Jobs Energy security Balance payments Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators
Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.
Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.
I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.
Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
Re your last sentence neither do I
For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
You sound like one of our contractors. So this IT transition will be complete in roughly 2130.
Frankly, arbitrary dates are not the way to transition unless they are realistic
We put man on the moon 66 years after the first powered flight. 2050 is not only realistic, it's pathetic.
Thumping tables isn’t an answer either.
The moon landing decision was made long *after* 1) Staging rockets was proved, 2) the multi stage rocket equations were developed and proven 3) fuels with sufficient ISP were developed. And demonstrated in working rocket engines.
Which meant that scientists could tell JFK that they could land multiple tons on the moon, given a jillion dollars.
There are large areas, in non-burning applications of fossil fuels where we don’t have the answers. Yet.
Politicians with arts degrees demanding the tide turn won’t turn the tide.
If Ed Quetaband was actually useful, the U.K. would be building a non-fossil fuel steel works. That technology is on the edge of practicality - first trial plants are being built elsewhere - and may offer cheaper steel in the long run.
But he is hooked on the reductionist approach. Which, in reality, just means sending the emissions abroad with the jobs.
I think all of that is wrong.
The main areas of carbon emissions we still need to resolve - heating buildings, domestic transport - already have off-the-shelf solutions. EVs and heat pumps (or other electrical heating systems), both of which have been around for decades. Agriculture is only particularly tricky one, but there are some ideas there too.
And we are building steel works that run off electricity. Indeed most of the steel in the UK is already produced that way.
I agree that offshoring is a severe limitation on our progress so far, and the government is resolving that with CBAM in 2027. What's not to like?
You are missing a number of areas - plastics, composites and medicines for a start.
We’ve talked about hydrogen reduction steel making, but not much is actually happening. Keeping electricity prices high is government policy, to reduce demand - the reductionist philosophy. This means that no-one is prepared to build a new facility.
It is not government policy to keep "keep electricity prices high". How would they even do that? They haven't increased taxes on them? They have even opened up the planning system for more pylons. What a silly conspiracy theory - where is the political motivation to keep electricity prices high?! They've even approved replacement CCGT. They inherited CCL which I think is need of a reform to reflect how less carbon intensive our electricty is, but they haven't put it up.
If you're talking the extraction of North Sea oil to support those Pharma etc, it's not as simple as "UK oil for UK pharma" - we export most of our oil production and import that which we use in those types of industries. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't extract our own oil if it economically sensible to do so - but don't pretend it's as simple as you suggest. Ultimately the price of oil products is set in a global market and increased UK production would have no material impact on them.
Coupling the electricity price to gas prices means that potentially lower prices from renewables are locked out. See calls for a more segmented market.
And then we have the various levys.
The policy of keeping energy prices high to promote reductions in consumption has been discussed and debated for quite a while.
Yes, it is bonkers. Meanwhile large parts of the world are racing towards cheap, green energy abundance with solar.
Milliband might have been a decent radical reformer, had he an ounce of common sense. As it is, he's vying for worst minister in the cabinet.
Just wait till his refusal of local energy pricing enters fully into the political consciousness in Scotland, Wales, and the highland zone of England.
I don't know whether that's an aversion to markets, or just civil service London-centrism which he's absorbed.
Meanwhile the CCS boondoggle - which will certainly add to electricity prices - marches on.
Jobs Energy security Balance payments Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators
Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.
Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.
I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.
Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
Re your last sentence neither do I
For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
You sound like one of our contractors. So this IT transition will be complete in roughly 2130.
Frankly, arbitrary dates are not the way to transition unless they are realistic
We put man on the moon 66 years after the first powered flight. 2050 is not only realistic, it's pathetic.
Thumping tables isn’t an answer either.
The moon landing decision was made long *after* 1) Staging rockets was proved, 2) the multi stage rocket equations were developed and proven 3) fuels with sufficient ISP were developed. And demonstrated in working rocket engines.
Which meant that scientists could tell JFK that they could land multiple tons on the moon, given a jillion dollars.
There are large areas, in non-burning applications of fossil fuels where we don’t have the answers. Yet.
Politicians with arts degrees demanding the tide turn won’t turn the tide.
If Ed Quetaband was actually useful, the U.K. would be building a non-fossil fuel steel works. That technology is on the edge of practicality - first trial plants are being built elsewhere - and may offer cheaper steel in the long run.
But he is hooked on the reductionist approach. Which, in reality, just means sending the emissions abroad with the jobs.
I think all of that is wrong.
The main areas of carbon emissions we still need to resolve - heating buildings, domestic transport - already have off-the-shelf solutions. EVs and heat pumps (or other electrical heating systems), both of which have been around for decades. Agriculture is only particularly tricky one, but there are some ideas there too.
And we are building steel works that run off electricity. Indeed most of the steel in the UK is already produced that way.
I agree that offshoring is a severe limitation on our progress so far, and the government is resolving that with CBAM in 2027. What's not to like?
You are missing a number of areas - plastics, composites and medicines for a start.
We’ve talked about hydrogen reduction steel making, but not much is actually happening. Keeping electricity prices high is government policy, to reduce demand - the reductionist philosophy. This means that no-one is prepared to build a new facility.
It is not government policy to keep "keep electricity prices high". How would they even do that? They haven't increased taxes on them? They have even opened up the planning system for more pylons. What a silly conspiracy theory - where is the political motivation to keep electricity prices high?! They've even approved replacement CCGT. They inherited CCL which I think is need of a reform to reflect how less carbon intensive our electricty is, but they haven't put it up.
If you're talking the extraction of North Sea oil to support those Pharma etc, it's not as simple as "UK oil for UK pharma" - we export most of our oil production and import that which we use in those types of industries. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't extract our own oil if it economically sensible to do so - but don't pretend it's as simple as you suggest. Ultimately the price of oil products is set in a global market and increased UK production would have no material impact on them.
Coupling the electricity price to gas prices means that potentially lower prices from renewables are locked out. See calls for a more segmented market.
And then we have the various levys.
The policy of keeping energy prices high to promote reductions in consumption has been discussed and debated for quite a while.
Yes, it is bonkers. Meanwhile large parts of the world are racing towards cheap, green energy abundance with solar.
Milliband might have been a decent radical reformer, had he an ounce of common sense. As it is, he's vying for worst minister in the cabinet.
Just wait till his refusal of local energy pricing enters fully into the political consciousness in Scotland, Wales, and the highland zone of England.
I'm sure we can depend on the BBC to bring it to the attention of the voters.
Funny thing is you'd think that Reform would be all over it like bluebottles on treacle. That way the BBC would infallibly emit loong screeds all about it.
An immaculately beautiful Alpine lake, in the saltzkammergut, playground of the Nazi elite. Who hid their favourite artworks in the salt mines in the mountains
I like it!
It’s not nearby but if you can, visit Sterzing or Vitipeno and the magnificent Reifenstein Castle.
I’m kinda falling in love with Austria
The people are more charming and laid back than the Germans - still a bit punctilious but more chilled
Everything is less expensive that Switzerland (albeit I’m still glad I’m not paying)
The food is probably the best in the teutosphere (not a high bar but still)
It’s often very beautiful, rammed with tradition and history
They should really sell it as a tourist destination. People will totally lap it up. You could have “skiiing holidays” in the winter when the snows are here. Build “chalets” for them. In summer, hiking and “sightseeing” and all that
Jobs Energy security Balance payments Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators
Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.
Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.
I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.
Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
Re your last sentence neither do I
For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
Net Zero gets branded as zero emissions. This is incorrect. It’s balancing the emissions against renewables to get to a net zero, not an actual zero.
I’d rebrand it. “Energy Freedom”. We can’t really refine our own oil so we have to export it - we’re reliant on imports. We can’t bring up enough gas now - a quarter of power is from burning gas and we have to import half. Burn more gas even with more production = reliance on imports. Wind? That is ours. Reform demand that we literally switch the windfarms off. The “patriots” in Reform want us reliant on foreigners.
Wind and solar have been a real success, and by the way a lot of that was under the conservatives
Reform and Trump are deranged about windfarms
They haven't been a success except in driving our industrial energy prices to be the highest in the world.
Neither is wind 'ours' - this is simply a barefaced lie:
Countries owning UK wind farms As of the latest available data from 2024, the companies owning British wind farms are primarily based in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Spain, China, Japan, and the United States, with significant state-owned or majority state-owned entities from these countries holding substantial stakes, particularly in offshore wind capacity.
AI Answer - dyor
These foreign interests invest in British wind capacity because it's a licence to print money. The Government can never stop adding to wind capacity or allow wind farms to fail because it is seen as a crucial measure of success. Therefore capital pours in, the same way it does to University accomodation, because the bottom line is that the taxpayer is on the hook for it.
That isn't a success.
Good luck in selling that
It most certainly is a success as is solar
And I type this whilst looking out over the hugely successful Gwynt y Mor windfarm started in 2015 under the conservatives
More important, I think, is the lack of local energy markets. So the wind farm over the road isn't doing you mich good in your electricity bills.
LG might also reflect that a fair bit of solar (thouigh, admittedly, not wind, to be fair to him) is actually generated and consumed on the level of the household, too.
Four years is a very long time in politics, but right now it looks plausible that we will have a Trump-style authoritarian government after the next election. And David Allen Green points out quite correctly that the UK constitution provides no protection against a government that abandons all self-restraint.
There is a case to call on the left to hold their noses and not rock the boat. But that case relies on the centre doing their bit to keep out the right. Right now, it seems like Starmer is presuming on the left's support and using it as licence to pander to the illiberal right; in the hope of winning back potential reform voters. He is failing to go in to bat for the rule of law, failing to point out when Farage and reform cross over into racist campaigning against immigrants who have a legal right to remain - or even citizenship . This is a stupid strategy because it legitimizes the very people who are his main electoral rivals.
There is an alternative case that the left, and anyone who wants to see the rule of law extend beyond the next election, that as much pressure as possible needs to be put on the government and Starmer to change tack.
Many people would argue that failing to control the borders is a prime example of "abandoning all restraint".
An immaculately beautiful Alpine lake, in the saltzkammergut, playground of the Nazi elite. Who hid their favourite artworks in the salt mines in the mountains
I like it!
It’s not nearby but if you can, visit Sterzing or Vitipeno and the magnificent Reifenstein Castle.
I’m kinda falling in love with Austria
The people are more charming and laid back than the Germans - still a bit punctilious but more chilled
Everything is less expensive that Switzerland (albeit I’m still glad I’m not paying)
The food is probably the best in the teutosphere (not a high bar but still)
It’s often very beautiful, rammed with tradition and history
They should really sell it as a tourist destination. People will totally lap it up. You could have “skiiing holidays” in the winter when the snows are here. Build “chalets” for them. In summer, hiking and “sightseeing” and all that
I think I’m really onto something here
I've had many skiing holidays in Austria. St Anton and Lech. Wonderful.
Agree, plus you can ski in summer at Kaprun (glacier) although it isn't very challenging. St Anton, Lech and Zurs are great Some of the very small resorts are crap.
Jobs Energy security Balance payments Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators
Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.
Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.
I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.
Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
Re your last sentence neither do I
For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
You sound like one of our contractors. So this IT transition will be complete in roughly 2130.
Frankly, arbitrary dates are not the way to transition unless they are realistic
We put man on the moon 66 years after the first powered flight. 2050 is not only realistic, it's pathetic.
Thumping tables isn’t an answer either.
The moon landing decision was made long *after* 1) Staging rockets was proved, 2) the multi stage rocket equations were developed and proven 3) fuels with sufficient ISP were developed. And demonstrated in working rocket engines.
Which meant that scientists could tell JFK that they could land multiple tons on the moon, given a jillion dollars.
There are large areas, in non-burning applications of fossil fuels where we don’t have the answers. Yet.
Politicians with arts degrees demanding the tide turn won’t turn the tide.
If Ed Quetaband was actually useful, the U.K. would be building a non-fossil fuel steel works. That technology is on the edge of practicality - first trial plants are being built elsewhere - and may offer cheaper steel in the long run.
