry) primary desire is to enter the informal UK economy.
That is one of the tells that the UK's plan isn't serious and what its backers really want is not to have to deal with asylum seekers at all.
It's not there to achieve anything; it's there to set up a wedge and look hard.
Away from all of this I was interested to read that the Germans are now in the same camp as the UK, Italy and seeming France wrt to illegal immigration. Surely there's a window to push through reforms of the ECHR to allow for easy deportation of failed asylum seekers and instant deportation for people arriving on banned routes as well as off shore processing centres.
With the four major countries in Europe all singing from the same hymn sheet it's surely time to start those discussions because all four countries have the same goal of stopping illegal immigration and deporting failed asylum seekers and many European countries have indicated they would also pursue the Rwanda policy.
Rishi and Giorgia need to get Macron on board and then push the Germans into it by using the spectre of AfD getting >30% at the next election.
The Dutch do a very good job of (a) processing asylum claims quickly, and (b) deporting failed asylum seekers. The Norwegians are also ECHR signatories, and have also managed to avoid any of these issues.
So, it is solvable without cooperation from others. Indeed, I think politicians like to pretend cooperation from others is needed, to avoid doing the hard work of actually solving the problem themselves.
I would also note that Rwanda would be a 10x better policy if Rwanda was where claims were processed, rather than where people who had been granted asylum were sent. The goal is to avoid having people who are waiting for asylum decisions disappearing into the informal economy; the current Rwanda plan does not do that.
Sent to apply in Rwanda, for Rwandan asylum, not allowed to claim here.
(For illegal entries to the UK only)
Ah, OK, I misunderstood.
What I would prefer is that the UK set up proper (well funded) off-shore processing centres. And I would funnel the vast majority of asylum seekers through them, because the fundamental issue with the Rwanda policy is that it fails to appreciate that a great many asylum seekers (whatever their mode of entry) primary desire is to enter the informal UK economy.
Yes, they could add offshore processing for people who entered legally and claimed asylum. They would be claiming UK asylum though.
But this doesn't help with those parts of the informal economy made up of visa overstayers, of course.
Namibia bet looks good - as does South Africa I dont think England will run in that many - bookies odd usually flatter England (in any sport) Australia Wales is difficult to predict. I originally predicted an Australian win, but having watched both Fiji games again I am going with Wales by 6. But it is your money. Go for it.
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.
And I messed up my biology O level. Still can't explain that. 7 As and a C.
While you were doing that, one year old Cookie was sat naked in an orange tub in the back garden. I've seen the photos.
But I see your seven As and a C and raise you my GCSEs: seven As and a D. The D was in art and therefore teacher assessed. I always thought it a little harsh: I'm not brilliant at art but I'm not awful. I've only recently found out this was because the teacher had thought my mum (who was quite good at art) was un the habit of doing my coursework (she definitely didn't, by the way) and therefore disregarded in marking it anything she thought she'd done (i.e. anything good). You needed all grades A to C to stay on at sixth form, but when I asked whether I could stay on anyway the school were baffled that I'd even asked. Apparently failing art didn't count as a proper fail. Which perhaps explained the attitude of the art teachers.
For all the talk of “this World Cup is crap” - naming no names but looking at you @Farooq - it turns out this crap World Cup is generating exceptional TV viewing figures
3.5m in GERMANY watched the opening game: France v NZ. I also read that 20 MILLION+ Japanese watched the England Japan game
These are phenomenal figures for a global minority sport. But also understandable, with all its blood and thunder, high quality international rugby is compelling viewing
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 is a big assumption here; that the price of EV vehicles worldwide continues to decrease in price - and that EV demand follows. That may happen, but it's far from certain. I can easily imagine other countries in the EU and elsewhere delaying their pure-EV plans over the next few years.
The improvements in battery performance and reduced cost that back these assumptions are already baked in. That is are leaving the lab and are heading to the production lines.
What is not often understood is that even small changes take years to productionise. There is a conveyer belt of such upgrades and improvements - and we can make quite accurate precautions about max costs and capabilities years from now, because of it.
A compound progression of a bit more power density, a bit cheaper etc, year on year.
This leaves out radical changes, such as completely new cell chemistries, which could be even better.
"The improvements in battery performance and reduced cost that back these assumptions are already baked in."