But he is hooked on the reductionist approach. Which, in reality, just means sending the emissions abroad with the jobs.
I think all of that is wrong.
The main areas of carbon emissions we still need to resolve - heating buildings, domestic transport - already have off-the-shelf solutions. EVs and heat pumps (or other electrical heating systems), both of which have been around for decades. Agriculture is only particularly tricky one, but there are some ideas there too.
And we are building steel works that run off electricity. Indeed most of the steel in the UK is already produced that way.
I agree that offshoring is a severe limitation on our progress so far, and the government is resolving that with CBAM in 2027. What's not to like?
You are missing a number of areas - plastics, composites and medicines for a start.
We’ve talked about hydrogen reduction steel making, but not much is actually happening. Keeping electricity prices high is government policy, to reduce demand - the reductionist philosophy. This means that no-one is prepared to build a new facility.
It is not government policy to keep "keep electricity prices high". How would they even do that? They haven't increased taxes on them? They have even opened up the planning system for more pylons. What a silly conspiracy theory - where is the political motivation to keep electricity prices high?! They've even approved replacement CCGT. They inherited CCL which I think is need of a reform to reflect how less carbon intensive our electricty is, but they haven't put it up.
If you're talking the extraction of North Sea oil to support those Pharma etc, it's not as simple as "UK oil for UK pharma" - we export most of our oil production and import that which we use in those types of industries. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't extract our own oil if it economically sensible to do so - but don't pretend it's as simple as you suggest. Ultimately the price of oil products is set in a global market and increased UK production would have no material impact on them.
Coupling the electricity price to gas prices means that potentially lower prices from renewables are locked out. See calls for a more segmented market.
And then we have the various levys.
The policy of keeping energy prices high to promote reductions in consumption has been discussed and debated for quite a while.
Yes, it is bonkers. Meanwhile large parts of the world are racing towards cheap, green energy abundance with solar.
Milliband might have been a decent radical reformer, had he an ounce of common sense. As it is, he's vying for worst minister in the cabinet.
Just wait till his refusal of local energy pricing enters fully into the political consciousness in Scotland, Wales, and the highland zone of England.
Hang on - just above, you were saying that keeping electricity prices high to discourage consumption was a silly conspiracy theory.
So surely, local energy pricing leading to lower prices for the consumers is equally silly?
'Reeves original sin was to say we are not going to raise income tax, vat, or NI - terrible mistake leaving her no room to manoeuvre'
People keep saying this but would Labour have been elected if Reeves had not ruled out those taxes going up . I’m afraid the public don’t want to hear the truth and want low taxes and good public services .
Yes, actually, IMHO. It’s entirely possible they could have won the election without committing to those taxes not being raised.
They were against a historically unpopular Tory Party who had completely run out of ideas. Showing a bit more vision in their campaign would have served them much better in government.
Jobs Energy security Balance payments Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators
Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.
Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.
I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.
Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
Re your last sentence neither do I
For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
Net Zero gets branded as zero emissions. This is incorrect. It’s balancing the emissions against renewables to get to a net zero, not an actual zero.
I’d rebrand it. “Energy Freedom”. We can’t really refine our own oil so we have to export it - we’re reliant on imports. We can’t bring up enough gas now - a quarter of power is from burning gas and we have to import half. Burn more gas even with more production = reliance on imports. Wind? That is ours. Reform demand that we literally switch the windfarms off. The “patriots” in Reform want us reliant on foreigners.
Wind and solar have been a real success, and by the way a lot of that was under the conservatives
Reform and Trump are deranged about windfarms
They haven't been a success except in driving our industrial energy prices to be the highest in the world.
Neither is wind 'ours' - this is simply a barefaced lie:
Countries owning UK wind farms As of the latest available data from 2024, the companies owning British wind farms are primarily based in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Spain, China, Japan, and the United States, with significant state-owned or majority state-owned entities from these countries holding substantial stakes, particularly in offshore wind capacity.
AI Answer - dyor
These foreign interests invest in British wind capacity because it's a licence to print money. The Government can never stop adding to wind capacity or allow wind farms to fail because it is seen as a crucial measure of success. Therefore capital pours in, the same way it does to University accomodation, because the bottom line is that the taxpayer is on the hook for it.
That isn't a success.
Just this week an Australian fund as well as our so called national wealth fund have coughed up a load of cash for battery storage.
Jobs Energy security Balance payments Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators
Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.
Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.
I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.
Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
Re your last sentence neither do I
For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
You sound like one of our contractors. So this IT transition will be complete in roughly 2130.
Frankly, arbitrary dates are not the way to transition unless they are realistic
We put man on the moon 66 years after the first powered flight. 2050 is not only realistic, it's pathetic.
Thumping tables isn’t an answer either.
The moon landing decision was made long *after* 1) Staging rockets was proved, 2) the multi stage rocket equations were developed and proven 3) fuels with sufficient ISP were developed. And demonstrated in working rocket engines.
Which meant that scientists could tell JFK that they could land multiple tons on the moon, given a jillion dollars.
There are large areas, in non-burning applications of fossil fuels where we don’t have the answers. Yet.
Politicians with arts degrees demanding the tide turn won’t turn the tide.
If Ed Quetaband was actually useful, the U.K. would be building a non-fossil fuel steel works. That technology is on the edge of practicality - first trial plants are being built elsewhere - and may offer cheaper steel in the long run.
But he is hooked on the reductionist approach. Which, in reality, just means sending the emissions abroad with the jobs.
I think all of that is wrong.
The main areas of carbon emissions we still need to resolve - heating buildings, domestic transport - already have off-the-shelf solutions. EVs and heat pumps (or other electrical heating systems), both of which have been around for decades. Agriculture is only particularly tricky one, but there are some ideas there too.
And we are building steel works that run off electricity. Indeed most of the steel in the UK is already produced that way.
I agree that offshoring is a severe limitation on our progress so far, and the government is resolving that with CBAM in 2027. What's not to like?
You are missing a number of areas - plastics, composites and medicines for a start.
We’ve talked about hydrogen reduction steel making, but not much is actually happening. Keeping electricity prices high is government policy, to reduce demand - the reductionist philosophy. This means that no-one is prepared to build a new facility.
It is not government policy to keep "keep electricity prices high". How would they even do that? They haven't increased taxes on them? They have even opened up the planning system for more pylons. What a silly conspiracy theory - where is the political motivation to keep electricity prices high?! They've even approved replacement CCGT. They inherited CCL which I think is need of a reform to reflect how less carbon intensive our electricty is, but they haven't put it up.
If you're talking the extraction of North Sea oil to support those Pharma etc, it's not as simple as "UK oil for UK pharma" - we export most of our oil production and import that which we use in those types of industries. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't extract our own oil if it economically sensible to do so - but don't pretend it's as simple as you suggest. Ultimately the price of oil products is set in a global market and increased UK production would have no material impact on them.
Coupling the electricity price to gas prices means that potentially lower prices from renewables are locked out. See calls for a more segmented market.
And then we have the various levys.
The policy of keeping energy prices high to promote reductions in consumption has been discussed and debated for quite a while.
Yes, it is bonkers. Meanwhile large parts of the world are racing towards cheap, green energy abundance with solar.
Milliband might have been a decent radical reformer, had he an ounce of common sense. As it is, he's vying for worst minister in the cabinet.
Just wait till his refusal of local energy pricing enters fully into the political consciousness in Scotland, Wales, and the highland zone of England.
Hang on - just above, you were saying that keeping electricity prices high to discourage consumption was a silly conspiracy theory.
So surely, local energy pricing leading to lower prices for the consumers is equally silly?
Jobs Energy security Balance payments Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators
Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.
Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.
I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.
Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
Re your last sentence neither do I
For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
Net Zero gets branded as zero emissions. This is incorrect. It’s balancing the emissions against renewables to get to a net zero, not an actual zero.
I’d rebrand it. “Energy Freedom”. We can’t really refine our own oil so we have to export it - we’re reliant on imports. We can’t bring up enough gas now - a quarter of power is from burning gas and we have to import half. Burn more gas even with more production = reliance on imports. Wind? That is ours. Reform demand that we literally switch the windfarms off. The “patriots” in Reform want us reliant on foreigners.
Wind and solar have been a real success, and by the way a lot of that was under the conservatives
Reform and Trump are deranged about windfarms
They haven't been a success except in driving our industrial energy prices to be the highest in the world.
Neither is wind 'ours' - this is simply a barefaced lie:
Countries owning UK wind farms As of the latest available data from 2024, the companies owning British wind farms are primarily based in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Spain, China, Japan, and the United States, with significant state-owned or majority state-owned entities from these countries holding substantial stakes, particularly in offshore wind capacity.
AI Answer - dyor
These foreign interests invest in British wind capacity because it's a licence to print money. The Government can never stop adding to wind capacity or allow wind farms to fail because it is seen as a crucial measure of success. Therefore capital pours in, the same way it does to University accomodation, because the bottom line is that the taxpayer is on the hook for it.
That isn't a success.
Good luck in selling that
It most certainly is a success as is solar
And I type this whilst looking out over the hugely successful Gwynt y Mor windfarm started in 2015 under the conservatives
More important, I think, is the lack of local energy markets. So the wind farm over the road isn't doing you mich good in your electricity bills.
LG might also reflect that a fair bit of solar (thouigh, admittedly, not wind, to be fair to him) is actually generated and consumed on the level of the household, too.
Jobs Energy security Balance payments Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators
Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.
Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.
I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.
Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
Re your last sentence neither do I
For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
Net Zero gets branded as zero emissions. This is incorrect. It’s balancing the emissions against renewables to get to a net zero, not an actual zero.
I’d rebrand it. “Energy Freedom”. We can’t really refine our own oil so we have to export it - we’re reliant on imports. We can’t bring up enough gas now - a quarter of power is from burning gas and we have to import half. Burn more gas even with more production = reliance on imports. Wind? That is ours. Reform demand that we literally switch the windfarms off. The “patriots” in Reform want us reliant on foreigners.
Wind and solar have been a real success, and by the way a lot of that was under the conservatives
Reform and Trump are deranged about windfarms
They haven't been a success except in driving our industrial energy prices to be the highest in the world.
Neither is wind 'ours' - this is simply a barefaced lie:
Countries owning UK wind farms As of the latest available data from 2024, the companies owning British wind farms are primarily based in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Spain, China, Japan, and the United States, with significant state-owned or majority state-owned entities from these countries holding substantial stakes, particularly in offshore wind capacity.
AI Answer - dyor
These foreign interests invest in British wind capacity because it's a licence to print money. The Government can never stop adding to wind capacity or allow wind farms to fail because it is seen as a crucial measure of success. Therefore capital pours in, the same way it does to University accomodation, because the bottom line is that the taxpayer is on the hook for it.
That isn't a success.
Good luck in selling that
It most certainly is a success as is solar
And I type this whilst looking out over the hugely successful Gwynt y Mor windfarm started in 2015 under the conservatives
More important, I think, is the lack of local energy markets. So the wind farm over the road isn't doing you mich good in your electricity bills.
LG might also reflect that a fair bit of solar (thouigh, admittedly, not wind, to be fair to him) is actually generated and consumed on the level of the household, too.
'Reeves original sin was to say we are not going to raise income tax, vat, or NI - terrible mistake leaving her no room to manoeuvre'
People keep saying this but would Labour have been elected if Reeves had not ruled out those taxes going up . I’m afraid the public don’t want to hear the truth and want low taxes and good public services .
Yes, actually, IMHO. It’s entirely possible they could have won the election without committing to those taxes not being raised.
They were against a historically unpopular Tory Party who had completely run out of ideas. Showing a bit more vision in their campaign would have served them much better in government.
I think they would have won too.
All they needed to say was ‘no plans’ but they were scared especially after Rishi Sunak beasted SKS in a head to head on tax.
Jobs Energy security Balance payments Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators
Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.
Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.
I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.
Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
Re your last sentence neither do I
For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
Net Zero gets branded as zero emissions. This is incorrect. It’s balancing the emissions against renewables to get to a net zero, not an actual zero.
I’d rebrand it. “Energy Freedom”. We can’t really refine our own oil so we have to export it - we’re reliant on imports. We can’t bring up enough gas now - a quarter of power is from burning gas and we have to import half. Burn more gas even with more production = reliance on imports. Wind? That is ours. Reform demand that we literally switch the windfarms off. The “patriots” in Reform want us reliant on foreigners.
Wind and solar have been a real success, and by the way a lot of that was under the conservatives
Reform and Trump are deranged about windfarms
They haven't been a success except in driving our industrial energy prices to be the highest in the world.
Neither is wind 'ours' - this is simply a barefaced lie:
Countries owning UK wind farms As of the latest available data from 2024, the companies owning British wind farms are primarily based in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Spain, China, Japan, and the United States, with significant state-owned or majority state-owned entities from these countries holding substantial stakes, particularly in offshore wind capacity.
AI Answer - dyor
These foreign interests invest in British wind capacity because it's a licence to print money. The Government can never stop adding to wind capacity or allow wind farms to fail because it is seen as a crucial measure of success. Therefore capital pours in, the same way it does to University accomodation, because the bottom line is that the taxpayer is on the hook for it.
That isn't a success.
Good luck in selling that
It most certainly is a success as is solar
And I type this whilst looking out over the hugely successful Gwynt y Mor windfarm started in 2015 under the conservatives
More important, I think, is the lack of local energy markets. So the wind farm over the road isn't doing you mich good in your electricity bills.
LG might also reflect that a fair bit of solar (thouigh, admittedly, not wind, to be fair to him) is actually generated and consumed on the level of the household, too.
Point of order
It is over the sea !!!!!!!!!!!!
Okay, over the road on the Menai Bridge!
A bit far from my view of the Irish sea and the windfarm off Colwyn Bay
'Reeves original sin was to say we are not going to raise income tax, vat, or NI - terrible mistake leaving her no room to manoeuvre'
People keep saying this but would Labour have been elected if Reeves had not ruled out those taxes going up . I’m afraid the public don’t want to hear the truth and want low taxes and good public services .
Yes, actually, IMHO. It’s entirely possible they could have won the election without committing to those taxes not being raised.
They were against a historically unpopular Tory Party who had completely run out of ideas. Showing a bit more vision in their campaign would have served them much better in government.
I think they would have won too.
All they needed to say was ‘no plans’ but they were scared especially after Rishi Sunak beasted SKS in a head to head on tax.
Actually, if they had the vision, they should just say that in the interest of the present state of finance we are going to put 1p on basic tax and 2p on higher tax
I think they would get the credit for being honest and straightforward, and could ask others what they would do in our present crisis
I've extracted the "switching matrix" showing how 2024 voters have changed parties from the five latest polls.
Some surprises: * 70% of those who did not vote in 2024 and say they'll vote this time support Reform. This accounts for about 5-7% of the Reform vote share. Mmm (Find Out Now) * Only 10% of past Labour voters say they'll vote Reform. And 10% of past LD voters also say they'll vote Reform! There's a surprise.
Non-surprises: * Labour and Tory lose about 40% of their past voters. * Reform loses only 7% * About 30% of past Tory voters say they'll vote Reform next time.
These are averages from five different pollsters. This switching matrix excludes those who didn't vote last time including youngsters and those who can't be bothered.
'Reeves original sin was to say we are not going to raise income tax, vat, or NI - terrible mistake leaving her no room to manoeuvre'
People keep saying this but would Labour have been elected if Reeves had not ruled out those taxes going up . I’m afraid the public don’t want to hear the truth and want low taxes and good public services .
Yes, actually, IMHO. It’s entirely possible they could have won the election without committing to those taxes not being raised.
They were against a historically unpopular Tory Party who had completely run out of ideas. Showing a bit more vision in their campaign would have served them much better in government.
I think they would have won too.
All they needed to say was ‘no plans’ but they were scared especially after Rishi Sunak beasted SKS in a head to head on tax.
Actually, if they had the vision, they should just say that in the interest of the present state of finance we are going to put 1p on basic tax and 2p on higher tax
I think they would get the credit for being honest and straightforward, and could ask others what they would do in our present crisis
After May was honest and straightforward in how to fund social care for the elderly, no party will ever make that mistake again.
Jobs Energy security Balance payments Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators
Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.
Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.
I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.
Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
Re your last sentence neither do I
For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
Net Zero gets branded as zero emissions. This is incorrect. It’s balancing the emissions against renewables to get to a net zero, not an actual zero.
I’d rebrand it. “Energy Freedom”. We can’t really refine our own oil so we have to export it - we’re reliant on imports. We can’t bring up enough gas now - a quarter of power is from burning gas and we have to import half. Burn more gas even with more production = reliance on imports. Wind? That is ours. Reform demand that we literally switch the windfarms off. The “patriots” in Reform want us reliant on foreigners.
Wind and solar have been a real success, and by the way a lot of that was under the conservatives
Reform and Trump are deranged about windfarms
They haven't been a success except in driving our industrial energy prices to be the highest in the world.
Neither is wind 'ours' - this is simply a barefaced lie:
Countries owning UK wind farms As of the latest available data from 2024, the companies owning British wind farms are primarily based in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Spain, China, Japan, and the United States, with significant state-owned or majority state-owned entities from these countries holding substantial stakes, particularly in offshore wind capacity.
AI Answer - dyor
These foreign interests invest in British wind capacity because it's a licence to print money. The Government can never stop adding to wind capacity or allow wind farms to fail because it is seen as a crucial measure of success. Therefore capital pours in, the same way it does to University accomodation, because the bottom line is that the taxpayer is on the hook for it.
That isn't a success.
Good luck in selling that
It most certainly is a success as is solar
And I type this whilst looking out over the hugely successful Gwynt y Mor windfarm started in 2015 under the conservatives
More important, I think, is the lack of local energy markets. So the wind farm over the road isn't doing you mich good in your electricity bills.
LG might also reflect that a fair bit of solar (thouigh, admittedly, not wind, to be fair to him) is actually generated and consumed on the level of the household, too.
That wind farm is so close to the major population centres in the NW I'm not sure BigG would enjoy lower prices, simply because there is so much demand in his area. Which is exactly how the system should work (and therefore induce more wind farm investment in the Irish Sea taking advantage of that high demand).
In addition to nodal pricing, I think a radical and transformative energy policy would look something like:
- Significant reduction of CCL on electricity, commensurate increase on gas - Impose 30-minute tariffs on all domestic users of electricty (to help balance demand with supply) - Cut VAT to 0% on domestic electricity, commensurate increase on gas - Cut VAT to 10% on business electricity, commensurate increase on gas - Regional fuel duty rates based on urban:rural index - Aggressive CBAM (too late really but time to make up for it)
It would hard to argue against that on a national level but people owning large houses and driving a lot around the SE of England would be hit very hard indeed.
Jobs Energy security Balance payments Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators
Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.
Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.
I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.
Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
Re your last sentence neither do I
For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
Net Zero gets branded as zero emissions. This is incorrect. It’s balancing the emissions against renewables to get to a net zero, not an actual zero.
I’d rebrand it. “Energy Freedom”. We can’t really refine our own oil so we have to export it - we’re reliant on imports. We can’t bring up enough gas now - a quarter of power is from burning gas and we have to import half. Burn more gas even with more production = reliance on imports. Wind? That is ours. Reform demand that we literally switch the windfarms off. The “patriots” in Reform want us reliant on foreigners.
Wind and solar have been a real success, and by the way a lot of that was under the conservatives
Reform and Trump are deranged about windfarms
They haven't been a success except in driving our industrial energy prices to be the highest in the world.
Neither is wind 'ours' - this is simply a barefaced lie:
Countries owning UK wind farms As of the latest available data from 2024, the companies owning British wind farms are primarily based in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Spain, China, Japan, and the United States, with significant state-owned or majority state-owned entities from these countries holding substantial stakes, particularly in offshore wind capacity.
AI Answer - dyor
These foreign interests invest in British wind capacity because it's a licence to print money. The Government can never stop adding to wind capacity or allow wind farms to fail because it is seen as a crucial measure of success. Therefore capital pours in, the same way it does to University accomodation, because the bottom line is that the taxpayer is on the hook for it.
That isn't a success.
Good luck in selling that
It most certainly is a success as is solar
And I type this whilst looking out over the hugely successful Gwynt y Mor windfarm started in 2015 under the conservatives
What is it that you think I'm selling?
I am sure the wind farm is lovely and shiny and big, as is your energy bill, which you acknowledged to me was still well above pre-crisis levels, despite all the freebies you were so delighted about.
Don't get me wrong, it is a huge success - for those who own windfarms.
Four years is a very long time in politics, but right now it looks plausible that we will have a Trump-style authoritarian government after the next election. And David Allen Green points out quite correctly that the UK constitution provides no protection against a government that abandons all self-restraint.
There is a case to call on the left to hold their noses and not rock the boat. But that case relies on the centre doing their bit to keep out the right. Right now, it seems like Starmer is presuming on the left's support and using it as licence to pander to the illiberal right; in the hope of winning back potential reform voters. He is failing to go in to bat for the rule of law, failing to point out when Farage and reform cross over into racist campaigning against immigrants who have a legal right to remain - or even citizenship . This is a stupid strategy because it legitimizes the very people who are his main electoral rivals.
There is an alternative case that the left, and anyone who wants to see the rule of law extend beyond the next election, that as much pressure as possible needs to be put on the government and Starmer to change tack.
Many people would argue that failing to control the borders is a prime example of "abandoning all restraint".
It's interesting how the left can't see this.
Exactly how does one 'control the borders'? The problem, as I see it is one of technology. It's easy, and apparently quite cheap, to obtain inflatable boats and find desperate people to buy seats in them. It was much harder to cross the Channel 'uncontrolled' when the only boats available were wooden and had to be built by hand. When the 'desperate' people had to buy, or be bought, tickets on one or other of the ferries we didn't have the same problem, although I seem to recall tales of riots in the East End of London back in the 1930's.
I'm not denying that there are people crossing who we would regard as unwanted rogues but there are many to whom we promised 'care and support' but made it impossible to get here.
It would be interesting, and perhaps informative, to have journalists talk to people who actually have travelled here by rubber boats, instead of making assumptions.
I've extracted the "switching matrix" showing how 2024 voters have changed parties from the five latest polls.
Some surprises: * 70% of those who did not vote in 2024 and say they'll vote this time support Reform. This accounts for about 5-7% of the Reform vote share. Mmm (Find Out Now) * Only 10% of past Labour voters say they'll vote Reform. And 10% of past LD voters also say they'll vote Reform! There's a surprise.
Non-surprises: * Labour and Tory lose about 40% of their past voters. * Reform loses only 7% * About 30% of past Tory voters say they'll vote Reform next time.
These are averages from five different pollsters. This switching matrix excludes those who didn't vote last time including youngsters and those who can't be bothered.
Two observations:
LD voter retention isn't that much better than Lab or Con, which is surprising.
Nobody who actually voted Green is switching to Sultanarama. It is just the Gaza crowd who have jumped on the Green bandwagon who are turning to a sexier option.
Four years is a very long time in politics, but right now it looks plausible that we will have a Trump-style authoritarian government after the next election. And David Allen Green points out quite correctly that the UK constitution provides no protection against a government that abandons all self-restraint.
There is a case to call on the left to hold their noses and not rock the boat. But that case relies on the centre doing their bit to keep out the right. Right now, it seems like Starmer is presuming on the left's support and using it as licence to pander to the illiberal right; in the hope of winning back potential reform voters. He is failing to go in to bat for the rule of law, failing to point out when Farage and reform cross over into racist campaigning against immigrants who have a legal right to remain - or even citizenship . This is a stupid strategy because it legitimizes the very people who are his main electoral rivals.
There is an alternative case that the left, and anyone who wants to see the rule of law extend beyond the next election, that as much pressure as possible needs to be put on the government and Starmer to change tack.