You should try a slot at a comedy club...
I mean, seriously. I *really* hope you are correct, but we're talking about six years. Six years. And as you (I think!) keep on saying, battery chemistry is a compromise of five or six different characteristics. Unless I've missed something, I haven't seen any breakthrough that matches what is required. And the idea they're 'baked in' is rather optimistic.
(Again, I hope I'm wrong...)
Do you think Sunak has changed course because he's studied the assumptions behind 2030 on technology and costs, and reluctantly decided 2030 is unrealistic? Or is it purely to create a dividing line in an increasingly desperate bid to shift the polls?
If you think the former, I've got a bridge to sell you. He certainly hasn't discussed the findings of this deep dive study of his with any of the car manufacturers who might know a bit more about it than him.
Sunak, like all politicians, will be looking at electability. I'm speaking for myself - and there are significant risks to this move.
Personally, I'd have kept 2030 - hoping that the next guys will be in power when we fail to meet it, and have to deal with the resultant mess. There's an f-load to do in six years.
Channel 4 News poll: 40.7% of voters say they are less likely to vote Conservative if they don't stick to commitments on climate change. Field work done today.
Considering 60% would never vote Tory anyway, I'm surprised its not even higher just from people who dislike the Tories saying that.
An important GOTV factor for the young who might be a bit apathetic about Starmerism, but who don't want the planet trashed by Sunak.
Ratio of more than 3:1 between those who say that it would make them less likely v more likely to vote Conservative. That's bad news for Sunak whichever way it's spun.
On today's announcement, I don't really see the point of it. Delaying to 2035 was inevitable ever since the EU did it but doing it now doesn't make sense, it just shows lack of ambition and it will push back investment by auto companies by 3-5 years. Better to delay by 2 years in 2029 and then by another 3 years in 2031.
Yep, totally agree. From a strategic and policy perspective it makes absolutely no sense and will only disincentivise investment. But Sunak is looking for dividing lines which he hopes will either win - or mitigate the loss of - a general election. He's not thinking beyond that.
Mitigate the loss, I think. Or rather derisk the worst case catastrophic result. The centre has gone so he has to shore up to the right. Similar rationale to Labour embracing Ref2 for GE19. Lock in a bad defeat but take catastrophe off the table. In that case (for Labour) being challenged by the LDs for main opposition party status. It all makes sense in a grim reductive way.
It’s really baffling. He’s revivified Trussian chaos, when the one thing Sunak had going for him was an aura of competence and stability.
For all the talk of “this World Cup is crap” - naming no names but looking at you @Farooq - it turns out this crap World Cup is generating exceptional TV viewing figures
3.5m in GERMANY watched the opening game: France v NZ. I also read that 20 MILLION+ Japanese watched the England Japan game
These are phenomenal figures for a global minority sport. But also understandable, with all its blood and thunder, high quality international rugby is compelling viewing
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 is a big assumption here; that the price of EV vehicles worldwide continues to decrease in price - and that EV demand follows. That may happen, but it's far from certain. I can easily imagine other countries in the EU and elsewhere delaying their pure-EV plans over the next few years.
The improvements in battery performance and reduced cost that back these assumptions are already baked in. That is are leaving the lab and are heading to the production lines.
What is not often understood is that even small changes take years to productionise. There is a conveyer belt of such upgrades and improvements - and we can make quite accurate precautions about max costs and capabilities years from now, because of it.
A compound progression of a bit more power density, a bit cheaper etc, year on year.
This leaves out radical changes, such as completely new cell chemistries, which could be even better.
"The improvements in battery performance and reduced cost that back these assumptions are already baked in."
You should try a slot at a comedy club...
I mean, seriously. I *really* hope you are correct, but we're talking about six years. Six years. And as you (I think!) keep on saying, battery chemistry is a compromise of five or six different characteristics. Unless I've missed something, I haven't seen any breakthrough that matches what is required. And the idea they're 'baked in' is rather optimistic.
(Again, I hope I'm wrong...)
Lithium ion battery cell costs are long-term plummeting.
There's been major developments in recent years such as massive lithium investments which is bringing the cost down even without chemical changes.
"Long-term plummeting"
Past performance is no guarantee of future results, etc, etc. Besides, there is more to this than just the cost: charging infrastructure being a big one: both locally for the consumer, and nationally.