Many people would argue that failing to control the borders is a prime example of "abandoning all restraint".
It's interesting how the left can't see this.
Exactly how does one 'control the borders'? The problem, as I see it is one of technology. It's easy, and apparently quite cheap, to obtain inflatable boats and find desperate people to buy seats in them. It was much harder to cross the Channel 'uncontrolled' when the only boats available were wooden and had to be built by hand. When the 'desperate' people had to buy, or be bought, tickets on one or other of the ferries we didn't have the same problem, although I seem to recall tales of riots in the East End of London back in the 1930's.
I'm not denying that there are people crossing who we would regard as unwanted rogues but there are many to whom we promised 'care and support' but made it impossible to get here.
It would be interesting, and perhaps informative, to have journalists talk to people who actually have travelled here by rubber boats, instead of making assumptions.
There are many, many journalists who have been to the camps, talked to the arrivals etc. I feel that the lack of examples that you've read may tell you that they're not saying what you might like to hear.
Four years is a very long time in politics, but right now it looks plausible that we will have a Trump-style authoritarian government after the next election. And David Allen Green points out quite correctly that the UK constitution provides no protection against a government that abandons all self-restraint.
There is a case to call on the left to hold their noses and not rock the boat. But that case relies on the centre doing their bit to keep out the right. Right now, it seems like Starmer is presuming on the left's support and using it as licence to pander to the illiberal right; in the hope of winning back potential reform voters. He is failing to go in to bat for the rule of law, failing to point out when Farage and reform cross over into racist campaigning against immigrants who have a legal right to remain - or even citizenship . This is a stupid strategy because it legitimizes the very people who are his main electoral rivals.
There is an alternative case that the left, and anyone who wants to see the rule of law extend beyond the next election, that as much pressure as possible needs to be put on the government and Starmer to change tack.
Many people would argue that failing to control the borders is a prime example of "abandoning all restraint".
It's interesting how the left can't see this.
Exactly how does one 'control the borders'? The problem, as I see it is one of technology. It's easy, and apparently quite cheap, to obtain inflatable boats and find desperate people to buy seats in them. It was much harder to cross the Channel 'uncontrolled' when the only boats available were wooden and had to be built by hand. When the 'desperate' people had to buy, or be bought, tickets on one or other of the ferries we didn't have the same problem, although I seem to recall tales of riots in the East End of London back in the 1930's.
I'm not denying that there are people crossing who we would regard as unwanted rogues but there are many to whom we promised 'care and support' but made it impossible to get here.
It would be interesting, and perhaps informative, to have journalists talk to people who actually have travelled here by rubber boats, instead of making assumptions.
If France can’t control their borders, perhaps we should do it for them? A couple of divisions patrolling the beaches 24/7, puncturing any inflatables they see. That would smash the gangs quite effectively.
Jobs Energy security Balance payments Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators
Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.
Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.
I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.
Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
Re your last sentence neither do I
For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
Net Zero gets branded as zero emissions. This is incorrect. It’s balancing the emissions against renewables to get to a net zero, not an actual zero.
I’d rebrand it. “Energy Freedom”. We can’t really refine our own oil so we have to export it - we’re reliant on imports. We can’t bring up enough gas now - a quarter of power is from burning gas and we have to import half. Burn more gas even with more production = reliance on imports. Wind? That is ours. Reform demand that we literally switch the windfarms off. The “patriots” in Reform want us reliant on foreigners.
Wind and solar have been a real success, and by the way a lot of that was under the conservatives
Reform and Trump are deranged about windfarms
They haven't been a success except in driving our industrial energy prices to be the highest in the world.
Neither is wind 'ours' - this is simply a barefaced lie:
Countries owning UK wind farms As of the latest available data from 2024, the companies owning British wind farms are primarily based in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Spain, China, Japan, and the United States, with significant state-owned or majority state-owned entities from these countries holding substantial stakes, particularly in offshore wind capacity.
AI Answer - dyor
These foreign interests invest in British wind capacity because it's a licence to print money. The Government can never stop adding to wind capacity or allow wind farms to fail because it is seen as a crucial measure of success. Therefore capital pours in, the same way it does to University accomodation, because the bottom line is that the taxpayer is on the hook for it.
That isn't a success.
Good luck in selling that
It most certainly is a success as is solar
And I type this whilst looking out over the hugely successful Gwynt y Mor windfarm started in 2015 under the conservatives
Lucky has half a point here, though. Given we've financed these schemes at guaranteed prices for the developer - over decades - it might/would have made much greater financial sense for government to take large stakes in them.
Especially back when interest rates were at rock bottom.
I've extracted the "switching matrix" showing how 2024 voters have changed parties from the five latest polls.
Some surprises: * 70% of those who did not vote in 2024 and say they'll vote this time support Reform. This accounts for about 5-7% of the Reform vote share. Mmm (Find Out Now) * Only 10% of past Labour voters say they'll vote Reform. And 10% of past LD voters also say they'll vote Reform! There's a surprise.
Non-surprises: * Labour and Tory lose about 40% of their past voters. * Reform loses only 7% * About 30% of past Tory voters say they'll vote Reform next time.
These are averages from five different pollsters. This switching matrix excludes those who didn't vote last time including youngsters and those who can't be bothered.
Two observations:
LD voter retention isn't that much better than Lab or Con, which is surprising.
Nobody who actually voted Green is switching to Sultanarama. It is just the Gaza crowd who have jumped on the Green bandwagon who are turning to a sexier option.
Yes the LD retention figure is surprising. Ignore the YP column. I shouldn't have put it in. Most pollsters don't poll for YP.
'Reeves original sin was to say we are not going to raise income tax, vat, or NI - terrible mistake leaving her no room to manoeuvre'
People keep saying this but would Labour have been elected if Reeves had not ruled out those taxes going up . I’m afraid the public don’t want to hear the truth and want low taxes and good public services .
Yes, actually, IMHO. It’s entirely possible they could have won the election without committing to those taxes not being raised.
They were against a historically unpopular Tory Party who had completely run out of ideas. Showing a bit more vision in their campaign would have served them much better in government.
I think they would have won too.
All they needed to say was ‘no plans’ but they were scared especially after Rishi Sunak beasted SKS in a head to head on tax.
Actually, if they had the vision, they should just say that in the interest of the present state of finance we are going to put 1p on basic tax and 2p on higher tax
I think they would get the credit for being honest and straightforward, and could ask others what they would do in our present crisis
I agree that that's probably a good plan for them (better than faffing about with a million low-return tax tweaks, and closer to their principles than drastic spending cuts), and that it would be possible to sell it as a coherent strategy ("yes, we will all have to pay a bit more, but in return we will get xyz in the long run"). However:
1) it is much harder to do this now that Labour have spent the last year carefully boxing themselves in to no tax rises on working people, and then nailing the lid down on the box more firmly at every opportunity. They could have been vaguer (even if not bolder) before the election. They could have made better use of the "now we've seen the books" gambit after getting in. They could have used the need for increased defence spending as an unprecedented one-off reason. Getting out of the box at this point is very difficult.
2) If the last year has taught us anything, it is that the government are hopelessly bad at formulating and communicating a coherent economic and political strategy. Even if they do bite the bullet and raise income tax, I would expect them to do it in a halfassed way, to fail to make the case for why it's necessary and the long term reward for this taxpayer pain, and to leave themselves open to easy lines of attack by their opponents.
Jobs Energy security Balance payments Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators
Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.
Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.
I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.
Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
Re your last sentence neither do I
For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
You sound like one of our contractors. So this IT transition will be complete in roughly 2130.
Frankly, arbitrary dates are not the way to transition unless they are realistic
We put man on the moon 66 years after the first powered flight. 2050 is not only realistic, it's pathetic.
Thumping tables isn’t an answer either.
The moon landing decision was made long *after* 1) Staging rockets was proved, 2) the multi stage rocket equations were developed and proven 3) fuels with sufficient ISP were developed. And demonstrated in working rocket engines.
Which meant that scientists could tell JFK that they could land multiple tons on the moon, given a jillion dollars.
There are large areas, in non-burning applications of fossil fuels where we don’t have the answers. Yet.
Politicians with arts degrees demanding the tide turn won’t turn the tide.
If Ed Quetaband was actually useful, the U.K. would be building a non-fossil fuel steel works. That technology is on the edge of practicality - first trial plants are being built elsewhere - and may offer cheaper steel in the long run.
But he is hooked on the reductionist approach. Which, in reality, just means sending the emissions abroad with the jobs.
I think all of that is wrong.
The main areas of carbon emissions we still need to resolve - heating buildings, domestic transport - already have off-the-shelf solutions. EVs and heat pumps (or other electrical heating systems), both of which have been around for decades. Agriculture is only particularly tricky one, but there are some ideas there too.
And we are building steel works that run off electricity. Indeed most of the steel in the UK is already produced that way.
I agree that offshoring is a severe limitation on our progress so far, and the government is resolving that with CBAM in 2027. What's not to like?
You are missing a number of areas - plastics, composites and medicines for a start.
We’ve talked about hydrogen reduction steel making, but not much is actually happening. Keeping electricity prices high is government policy, to reduce demand - the reductionist philosophy. This means that no-one is prepared to build a new facility.
It is not government policy to keep "keep electricity prices high". How would they even do that? They haven't increased taxes on them? They have even opened up the planning system for more pylons. What a silly conspiracy theory - where is the political motivation to keep electricity prices high?! They've even approved replacement CCGT. They inherited CCL which I think is need of a reform to reflect how less carbon intensive our electricty is, but they haven't put it up.
If you're talking the extraction of North Sea oil to support those Pharma etc, it's not as simple as "UK oil for UK pharma" - we export most of our oil production and import that which we use in those types of industries. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't extract our own oil if it economically sensible to do so - but don't pretend it's as simple as you suggest. Ultimately the price of oil products is set in a global market and increased UK production would have no material impact on them.
Coupling the electricity price to gas prices means that potentially lower prices from renewables are locked out. See calls for a more segmented market.
And then we have the various levys.
The policy of keeping energy prices high to promote reductions in consumption has been discussed and debated for quite a while.
Yes, it is bonkers. Meanwhile large parts of the world are racing towards cheap, green energy abundance with solar.
Milliband might have been a decent radical reformer, had he an ounce of common sense. As it is, he's vying for worst minister in the cabinet.
Just wait till his refusal of local energy pricing enters fully into the political consciousness in Scotland, Wales, and the highland zone of England.
Hang on - just above, you were saying that keeping electricity prices high to discourage consumption was a silly conspiracy theory.
So surely, local energy pricing leading to lower prices for the consumers is equally silly?
Well, if you're suggesting that the rejection of nodal pricing is a conspiracy by the UK Government to keep prices low in the SE of England and high in Scotland...
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Four years is a very long time in politics, but right now it looks plausible that we will have a Trump-style authoritarian government after the next election. And David Allen Green points out quite correctly that the UK constitution provides no protection against a government that abandons all self-restraint.
There is a case to call on the left to hold their noses and not rock the boat. But that case relies on the centre doing their bit to keep out the right. Right now, it seems like Starmer is presuming on the left's support and using it as licence to pander to the illiberal right; in the hope of winning back potential reform voters. He is failing to go in to bat for the rule of law, failing to point out when Farage and reform cross over into racist campaigning against immigrants who have a legal right to remain - or even citizenship . This is a stupid strategy because it legitimizes the very people who are his main electoral rivals.
There is an alternative case that the left, and anyone who wants to see the rule of law extend beyond the next election, that as much pressure as possible needs to be put on the government and Starmer to change tack.
Many people would argue that failing to control the borders is a prime example of "abandoning all restraint".
It's interesting how the left can't see this.
Exactly how does one 'control the borders'? The problem, as I see it is one of technology. It's easy, and apparently quite cheap, to obtain inflatable boats and find desperate people to buy seats in them. It was much harder to cross the Channel 'uncontrolled' when the only boats available were wooden and had to be built by hand. When the 'desperate' people had to buy, or be bought, tickets on one or other of the ferries we didn't have the same problem, although I seem to recall tales of riots in the East End of London back in the 1930's.
I'm not denying that there are people crossing who we would regard as unwanted rogues but there are many to whom we promised 'care and support' but made it impossible to get here.
It would be interesting, and perhaps informative, to have journalists talk to people who actually have travelled here by rubber boats, instead of making assumptions.
There are many, many journalists who have been to the camps, talked to the arrivals etc. I feel that the lack of examples that you've read may tell you that they're not saying what you might like to hear.
To be fair, I suppose that if what they say isn't what I'd like to hear, it wouldn't be in the Guardian!
I do suspect though that slowness in processing applications isn't helping, and IIRC the previous government wasn't exactly brisk in this activity.
'Reeves original sin was to say we are not going to raise income tax, vat, or NI - terrible mistake leaving her no room to manoeuvre'
People keep saying this but would Labour have been elected if Reeves had not ruled out those taxes going up . I’m afraid the public don’t want to hear the truth and want low taxes and good public services .
Yes, actually, IMHO. It’s entirely possible they could have won the election without committing to those taxes not being raised.
They were against a historically unpopular Tory Party who had completely run out of ideas. Showing a bit more vision in their campaign would have served them much better in government.
I think they would have won too.
All they needed to say was ‘no plans’ but they were scared especially after Rishi Sunak beasted SKS in a head to head on tax.
Actually, if they had the vision, they should just say that in the interest of the present state of finance we are going to put 1p on basic tax and 2p on higher tax
I think they would get the credit for being honest and straightforward, and could ask others what they would do in our present crisis
I agree that that's probably a good plan for them (better than faffing about with a million low-return tax tweaks, and closer to their principles than drastic spending cuts), and that it would be possible to sell it as a coherent strategy ("yes, we will all have to pay a bit more, but in return we will get xyz in the long run"). However:
1) it is much harder to do this now that Labour have spent the last year carefully boxing themselves in to no tax rises on working people, and then nailing the lid down on the box more firmly at every opportunity. They could have been vaguer (even if not bolder) before the election. They could have made better use of the "now we've seen the books" gambit after getting in. They could have used the need for increased defence spending as an unprecedented one-off reason. Getting out of the box at this point is very difficult.
2) If the last year has taught us anything, it is that the government are hopelessly bad at formulating and communicating a coherent economic and political strategy. Even if they do bite the bullet and raise income tax, I would expect them to do it in a halfassed way, to fail to make the case for why it's necessary and the long term reward for this taxpayer pain, and to leave themselves open to easy lines of attack by their opponents.
I think Starmer lacks courage in external politics where he is not in total control, but is brutal in internal Party politics where he is in total control.
Four years is a very long time in politics, but right now it looks plausible that we will have a Trump-style authoritarian government after the next election. And David Allen Green points out quite correctly that the UK constitution provides no protection against a government that abandons all self-restraint.
There is a case to call on the left to hold their noses and not rock the boat. But that case relies on the centre doing their bit to keep out the right. Right now, it seems like Starmer is presuming on the left's support and using it as licence to pander to the illiberal right; in the hope of winning back potential reform voters. He is failing to go in to bat for the rule of law, failing to point out when Farage and reform cross over into racist campaigning against immigrants who have a legal right to remain - or even citizenship . This is a stupid strategy because it legitimizes the very people who are his main electoral rivals.
There is an alternative case that the left, and anyone who wants to see the rule of law extend beyond the next election, that as much pressure as possible needs to be put on the government and Starmer to change tack.
Many people would argue that failing to control the borders is a prime example of "abandoning all restraint".
It's interesting how the left can't see this.
Exactly how does one 'control the borders'? The problem, as I see it is one of technology. It's easy, and apparently quite cheap, to obtain inflatable boats and find desperate people to buy seats in them. It was much harder to cross the Channel 'uncontrolled' when the only boats available were wooden and had to be built by hand. When the 'desperate' people had to buy, or be bought, tickets on one or other of the ferries we didn't have the same problem, although I seem to recall tales of riots in the East End of London back in the 1930's.
I'm not denying that there are people crossing who we would regard as unwanted rogues but there are many to whom we promised 'care and support' but made it impossible to get here.
It would be interesting, and perhaps informative, to have journalists talk to people who actually have travelled here by rubber boats, instead of making assumptions.
If France can’t control their borders, perhaps we should do it for them? A couple of divisions patrolling the beaches 24/7, puncturing any inflatables they see. That would smash the gangs quite effectively.
'Controlling our borders' usually refers to a country controlling who they allow in. Perhaps England needs a couple of regiments of Troupes de marine patrolling its southern beaches (small detachment to Norfolk to keep that buffoon Rupert Lowe happy).
Are the names Zack Polanski and Ed (checks table again) Davey in the polling just to test what even made up people might get out of this cohort? Commendable if so, I think all polling should include non existent options to identify the proportion who give opinions without any thought at all.
I've extracted the "switching matrix" showing how 2024 voters have changed parties from the five latest polls.
Some surprises: * 70% of those who did not vote in 2024 and say they'll vote this time support Reform. This accounts for about 5-7% of the Reform vote share. Mmm (Find Out Now) * Only 10% of past Labour voters say they'll vote Reform. And 10% of past LD voters also say they'll vote Reform! There's a surprise.
Non-surprises: * Labour and Tory lose about 40% of their past voters. * Reform loses only 7% * About 30% of past Tory voters say they'll vote Reform next time.
These are averages from five different pollsters. This switching matrix excludes those who didn't vote last time including youngsters and those who can't be bothered.
Two observations:
LD voter retention isn't that much better than Lab or Con, which is surprising.
Nobody who actually voted Green is switching to Sultanarama. It is just the Gaza crowd who have jumped on the Green bandwagon who are turning to a sexier option.
Yes the LD retention figure is surprising. Ignore the YP column. I shouldn't have put it in. Most pollsters don't poll for YP.
Very interesting work, and I think you should add a little commentary and submit it to TSE as a post.
Four years is a very long time in politics, but right now it looks plausible that we will have a Trump-style authoritarian government after the next election. And David Allen Green points out quite correctly that the UK constitution provides no protection against a government that abandons all self-restraint.
There is a case to call on the left to hold their noses and not rock the boat. But that case relies on the centre doing their bit to keep out the right. Right now, it seems like Starmer is presuming on the left's support and using it as licence to pander to the illiberal right; in the hope of winning back potential reform voters. He is failing to go in to bat for the rule of law, failing to point out when Farage and reform cross over into racist campaigning against immigrants who have a legal right to remain - or even citizenship . This is a stupid strategy because it legitimizes the very people who are his main electoral rivals.
There is an alternative case that the left, and anyone who wants to see the rule of law extend beyond the next election, that as much pressure as possible needs to be put on the government and Starmer to change tack.
Many people would argue that failing to control the borders is a prime example of "abandoning all restraint".
It's interesting how the left can't see this.
Exactly how does one 'control the borders'? The problem, as I see it is one of technology. It's easy, and apparently quite cheap, to obtain inflatable boats and find desperate people to buy seats in them. It was much harder to cross the Channel 'uncontrolled' when the only boats available were wooden and had to be built by hand. When the 'desperate' people had to buy, or be bought, tickets on one or other of the ferries we didn't have the same problem, although I seem to recall tales of riots in the East End of London back in the 1930's.
I'm not denying that there are people crossing who we would regard as unwanted rogues but there are many to whom we promised 'care and support' but made it impossible to get here.
It would be interesting, and perhaps informative, to have journalists talk to people who actually have travelled here by rubber boats, instead of making assumptions.
If France can’t control their borders, perhaps we should do it for them? A couple of divisions patrolling the beaches 24/7, puncturing any inflatables they see. That would smash the gangs quite effectively.
'Controlling our borders' usually refers to a country controlling who they allow in. Perhaps England needs a couple of regiments of Troupes de marine patrolling its southern beaches (small detachment to Norfolk to keep that buffoon Rupert Lowe happy).
Well they wouldn’t do anything to address the problem of irregular arrivals via inflatables. If no boat ever left the shores of France, the people smugglers would soon abandon that particular route of entry.
I've extracted the "switching matrix" showing how 2024 voters have changed parties from the five latest polls.
Some surprises: * 70% of those who did not vote in 2024 and say they'll vote this time support Reform. This accounts for about 5-7% of the Reform vote share. Mmm (Find Out Now) * Only 10% of past Labour voters say they'll vote Reform. And 10% of past LD voters also say they'll vote Reform! There's a surprise.
Non-surprises: * Labour and Tory lose about 40% of their past voters. * Reform loses only 7% * About 30% of past Tory voters say they'll vote Reform next time.
These are averages from five different pollsters. This switching matrix excludes those who didn't vote last time including youngsters and those who can't be bothered.
Two observations:
LD voter retention isn't that much better than Lab or Con, which is surprising.
Nobody who actually voted Green is switching to Sultanarama. It is just the Gaza crowd who have jumped on the Green bandwagon who are turning to a sexier option.
Yes the LD retention figure is surprising. Ignore the YP column. I shouldn't have put it in. Most pollsters don't poll for YP.
No it isn’t.
When I was an activist, the LD vote was always the softest. Diehard Tories remained diehard Tories come what may - LDs were more open to the blandishments of other parties and our retention rate was lower.
The converse was more voters were willing to listen and give us a try so we picked up a lot of the disillusioned and the uncommitted simply by knocking on doors, getting things done locally and being there whereas the Tories (back then) took their voters for granted and only came out at election time.
Even in places like Sutton and Carshalton, we had to keep the engagement going otherwise the voters would drift back to old allegiances.
Four years is a very long time in politics, but right now it looks plausible that we will have a Trump-style authoritarian government after the next election. And David Allen Green points out quite correctly that the UK constitution provides no protection against a government that abandons all self-restraint.
There is a case to call on the left to hold their noses and not rock the boat. But that case relies on the centre doing their bit to keep out the right. Right now, it seems like Starmer is presuming on the left's support and using it as licence to pander to the illiberal right; in the hope of winning back potential reform voters. He is failing to go in to bat for the rule of law, failing to point out when Farage and reform cross over into racist campaigning against immigrants who have a legal right to remain - or even citizenship . This is a stupid strategy because it legitimizes the very people who are his main electoral rivals.
There is an alternative case that the left, and anyone who wants to see the rule of law extend beyond the next election, that as much pressure as possible needs to be put on the government and Starmer to change tack.
Many people would argue that failing to control the borders is a prime example of "abandoning all restraint".
It's interesting how the left can't see this.
Exactly how does one 'control the borders'? The problem, as I see it is one of technology. It's easy, and apparently quite cheap, to obtain inflatable boats and find desperate people to buy seats in them. It was much harder to cross the Channel 'uncontrolled' when the only boats available were wooden and had to be built by hand. When the 'desperate' people had to buy, or be bought, tickets on one or other of the ferries we didn't have the same problem, although I seem to recall tales of riots in the East End of London back in the 1930's.
I'm not denying that there are people crossing who we would regard as unwanted rogues but there are many to whom we promised 'care and support' but made it impossible to get here.
It would be interesting, and perhaps informative, to have journalists talk to people who actually have travelled here by rubber boats, instead of making assumptions.
Much of it is about controlling demand.
Working illegally is extremely difficult in some countries.
You don’t even need ID cards - just enforcement of existing laws. I’ve sketched out several times, how you could make laws on employment virtually self enforcing. In a manner that every good progressive should like - the burden is on the employer.
But like the obvious criminal enterprises on the high street, token interest is shown.
Four years is a very long time in politics, but right now it looks plausible that we will have a Trump-style authoritarian government after the next election. And David Allen Green points out quite correctly that the UK constitution provides no protection against a government that abandons all self-restraint.