Past performance in this instance is an indicator of future results, because in this instance the drops in Li costs haven't yet fed through to on the road costs, but they will do.
Furthermore the investments in Li production in Nevada and Oregon etc coming online should continue to reduce Li cell costs for the foreseeable future. Nascent industries like this do tend to get economies of scale and falling costs as the industry matures and there's a plethora of reasons to believe that'll be the case here.
I refer you to my previous reply: even *if* the Li costs reduce, there's a heck of a long road from that to an all-EV future. And one thing current batteries are not good at is long roads (*)...
Comments
Of course, we had not long joined the EEC...
The message that has been taken by the Conservatives is that there is strong appetite for a broad, anti-environmentalism agenda. Whereas actually it was a much more limited point about outer-London car drivers fearing they were about to be hit with a significant personal cost (the fear was probably exaggerated in terms of numbers affected but that was the fear). I suspect they will learn that they are alienating more people than they attract by broadening out, but we shall see.
This is reminiscent of a couple of other classic by-election bum steers - both affecting the Lib Dems rather than Tories. Richmond Park in 2016 was taken as a sign that full-throated Remoaning was a winning strategy, just because it got a result in just about the most solidly Remain constituency in the UK, against an MP who was a radical Brexiteer. Eastleigh in 2013 was taken as meaning Lib Dems could retain lots more seats than was ever realistic in 2015, leading to massive over-targeting and loss of some seats that perhaps could have been held had others been abandoned to their fate.
There's sometimes a bit of a winner's curse with by-elections. They are great in terms of creating positive vibes around the winner, but pretty bad in terms of providing a template to win elsewhere.
Andrew RT Davies (who) is terrible and labour will still likely win the next Senedd election
The bulk of the people the Conservatives are interested in are retired. The rest are professional middlemen and moneymen.
But people who make stuff and try to sell it to others to turn an honest quid? That's Oldthink.
It’s all rather futile getting worked up about this when it is happening anyway.
Carmakers do not have to offer ICE engines. They won’t so the market will decide. This is just politics.
(Edit which sadly Vanilla has downsampled. Original: https://x.com/m_mcdonough/status/1704415782866706522 )
https://x.com/jackhadders/status/1704415080295674289?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
A plug in hybrid with a 20 or so mile range on electric is not really going to change the world.
Channel 4 News poll: 40.7% of voters say they are less likely to vote Conservative if they don't stick to commitments on climate change. Field work done today.
https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1704544691616891148
When is Sunak announcing his Gulags For Slags policy?
Its the total incompetence that astounds me. Or would astound me if I didn't already think the Government is utterly incompetent.
If you're going to pick a fight in politics, try to pick one that might be productive.
1) The government is virtue signalling that the climate change crisis is a con. Not something we need to worry about. On one hand a load or cost if we act, on the other hand no cost at all if we don't. This is dangerously stupid, and given the global consensus on both the issues and actions makes our ministers look like wazzocks on the global stage as we saw over the last few days
2) Sunak needs the car industry to invest in Britain. Last week he committed to 2030 to secure BMW's investment, then a week later stands in front of a "long term decisions" lecturn to announce that he lied to BMW. The reaction from the manufacturing and tech sectors has been very strong - they ask what the point is in even considering investing here?
https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1704544691616891148/photo/1
Lost track now of the amount of times he's said one thing then done the other.
Considering 60% would never vote Tory anyway, I'm surprised its not even higher just from people who dislike the Tories saying that.
Some regard private enterprise as if it were a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look upon it as a cow that they can milk. Only a handful see it for what it really is--the strong horse that pulls the whole cart.
How does this government regard private enterprise? The ingénue to be groomed, f@#£ed and dumped?
For sure, some erstwhile Conservatives voters who were going to sit on their hands will now come back on board. I don't know how big the "some" is.
That's just bizarre.
Their point is that if you're Ford, or any other car company, you listen to what the policy is and ideally you want to make investments based on that policy actually being the policy. If you do that well, you're being efficient as a business and this gives you gain a jump on others - that's how competition works.