There is a case to call on the left to hold their noses and not rock the boat. But that case relies on the centre doing their bit to keep out the right. Right now, it seems like Starmer is presuming on the left's support and using it as licence to pander to the illiberal right; in the hope of winning back potential reform voters. He is failing to go in to bat for the rule of law, failing to point out when Farage and reform cross over into racist campaigning against immigrants who have a legal right to remain - or even citizenship . This is a stupid strategy because it legitimizes the very people who are his main electoral rivals.
There is an alternative case that the left, and anyone who wants to see the rule of law extend beyond the next election, that as much pressure as possible needs to be put on the government and Starmer to change tack.
Many people would argue that failing to control the borders is a prime example of "abandoning all restraint".
It's interesting how the left can't see this.
Exactly how does one 'control the borders'? The problem, as I see it is one of technology. It's easy, and apparently quite cheap, to obtain inflatable boats and find desperate people to buy seats in them. It was much harder to cross the Channel 'uncontrolled' when the only boats available were wooden and had to be built by hand. When the 'desperate' people had to buy, or be bought, tickets on one or other of the ferries we didn't have the same problem, although I seem to recall tales of riots in the East End of London back in the 1930's.
I'm not denying that there are people crossing who we would regard as unwanted rogues but there are many to whom we promised 'care and support' but made it impossible to get here.
It would be interesting, and perhaps informative, to have journalists talk to people who actually have travelled here by rubber boats, instead of making assumptions.
There are many, many journalists who have been to the camps, talked to the arrivals etc. I feel that the lack of examples that you've read may tell you that they're not saying what you might like to hear.
To be fair, I suppose that if what they say isn't what I'd like to hear, it wouldn't be in the Guardian!
I do suspect though that slowness in processing applications isn't helping, and IIRC the previous government wasn't exactly brisk in this activity.
Briskness combined with rigour might help. The only way the Home Office knows how to accelerate processing is just to say yes to everyone. That has its own problem, because the message quickly goes back 'right lads they're letting everyone in' and we see a massive new spike in arrivals.
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
I've extracted the "switching matrix" showing how 2024 voters have changed parties from the five latest polls.
Some surprises: * 70% of those who did not vote in 2024 and say they'll vote this time support Reform. This accounts for about 5-7% of the Reform vote share. Mmm (Find Out Now) * Only 10% of past Labour voters say they'll vote Reform. And 10% of past LD voters also say they'll vote Reform! There's a surprise.
Non-surprises: * Labour and Tory lose about 40% of their past voters. * Reform loses only 7% * About 30% of past Tory voters say they'll vote Reform next time.
These are averages from five different pollsters. This switching matrix excludes those who didn't vote last time including youngsters and those who can't be bothered.
Two observations:
LD voter retention isn't that much better than Lab or Con, which is surprising.
Nobody who actually voted Green is switching to Sultanarama. It is just the Gaza crowd who have jumped on the Green bandwagon who are turning to a sexier option.
Yes the LD retention figure is surprising. Ignore the YP column. I shouldn't have put it in. Most pollsters don't poll for YP.
No it isn’t.
When I was an activist, the LD vote was always the softest. Diehard Tories remained diehard Tories come what may - LDs were more open to the blandishments of other parties and our retention rate was lower.
The converse was more voters were willing to listen and give us a try so we picked up a lot of the disillusioned and the uncommitted simply by knocking on doors, getting things done locally and being there whereas the Tories (back then) took their voters for granted and only came out at election time.
Even in places like Sutton and Carshalton, we had to keep the engagement going otherwise the voters would drift back to old allegiances.
On my local ex council estate, LDs used to get the Labour tactical vote. That has now gone to Reform. So it shows up as LD to Reform but it is really Labour to Reform.
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
I've extracted the "switching matrix" showing how 2024 voters have changed parties from the five latest polls.
Some surprises: * 70% of those who did not vote in 2024 and say they'll vote this time support Reform. This accounts for about 5-7% of the Reform vote share. Mmm (Find Out Now) * Only 10% of past Labour voters say they'll vote Reform. And 10% of past LD voters also say they'll vote Reform! There's a surprise.
Non-surprises: * Labour and Tory lose about 40% of their past voters. * Reform loses only 7% * About 30% of past Tory voters say they'll vote Reform next time.
These are averages from five different pollsters. This switching matrix excludes those who didn't vote last time including youngsters and those who can't be bothered.
Two observations:
LD voter retention isn't that much better than Lab or Con, which is surprising.
Nobody who actually voted Green is switching to Sultanarama. It is just the Gaza crowd who have jumped on the Green bandwagon who are turning to a sexier option.
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Sizewell C will cost more than 5x that, probably over £80bn to get the lights on.
Jeesh we need to get out of it and just do SMRs.
With our regulation and planning laws, it's not a given that they'd be significantly cheaper.
We (or rather S Korea and/or China) already know how to build conventional nuclear massively cheaper than Sizewell. It's just not possible in the UK, for now.
The biggest single disappointment from this government is their promise to reform our planning laws to make going stuff easier.
They've nibbled around the edges, but that's about it.
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Sizewell C will cost more than 5x that, probably over £80bn to get the lights on.
Jeesh we need to get out of it and just do SMRs.
With our regulation and planning laws, it's not a given that they'd be significantly cheaper.
We (or rather S Korea and/or China) already know how to build conventional nuclear massively cheaper than Sizewell. It's just not possible in the UK, for now.
The biggest single disappointment from this government is their promise to reform our planning laws to make going stuff easier.
They've nibbled around the edges, but that's about it.
It’s the perennial problem of vested interests. Now there’s an entire network of quangos and another such bodies who actively seek to undermine or frustrate government policy objectives.
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Sizewell C will cost more than 5x that, probably over £80bn to get the lights on.
Jeesh we need to get out of it and just do SMRs.
With our regulation and planning laws, it's not a given that they'd be significantly cheaper.
We (or rather S Korea and/or China) already know how to build conventional nuclear massively cheaper than Sizewell. It's just not possible in the UK, for now.
The biggest single disappointment from this government is their promise to reform our planning laws to make going stuff easier.
They've nibbled around the edges, but that's about it.
Except when it comes to asylum hotels, then they're more than happy to argue about national interest overriding local planning.
Jobs Energy security Balance payments Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators
Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.
Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.
I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.
Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
Re your last sentence neither do I
For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
Net Zero gets branded as zero emissions. This is incorrect. It’s balancing the emissions against renewables to get to a net zero, not an actual zero.
I’d rebrand it. “Energy Freedom”. We can’t really refine our own oil so we have to export it - we’re reliant on imports. We can’t bring up enough gas now - a quarter of power is from burning gas and we have to import half. Burn more gas even with more production = reliance on imports. Wind? That is ours. Reform demand that we literally switch the windfarms off. The “patriots” in Reform want us reliant on foreigners.
Wind and solar have been a real success, and by the way a lot of that was under the conservatives
Reform and Trump are deranged about windfarms
They haven't been a success except in driving our industrial energy prices to be the highest in the world.
Neither is wind 'ours' - this is simply a barefaced lie:
Countries owning UK wind farms As of the latest available data from 2024, the companies owning British wind farms are primarily based in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Spain, China, Japan, and the United States, with significant state-owned or majority state-owned entities from these countries holding substantial stakes, particularly in offshore wind capacity.
AI Answer - dyor
These foreign interests invest in British wind capacity because it's a licence to print money. The Government can never stop adding to wind capacity or allow wind farms to fail because it is seen as a crucial measure of success. Therefore capital pours in, the same way it does to University accomodation, because the bottom line is that the taxpayer is on the hook for it.
That isn't a success.
Good luck in selling that
It most certainly is a success as is solar
And I type this whilst looking out over the hugely successful Gwynt y Mor windfarm started in 2015 under the conservatives
What is it that you think I'm selling?
I am sure the wind farm is lovely and shiny and big, as is your energy bill, which you acknowledged to me was still well above pre-crisis levels, despite all the freebies you were so delighted about.
Don't get me wrong, it is a huge success - for those who own windfarms.
Energy bills are high because they are set by gas prices most of the time. When gas drops out of the system and we only use wind, then energy prices collapse like a brick.
Because wind is cheap, gas is not.
There are many broken elements to our energy system. Replacing expensive gas with cheap wind is not one of them.
An immaculately beautiful Alpine lake, in the saltzkammergut, playground of the Nazi elite. Who hid their favourite artworks in the salt mines in the mountains
I like it!
It’s not nearby but if you can, visit Sterzing or Vitipeno and the magnificent Reifenstein Castle.
I’m kinda falling in love with Austria
The people are more charming and laid back than the Germans - still a bit punctilious but more chilled
Everything is less expensive that Switzerland (albeit I’m still glad I’m not paying)
The food is probably the best in the teutosphere (not a high bar but still)
It’s often very beautiful, rammed with tradition and history
They should really sell it as a tourist destination. People will totally lap it up. You could have “skiiing holidays” in the winter when the snows are here. Build “chalets” for them. In summer, hiking and “sightseeing” and all that
I think I’m really onto something here
Last went to Austria way back in 2003. Visited Vienna for a week and rather liked it, the architecture, the old trams, and I remember going to a very nice ice cream place near the cathedral called Zanoni e Zanoni. Wonder if it still exists.
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Sizewell C will cost more than 5x that, probably over £80bn to get the lights on.
Jeesh we need to get out of it and just do SMRs.
With our regulation and planning laws, it's not a given that they'd be significantly cheaper.
We (or rather S Korea and/or China) already know how to build conventional nuclear massively cheaper than Sizewell. It's just not possible in the UK, for now.
The biggest single disappointment from this government is their promise to reform our planning laws to make going stuff easier.
They've nibbled around the edges, but that's about it.
Indeed. Despite disagreeing with most of their positioning I lent them my vote last time purely to get planning reform as it is the number one most important thing we need in this country, by a long way. It is holding us back in every field, not just housing but industry, energy, transport and more.
They've piddled about tinkering with it, but done jack shit overall.
I don't know who I could possibly vote for next time. The Lib Dems pander to the NIMBYs, the Tories are still a joke and Reform are racist.
Four years is a very long time in politics, but right now it looks plausible that we will have a Trump-style authoritarian government after the next election. And David Allen Green points out quite correctly that the UK constitution provides no protection against a government that abandons all self-restraint.
There is a case to call on the left to hold their noses and not rock the boat. But that case relies on the centre doing their bit to keep out the right. Right now, it seems like Starmer is presuming on the left's support and using it as licence to pander to the illiberal right; in the hope of winning back potential reform voters. He is failing to go in to bat for the rule of law, failing to point out when Farage and reform cross over into racist campaigning against immigrants who have a legal right to remain - or even citizenship . This is a stupid strategy because it legitimizes the very people who are his main electoral rivals.
There is an alternative case that the left, and anyone who wants to see the rule of law extend beyond the next election, that as much pressure as possible needs to be put on the government and Starmer to change tack.
Many people would argue that failing to control the borders is a prime example of "abandoning all restraint".
It's interesting how the left can't see this.
Exactly how does one 'control the borders'? The problem, as I see it is one of technology. It's easy, and apparently quite cheap, to obtain inflatable boats and find desperate people to buy seats in them. It was much harder to cross the Channel 'uncontrolled' when the only boats available were wooden and had to be built by hand. When the 'desperate' people had to buy, or be bought, tickets on one or other of the ferries we didn't have the same problem, although I seem to recall tales of riots in the East End of London back in the 1930's.
I'm not denying that there are people crossing who we would regard as unwanted rogues but there are many to whom we promised 'care and support' but made it impossible to get here.
It would be interesting, and perhaps informative, to have journalists talk to people who actually have travelled here by rubber boats, instead of making assumptions.
There are many, many journalists who have been to the camps, talked to the arrivals etc. I feel that the lack of examples that you've read may tell you that they're not saying what you might like to hear.
To be fair, I suppose that if what they say isn't what I'd like to hear, it wouldn't be in the Guardian!
I do suspect though that slowness in processing applications isn't helping, and IIRC the previous government wasn't exactly brisk in this activity.
Briskness combined with rigour might help. The only way the Home Office knows how to accelerate processing is just to say yes to everyone. That has its own problem, because the message quickly goes back 'right lads they're letting everyone in' and we see a massive new spike in arrivals.