So in this case, Ford invested and planned to transition their activities and investments in the UK based on a stated 2030 commitment. But that commitment wasn't real, so they now need to re-plan at significant cost, given it will, in fact, be possible to sell new ICE cars in the UK in 2030-35, meaning they damned well need to have right hand drive ICE cars available, and fewer EVs than they thought.
They are spitting blood over it, not just because this particular flagship policy has been changed on a whim, without discussion with them and at significant cost to them, but because how does a business plan anything based on any announced policy if they can't have confidence that there is any real commitment from the UK Government and its spineless PM to do what they say?
No, it really isn't. But it is a recognition that green issues are just one of the myriad of issues that faces the country, such as the cost-of-living crisis. Like many things, it's a compromise between conflicting issues.
As it happens, I'd keep the 2030 target as an aspiration, but have in the back of my mind that we may well not hit it.
I'd also remind everyone of the massive strides that have been made towards green energy since 2000 (or 1990, if you want to go back that far...)
With the four major countries in Europe all singing from the same hymn sheet it's surely time to start those discussions because all four countries have the same goal of stopping illegal immigration and deporting failed asylum seekers and many European countries have indicated they would also pursue the Rwanda policy.
Rishi and Giorgia need to get Macron on board and then push the Germans into it by using the spectre of AfD getting >30% at the next election.
If a car co suddenly thinks, hang on a minute, there’s a big market for five years to build ICE cars then they will, but they won’t.
This policy will make fuck all difference and is merely cynical politics which might work but as Sunak is crap at politics it obviously won’t, unless it does.
If producers aren't going to produce the vehicles, then consumers won't be able to buy them either way.
But as far as producers are concerned, yes, they should have been in the loop. To literally last week to commit to the policy to the producers, then this week its reversed, is just madness.
It would be less mad if last week they'd said "we have [these] concerns, so the policy is under review" rather than to commit to one thing and then do the opposite which just makes your word worthless.
That's why the howls of rage from some parts of the car industry, who thought they'd got things stitched up nicely so cheap cars were going to be a thing of the past, and they could make loads of money leasing high end cars to people who could never afford them*.
If this change to 2035 wasn't going to have any effect, there would be no reason for all the froth and anger. As it is, it's a, just another well deserved nail in the German auto industry's coffin. (I've worked for VAG - a more arrogant bunch of idiots it's hard to imagine).
*they are almost certainly wrong about this, as Chinese EVs are going to undercut them and steal their lunch anyway - hence all the current bluster about EU import tarrifs for Chinese EVs.
But these are homeowners that we're talking about - people with assets. And the upgrades will reduce their running costs and increase the value of their home.
So, by all means, create some low-interest loan schemes. And maybe subsidise some training to increase the pool of people available to do the work. But the "we'll just live in shite mouldy homes and leave ourselves vulnerable to the next spike in energy costs" stuff makes them look really stupid.
What is not often understood is that even small changes take years to productionise. There is a conveyer belt of such upgrades and improvements - and we can make quite accurate precautions about max costs and capabilities years from now, because of it.
A compound progression of a bit more power density, a bit cheaper etc, year on year.
This leaves out radical changes, such as completely new cell chemistries, which could be even better.
The smarter choice was to announce a £10bn electrification fund for manufacturers and charging station companies for matched investment for UK based companies and subsidiaries. Over 7 years it's like £1.4bn per year so not very much but it would mean we would probably only need a 2 year delay to 2032 and we'd get loads of battery, EV and charging station investment.
Those responsible first.
Fujitsu
- No government contracts for Fujitsu until they have paid ample compensation. I am talking about millions of ounces worth of compensation not some token amount. No money, no work.
- All senior Fujitsu personnel responsible for the Horizon project during the relevant time to be barred from any government posts.
- Fujitsu witnesses during the trials and subsequent legal cases and the inquiry to be investigated with a view to determining whether there is a basis for bring charges of perjury / conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
- The Policing Minister and the London Mayor to meet with the head of the Met to ask for a detailed account of what steps the Met have taken to investigate the 2 Fujitsu employees referred to the Met by the DPP in 2020, who has been put in charge of this etc. If nothing has been done, the Met needs to be told to do its job and that while the investigation must be done properly so as not to prejudice a fair trial should charges be laid, those to whom the Met is responsible expect regular updates to ensure that this is being done properly, expeditiously and with the proper legal and other expertise supporting it. There must be no question of it being put in the "Too Difficult, Let's Forget About It" box.