You're asking for competence in government. That has steadily collapsed from about 2016 onward. Just to clear, I've no problem with people who apply for asylum or otherwise to come in, being refused, if they have no justification. I do think though that those with genuine claims, particularly for asylum, should be processed promptly.
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Sizewell C will cost more than 5x that, probably over £80bn to get the lights on.
Jeesh we need to get out of it and just do SMRs.
With our regulation and planning laws, it's not a given that they'd be significantly cheaper.
We (or rather S Korea and/or China) already know how to build conventional nuclear massively cheaper than Sizewell. It's just not possible in the UK, for now.
The biggest single disappointment from this government is their promise to reform our planning laws to make going stuff easier.
They've nibbled around the edges, but that's about it.
Indeed. Despite disagreeing with most of their positioning I lent them my vote last time purely to get planning reform as it is the number one most important thing we need in this country, by a long way. It is holding us back in every field, not just housing but industry, energy, transport and more.
They've piddled about tinkering with it, but done jack shit overall.
I don't know who I could possibly vote for next time. The Lib Dems pander to the NIMBYs, the Tories are still a joke and Reform are racist.
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Sizewell C will cost more than 5x that, probably over £80bn to get the lights on.
Jeesh we need to get out of it and just do SMRs.
With our regulation and planning laws, it's not a given that they'd be significantly cheaper.
We (or rather S Korea and/or China) already know how to build conventional nuclear massively cheaper than Sizewell. It's just not possible in the UK, for now.
The biggest single disappointment from this government is their promise to reform our planning laws to make going stuff easier.
They've nibbled around the edges, but that's about it.
Indeed. Despite disagreeing with most of their positioning I lent them my vote last time purely to get planning reform as it is the number one most important thing we need in this country, by a long way. It is holding us back in every field, not just housing but industry, energy, transport and more.
They've piddled about tinkering with it, but done jack shit overall.
I don't know who I could possibly vote for next time. The Lib Dems pander to the NIMBYs, the Tories are still a joke and Reform are racist.
Jobs Energy security Balance payments Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators
Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.
Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.
I've extracted the "switching matrix" showing how 2024 voters have changed parties from the five latest polls.
Some surprises: * 70% of those who did not vote in 2024 and say they'll vote this time support Reform. This accounts for about 5-7% of the Reform vote share. Mmm (Find Out Now) * Only 10% of past Labour voters say they'll vote Reform. And 10% of past LD voters also say they'll vote Reform! There's a surprise.
Non-surprises: * Labour and Tory lose about 40% of their past voters. * Reform loses only 7% * About 30% of past Tory voters say they'll vote Reform next time.
These are averages from five different pollsters. This switching matrix excludes those who didn't vote last time including youngsters and those who can't be bothered.
31% of 2024 Tories voting Reform, just 6% Labour, LD or Green combined. Showing that Kemi or a new Tory leader really needs to win back voters lost to their right to Reform above all.
14% of 2024 Labour voters switched to Tories or Reform, 21% to the LDs or Greens or potentially Your Party showing Starmer or a new Labour leader needs to shore up support lost to their left, maybe with more taxes on the rich etc to fund extra spending not just reduce immigration to contain voters win back voters lost to their right.
While Tory and Reform voteshare down on the GE, LD, Green and Reform voteshare up so the minor parties just need to largely hold their gains
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Sizewell C will cost more than 5x that, probably over £80bn to get the lights on.
Jeesh we need to get out of it and just do SMRs.
With our regulation and planning laws, it's not a given that they'd be significantly cheaper.
We (or rather S Korea and/or China) already know how to build conventional nuclear massively cheaper than Sizewell. It's just not possible in the UK, for now.
The biggest single disappointment from this government is their promise to reform our planning laws to make going stuff easier.
They've nibbled around the edges, but that's about it.
Indeed. Despite disagreeing with most of their positioning I lent them my vote last time purely to get planning reform as it is the number one most important thing we need in this country, by a long way. It is holding us back in every field, not just housing but industry, energy, transport and more.
They've piddled about tinkering with it, but done jack shit overall.
I don't know who I could possibly vote for next time. The Lib Dems pander to the NIMBYs, the Tories are still a joke and Reform are racist.
The green belt should be abolished, our population has grown yet our cities have not. They should be sprawling to accommodate our population growth.
So vote Labour then, who have shown they are now happy to build on the greenbelt while not doing much about reducing immigration to cut our population growth and demand for new homes
An immaculately beautiful Alpine lake, in the saltzkammergut, playground of the Nazi elite. Who hid their favourite artworks in the salt mines in the mountains
I like it!
It’s not nearby but if you can, visit Sterzing or Vitipeno and the magnificent Reifenstein Castle.
I’m kinda falling in love with Austria
The people are more charming and laid back than the Germans - still a bit punctilious but more chilled
Everything is less expensive that Switzerland (albeit I’m still glad I’m not paying)
The food is probably the best in the teutosphere (not a high bar but still)
It’s often very beautiful, rammed with tradition and history
They should really sell it as a tourist destination. People will totally lap it up. You could have “skiiing holidays” in the winter when the snows are here. Build “chalets” for them. In summer, hiking and “sightseeing” and all that
I think I’m really onto something here
Last went to Austria way back in 2003. Visited Vienna for a week and rather liked it, the architecture, the old trams, and I remember going to a very nice ice cream place near the cathedral called Zanoni e Zanoni. Wonder if it still exists.
Some I know had a young family member who was a ski rep in Austria. There's already skiing in Austria! Maybe Leon was joking.
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Sizewell C will cost more than 5x that, probably over £80bn to get the lights on.
Jeesh we need to get out of it and just do SMRs.
With our regulation and planning laws, it's not a given that they'd be significantly cheaper.
We (or rather S Korea and/or China) already know how to build conventional nuclear massively cheaper than Sizewell. It's just not possible in the UK, for now.
The biggest single disappointment from this government is their promise to reform our planning laws to make going stuff easier.
They've nibbled around the edges, but that's about it.
Indeed. Despite disagreeing with most of their positioning I lent them my vote last time purely to get planning reform as it is the number one most important thing we need in this country, by a long way. It is holding us back in every field, not just housing but industry, energy, transport and more.
They've piddled about tinkering with it, but done jack shit overall.
I don't know who I could possibly vote for next time. The Lib Dems pander to the NIMBYs, the Tories are still a joke and Reform are racist.
The green belt should be abolished, our population has grown yet our cities have not. They should be sprawling to accommodate our population growth.
So vote Labour then, who have shown they are now happy to build on the greenbelt while not doing much about reducing immigration to cut our population growth and demand for new homes
No thanks, Labour are just tinkering around the edges.
We need full scale liberalisation of planning, not pissing about.
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Sizewell C will cost more than 5x that, probably over £80bn to get the lights on.
Jeesh we need to get out of it and just do SMRs.
With our regulation and planning laws, it's not a given that they'd be significantly cheaper.
We (or rather S Korea and/or China) already know how to build conventional nuclear massively cheaper than Sizewell. It's just not possible in the UK, for now.
The biggest single disappointment from this government is their promise to reform our planning laws to make going stuff easier.
They've nibbled around the edges, but that's about it.
Indeed. Despite disagreeing with most of their positioning I lent them my vote last time purely to get planning reform as it is the number one most important thing we need in this country, by a long way. It is holding us back in every field, not just housing but industry, energy, transport and more.
They've piddled about tinkering with it, but done jack shit overall.
I don't know who I could possibly vote for next time. The Lib Dems pander to the NIMBYs, the Tories are still a joke and Reform are racist.
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Sizewell C will cost more than 5x that, probably over £80bn to get the lights on.
Jeesh we need to get out of it and just do SMRs.
With our regulation and planning laws, it's not a given that they'd be significantly cheaper.
We (or rather S Korea and/or China) already know how to build conventional nuclear massively cheaper than Sizewell. It's just not possible in the UK, for now.
The biggest single disappointment from this government is their promise to reform our planning laws to make going stuff easier.
They've nibbled around the edges, but that's about it.
Indeed. Despite disagreeing with most of their positioning I lent them my vote last time purely to get planning reform as it is the number one most important thing we need in this country, by a long way. It is holding us back in every field, not just housing but industry, energy, transport and more.
They've piddled about tinkering with it, but done jack shit overall.
I don't know who I could possibly vote for next time. The Lib Dems pander to the NIMBYs, the Tories are still a joke and Reform are racist.
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Sizewell C will cost more than 5x that, probably over £80bn to get the lights on.
Jeesh we need to get out of it and just do SMRs.
With our regulation and planning laws, it's not a given that they'd be significantly cheaper.
We (or rather S Korea and/or China) already know how to build conventional nuclear massively cheaper than Sizewell. It's just not possible in the UK, for now.
The biggest single disappointment from this government is their promise to reform our planning laws to make going stuff easier.
They've nibbled around the edges, but that's about it.
Indeed. Despite disagreeing with most of their positioning I lent them my vote last time purely to get planning reform as it is the number one most important thing we need in this country, by a long way. It is holding us back in every field, not just housing but industry, energy, transport and more.
They've piddled about tinkering with it, but done jack shit overall.
I don't know who I could possibly vote for next time. The Lib Dems pander to the NIMBYs, the Tories are still a joke and Reform are racist.
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Sizewell C will cost more than 5x that, probably over £80bn to get the lights on.
Jeesh we need to get out of it and just do SMRs.
With our regulation and planning laws, it's not a given that they'd be significantly cheaper.
We (or rather S Korea and/or China) already know how to build conventional nuclear massively cheaper than Sizewell. It's just not possible in the UK, for now.
The biggest single disappointment from this government is their promise to reform our planning laws to make going stuff easier.
They've nibbled around the edges, but that's about it.
Indeed. Despite disagreeing with most of their positioning I lent them my vote last time purely to get planning reform as it is the number one most important thing we need in this country, by a long way. It is holding us back in every field, not just housing but industry, energy, transport and more.
They've piddled about tinkering with it, but done jack shit overall.
I don't know who I could possibly vote for next time. The Lib Dems pander to the NIMBYs, the Tories are still a joke and Reform are racist.
Colville has a point inasmuch as the cost of construction especially in London is almost prohibitively expensive once you take off your Section 106 payments, Community Infrastructure Levy and Carbon Offset Tax etc, etc.
Yet the other side is we can’t simply build homes simply for the benefit of construction company shareholders. There has to be a sense in which the word “affordable” applies to all parties. In truth, the cost of construction is the bigger deterrent to building than notions of NIMBYism which are more about political points scoring.
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Sizewell C will cost more than 5x that, probably over £80bn to get the lights on.
Jeesh we need to get out of it and just do SMRs.
With our regulation and planning laws, it's not a given that they'd be significantly cheaper.
We (or rather S Korea and/or China) already know how to build conventional nuclear massively cheaper than Sizewell. It's just not possible in the UK, for now.
The biggest single disappointment from this government is their promise to reform our planning laws to make going stuff easier.
They've nibbled around the edges, but that's about it.
Indeed. Despite disagreeing with most of their positioning I lent them my vote last time purely to get planning reform as it is the number one most important thing we need in this country, by a long way. It is holding us back in every field, not just housing but industry, energy, transport and more.
They've piddled about tinkering with it, but done jack shit overall.
I don't know who I could possibly vote for next time. The Lib Dems pander to the NIMBYs, the Tories are still a joke and Reform are racist.
An immaculately beautiful Alpine lake, in the saltzkammergut, playground of the Nazi elite. Who hid their favourite artworks in the salt mines in the mountains
I like it!
It’s not nearby but if you can, visit Sterzing or Vitipeno and the magnificent Reifenstein Castle.