The Post Office
- The CEO's and Board members in charge during this scandal to have all public honours revoked, to be removed from any positions in government bodies or quangos and to be told in very clear terms to reflect on whether they should in positions of responsibility anywhere else, given what they presided over. If they wail that they did not know, tell them that being in charge is making sure that they do know and that such an excuse runs out at about the age of 5.
- If there is evidence to disqualify them from being directors, that step should be taken.
- If it is possible to claw back bonuses paid, that too should be done.
- If there is evidence of perjury/conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, they too should be investigated and where appropriate charged.
- The current Board should be told that there will be no bonuses for any of them or senior executives until the inquiry has finished, reported and all those subpostmasters affected have been compensated.
- The Post Office should be ordered to stop opposing appeals against conviction.
- The government needs to take steps to overturn the convictions of those who pleaded guilty on the basis of Horizon evidence. None of the prosecutions based on this system must be allowed to stand.
.... to be continued....
You should try a slot at a comedy club...
I mean, seriously. I *really* hope you are correct, but we're talking about six years. Six years. And as you (I think!) keep on saying, battery chemistry is a compromise of five or six different characteristics. Unless I've missed something, I haven't seen any breakthrough that matches what is required. And the idea they're 'baked in' is rather optimistic.
(Again, I hope I'm wrong...)
So Ford's assumption based on the policy was that someone buying a new car past 2030 in the UK literally couldn't get a new ICE so, obviously, they'd not supply them - and, crucially, nor would any of their competitors.
But now, that isn't clear. So there will actually be a market for new ICE cars in 2030-35 (if the new policy survives), and Ford not offering an ICE option while Honda (say) do is bad news for Ford. Therefore Ford, and indeed Honda, will have to re-plan to ensure ICE models are available (and fewer EVs) because otherwise a competitor will gain a jump on them.
I think you're wrong to believe car companies won't re-plan. They are in a difficult position because they might reason that actually Labour will get in and stick with 2030 - but that's a gamble as they might not be and it's two elections away. But in any event, yesterday they were sure it was 2030, now they aren't, and risk has a cost.
And that's all apart from the separate point that the change more generally signals policy is inconsistent and even capricious in the UK. What other policy commitments aren't really policy commitments? How do you make investment decisions? It just injects risk into the system, and you might well shy away from investments.
So, it is solvable without cooperation from others. Indeed, I think politicians like to pretend cooperation from others is needed, to avoid doing the hard work of actually solving the problem themselves.
I would also note that Rwanda would be a 10x better policy if Rwanda was where claims were processed, rather than where people who had been granted asylum were sent. The goal is to avoid having people who are waiting for asylum decisions disappearing into the informal economy; the current Rwanda plan does not do that.
https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/electric-car-ev-battery-lithium-price-b2414865.html
Dropped nearly 9% last month alone.
There's been major developments in recent years such as massive lithium investments which is bringing the cost down even without chemical changes.
It's quite possible that the running cost of my house, suitably upgraded, would be lower with masses of insulation and a heat pump. But with a gas bill of only £1k a year even at current prices to go at in the first place, the payback time is going to be multiple decades.
The same goes for solar. My electric bill is around £80 a month. My parents have just had installed on their new house enough batteries and panels to pretty much never buy electricity from the grid. It cost them £14k. If I borrowed £14k to do my house, at current interest rates, the interest alone would cost £100 a month. If it was interest free, it's 15 years before I break even. That's not a viable RoI, even before considering that I'm probably going to be moving in the next two - four years, and after sticking £14k of solar panels on the roof I'd be lucky to get £5k extra for the house.
Other professionals
- Those lawyers / law firms / consultants etc involved in this need to face the same civil and criminal consequences as Fujitsu and Post Office staff.
- If there is insufficient evidence for criminal charges, they should be referred to their professional bodies.
- The big law firms involved in advising the Post Office should be "invited" to contribute to a compensation fund, especially if they want to be put on the panel for future government work.
Awards - Nick Wallis, the journalists at Computer Weekly and some of those who blew the whistle and tried to do the right thing should be nominated for honours.
Once the inquiry is over, there should be a task force headed by someone tough and determined, to implement the recommendations within the Post Office eg a proper internal investigation team, whistleblowing programme etc. When they have finished with that, the template can be used in the many other organisations needing this.
.... More to come ....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866
Sent to apply in Rwanda, for Rwandan asylum, not allowed to claim here.
(For illegal entries to the UK only)
The same thing is likely to happen here. Businesses have already based their planning on the 2030 time limit. But now Sunak says he'll drop that time limit, and Labour say they'll reinstate it if they do.
How many businesses are going to change their plans, and continue to sell ICE-only cars after 2030? Only those who think Sunak is likely to win the next election...
So, er, not many.
- Namibia +69 to beat France (France can beat Namibia by more than this if they turn it on, but will be slowed downby second stringing it and Gallic indifference
- South Africa to beat Ireland by more than 2. Sorry Ireland, but SAF look utterly unbeatable.
- England to beat Chileby more than 48 - this is where England put in a strong performance against a weak team to give the temporary illusion of adequacy.
- Australia with a point headstart to beat Wales. Losing to Fiji will give the Australians the impetus to put things right.
All that is 14.98/1. A succesful tenner here will keep me in beer and savoury snacks for the rest of the tournament.
That said, had I been in time, I would definitely have included Uruguay to run Italy close - which clearly didn't happen!
https://twitter.com/davidfirn/status/1704546664701186511
Past performance is no guarantee of future results, etc, etc. Besides, there is more to this than just the cost: charging infrastructure being a big one: both locally for the consumer, and nationally.
If you think the former, I've got a bridge to sell you. He certainly hasn't discussed the findings of this deep dive study of his with any of the car manufacturers who might know a bit more about it than him.
All the manufacturers have to do is make sure they are and there won't be a problem.
If the manufacturers worry that, actually, we aren't really sure that we'll cross that threshold by 2030, then isn't the government also right to be worried that it will be imposing costs in order to meet an arbitrary deadline?
What I would prefer is that the UK set up proper (well funded) off-shore processing centres. And I would funnel the vast majority of asylum seekers through them, because the fundamental issue with the Rwanda policy is that it fails to appreciate that a great many asylum seekers (whatever their mode of entry) primary desire is to enter the informal UK economy.
Furthermore the investments in Li production in Nevada and Oregon etc coming online should continue to reduce Li cell costs for the foreseeable future. Nascent industries like this do tend to get economies of scale and falling costs as the industry matures and there's a plethora of reasons to believe that'll be the case here.
To have been a fly on the wall at that marking session!
It's not there to achieve anything; it's there to set up a wedge and look hard.
Much like today's announcement.
But this doesn't help with those parts of the informal economy made up of visa overstayers, of course.
I dont think England will run in that many - bookies odd usually flatter England (in any sport)
Australia Wales is difficult to predict. I originally predicted an Australian win, but having watched both Fiji games again I am going with Wales by 6. But it is your money. Go for it.
But I see your seven As and a C and raise you my GCSEs: seven As and a D.
The D was in art and therefore teacher assessed. I always thought it a little harsh: I'm not brilliant at art but I'm not awful. I've only recently found out this was because the teacher had thought my mum (who was quite good at art) was un the habit of doing my coursework (she definitely didn't, by the way) and therefore disregarded in marking it anything she thought she'd done (i.e. anything good).
You needed all grades A to C to stay on at sixth form, but when I asked whether I could stay on anyway the school were baffled that I'd even asked. Apparently failing art didn't count as a proper fail. Which perhaps explained the attitude of the art teachers.
3.5m in GERMANY watched the opening game: France v NZ. I also read that 20 MILLION+ Japanese watched the England Japan game
These are phenomenal figures for a global minority sport. But also understandable, with all its blood and thunder, high quality international rugby is compelling viewing
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/sep/20/rugby-world-cup-organisers-delighted-with-spectacular-tv-viewing-figures
Rugby Union can become a massive sport if it plays this cleverly. Possibly even 3rd in the world after cricket - they are all behind football
Personally, I'd have kept 2030 - hoping that the next guys will be in power when we fail to meet it, and have to deal with the resultant mess. There's an f-load to do in six years.
(*) In terms of energy density...
Taking advice (or running scared) from La Truss - poor poor little Mr Sunak. Just wasn't up to the job was he.