I’m kinda falling in love with Austria
The people are more charming and laid back than the Germans - still a bit punctilious but more chilled
Everything is less expensive that Switzerland (albeit I’m still glad I’m not paying)
The food is probably the best in the teutosphere (not a high bar but still)
It’s often very beautiful, rammed with tradition and history
They should really sell it as a tourist destination. People will totally lap it up. You could have “skiiing holidays” in the winter when the snows are here. Build “chalets” for them. In summer, hiking and “sightseeing” and all that
I think I’m really onto something here
Last went to Austria way back in 2003. Visited Vienna for a week and rather liked it, the architecture, the old trams, and I remember going to a very nice ice cream place near the cathedral called Zanoni e Zanoni. Wonder if it still exists.
Some I know had a young family member who was a ski rep in Austria. There's already skiing in Austria! Maybe Leon was joking.
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Sizewell C will cost more than 5x that, probably over £80bn to get the lights on.
Jeesh we need to get out of it and just do SMRs.
With our regulation and planning laws, it's not a given that they'd be significantly cheaper.
We (or rather S Korea and/or China) already know how to build conventional nuclear massively cheaper than Sizewell. It's just not possible in the UK, for now.
The biggest single disappointment from this government is their promise to reform our planning laws to make going stuff easier.
They've nibbled around the edges, but that's about it.
Indeed. Despite disagreeing with most of their positioning I lent them my vote last time purely to get planning reform as it is the number one most important thing we need in this country, by a long way. It is holding us back in every field, not just housing but industry, energy, transport and more.
They've piddled about tinkering with it, but done jack shit overall.
I don't know who I could possibly vote for next time. The Lib Dems pander to the NIMBYs, the Tories are still a joke and Reform are racist.
The green belt should be abolished, our population has grown yet our cities have not. They should be sprawling to accommodate our population growth.
So vote Labour then, who have shown they are now happy to build on the greenbelt while not doing much about reducing immigration to cut our population growth and demand for new homes
Reached a nationwide peak of over 80% under Reagan. The non- religious national dogma favouring it always seemed a bit bizarre to me.
The US circumcision rate is slowly, but steadily, declining. Below 45% nationwide now.
Medicaid no longer covers the procedure in many states, which leads to substantial declines. The growing Hispanic/Latino and Asian shares of the population also push down the nationwide rate. https://x.com/StatisticUrban/status/1961615711081795962
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Sizewell C will cost more than 5x that, probably over £80bn to get the lights on.
Jeesh we need to get out of it and just do SMRs.
With our regulation and planning laws, it's not a given that they'd be significantly cheaper.
We (or rather S Korea and/or China) already know how to build conventional nuclear massively cheaper than Sizewell. It's just not possible in the UK, for now.
The biggest single disappointment from this government is their promise to reform our planning laws to make going stuff easier.
They've nibbled around the edges, but that's about it.
Indeed. Despite disagreeing with most of their positioning I lent them my vote last time purely to get planning reform as it is the number one most important thing we need in this country, by a long way. It is holding us back in every field, not just housing but industry, energy, transport and more.
They've piddled about tinkering with it, but done jack shit overall.
I don't know who I could possibly vote for next time. The Lib Dems pander to the NIMBYs, the Tories are still a joke and Reform are racist.
"The definition in the [UN] Convention - that anyone with a well-founded fear of persecution is entitled to asylum - is too broad. That’s what has allowed the whole question of migration to get out of control. So millions of people are on the move who are, in reality, economic migrants, not entitled to settle in the UK."
"We are staring authoritarianism in the face here. If we don't deal with this, it's going to take us down. That may mean making some decisions which, a few years ago, might have been unpalatable. But a few years ago, we didn't have tens of millions of people on the move across the globe."
Colville has a point inasmuch as the cost of construction especially in London is almost prohibitively expensive once you take off your Section 106 payments, Community Infrastructure Levy and Carbon Offset Tax etc, etc.
Yet the other side is we can’t simply build homes simply for the benefit of construction company shareholders. There has to be a sense in which the word “affordable” applies to all parties. In truth, the cost of construction is the bigger deterrent to building than notions of NIMBYism which are more about political points scoring.
I am very keen on investivating a model of the public sector developing the homes and neighbourhoods it wishes to see, with the majority of units for sale to owner occupiers.
Colville has a point inasmuch as the cost of construction especially in London is almost prohibitively expensive once you take off your Section 106 payments, Community Infrastructure Levy and Carbon Offset Tax etc, etc.
Yet the other side is we can’t simply build homes simply for the benefit of construction company shareholders. There has to be a sense in which the word “affordable” applies to all parties. In truth, the cost of construction is the bigger deterrent to building than notions of NIMBYism which are more about political points scoring.
I am very keen on investivating a model of the public sector developing the homes and neighbourhoods it wishes to see, with the majority of units for sale to owner occupiers.
And partly financed by new compulsory purchase powers which pay (say) 3x the existing value of land which then gets scheduled for development, rather than the current 50 to 100x planning gain currently awarded.
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Sizewell C will cost more than 5x that, probably over £80bn to get the lights on.
Jeesh we need to get out of it and just do SMRs.
With our regulation and planning laws, it's not a given that they'd be significantly cheaper.
We (or rather S Korea and/or China) already know how to build conventional nuclear massively cheaper than Sizewell. It's just not possible in the UK, for now.
The biggest single disappointment from this government is their promise to reform our planning laws to make going stuff easier.
They've nibbled around the edges, but that's about it.
Indeed. Despite disagreeing with most of their positioning I lent them my vote last time purely to get planning reform as it is the number one most important thing we need in this country, by a long way. It is holding us back in every field, not just housing but industry, energy, transport and more.
They've piddled about tinkering with it, but done jack shit overall.
I don't know who I could possibly vote for next time. The Lib Dems pander to the NIMBYs, the Tories are still a joke and Reform are racist.
Going to Jeddah now until Christmas for Arabic immersion so I won't be reading any Anglophone media (including PB) until then.
Parting predictions...
Strictly: Jimmy (WACCOE, MOT) Iraqi Federal Election: Al-Takadum biggest party or civil war MotoGP WC: Marc Marquez at the Motegi round SMO: Over by Christmas
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Sizewell C will cost more than 5x that, probably over £80bn to get the lights on.
Jeesh we need to get out of it and just do SMRs.
With our regulation and planning laws, it's not a given that they'd be significantly cheaper.
We (or rather S Korea and/or China) already know how to build conventional nuclear massively cheaper than Sizewell. It's just not possible in the UK, for now.
The biggest single disappointment from this government is their promise to reform our planning laws to make going stuff easier.
They've nibbled around the edges, but that's about it.
Indeed. Despite disagreeing with most of their positioning I lent them my vote last time purely to get planning reform as it is the number one most important thing we need in this country, by a long way. It is holding us back in every field, not just housing but industry, energy, transport and more.
They've piddled about tinkering with it, but done jack shit overall.
I don't know who I could possibly vote for next time. The Lib Dems pander to the NIMBYs, the Tories are still a joke and Reform are racist.
"The definition in the [UN] Convention - that anyone with a well-founded fear of persecution is entitled to asylum - is too broad. That’s what has allowed the whole question of migration to get out of control. So millions of people are on the move who are, in reality, economic migrants, not entitled to settle in the UK."
"We are staring authoritarianism in the face here. If we don't deal with this, it's going to take us down. That may mean making some decisions which, a few years ago, might have been unpalatable. But a few years ago, we didn't have tens of millions of people on the move across the globe."
The latter point is firmly in the school of David Frum:
"Either liberals protect our borders or the fascists will."
We are running out of time.
Essential reading I am sure, but the essential point is different. The position now taken has been obvious to common sense for years. Matthew Parris, to take one example, has been making the point for years and years.
But just right now, when Reform has got a recent 35% in the polling, and the USA is disappearing into a gangster oligarchy, by a curious coincidence the entire of the liberal, non extreme, non right wing, centrist, social democrat, liberal democrat world is overnight shifting its ground to positions which just recently were the very stuff they were all against.
Going to Jeddah now until Christmas for Arabic immersion so I won't be reading any Anglophone media (including PB) until then.
Parting predictions...
Strictly: Jimmy (WACCOE, MOT) Iraqi Federal Election: Al-Takadum biggest party or civil war MotoGP WC: Marc Marquez at the Motegi round SMO: Over by Christmas
Jobs Energy security Balance payments Not wanting to syphon cash to despots and dictators
Stopping UK production will not reduce CO2 emissions. Importing LNG from Qatar rather than piping gas ashore has a much greater carbon footprint.
Nor will it reduce consumption. Not while the government is subsidising new build CCGT and blue hydrogen projects tolock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.
I honestly don’t get it. Labour, SNP, Scottish Greens - trying to shut down a viable energy source because reasons. Reform. Wanting to shut down the new viable energy source because reasons. Tories, honestly had no idea they were still here.
Ditch net zero say Reform, we need to ditch Net Stupid. I don’t understand the rationale of any policy on energy that doesn’t combine bringing up more oil and gas with a transition to renewables.
Re your last sentence neither do I
For me the transition needs to be on a sensible timescale and not an arbitrary date
You sound like one of our contractors. So this IT transition will be complete in roughly 2130.
Frankly, arbitrary dates are not the way to transition unless they are realistic
We put man on the moon 66 years after the first powered flight. 2050 is not only realistic, it's pathetic.
Thumping tables isn’t an answer either.
The moon landing decision was made long *after* 1) Staging rockets was proved, 2) the multi stage rocket equations were developed and proven 3) fuels with sufficient ISP were developed. And demonstrated in working rocket engines.
Which meant that scientists could tell JFK that they could land multiple tons on the moon, given a jillion dollars.
There are large areas, in non-burning applications of fossil fuels where we don’t have the answers. Yet.
Politicians with arts degrees demanding the tide turn won’t turn the tide.
If Ed Quetaband was actually useful, the U.K. would be building a non-fossil fuel steel works. That technology is on the edge of practicality - first trial plants are being built elsewhere - and may offer cheaper steel in the long run.
But he is hooked on the reductionist approach. Which, in reality, just means sending the emissions abroad with the jobs.
I think all of that is wrong.
The main areas of carbon emissions we still need to resolve - heating buildings, domestic transport - already have off-the-shelf solutions. EVs and heat pumps (or other electrical heating systems), both of which have been around for decades. Agriculture is only particularly tricky one, but there are some ideas there too.
And we are building steel works that run off electricity. Indeed most of the steel in the UK is already produced that way.
I agree that offshoring is a severe limitation on our progress so far, and the government is resolving that with CBAM in 2027. What's not to like?
You are missing a number of areas - plastics, composites and medicines for a start.
We’ve talked about hydrogen reduction steel making, but not much is actually happening. Keeping electricity prices high is government policy, to reduce demand - the reductionist philosophy. This means that no-one is prepared to build a new facility.
It is not government policy to keep "keep electricity prices high". How would they even do that? They haven't increased taxes on them? They have even opened up the planning system for more pylons. What a silly conspiracy theory - where is the political motivation to keep electricity prices high?! They've even approved replacement CCGT. They inherited CCL which I think is need of a reform to reflect how less carbon intensive our electricty is, but they haven't put it up.
If you're talking the extraction of North Sea oil to support those Pharma etc, it's not as simple as "UK oil for UK pharma" - we export most of our oil production and import that which we use in those types of industries. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't extract our own oil if it economically sensible to do so - but don't pretend it's as simple as you suggest. Ultimately the price of oil products is set in a global market and increased UK production would have no material impact on them.
Coupling the electricity price to gas prices means that potentially lower prices from renewables are locked out. See calls for a more segmented market.
And then we have the various levys.
The policy of keeping energy prices high to promote reductions in consumption has been discussed and debated for quite a while.
Yes, it is bonkers. Meanwhile large parts of the world are racing towards cheap, green energy abundance with solar.
Milliband might have been a decent radical reformer, had he an ounce of common sense. As it is, he's vying for worst minister in the cabinet.
Just wait till his refusal of local energy pricing enters fully into the political consciousness in Scotland, Wales, and the highland zone of England.
Another example of Labour's infallible ability to please absolutely fucking no one.
Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p 1h Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations. “We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
Sizewell C will cost more than 5x that, probably over £80bn to get the lights on.
Jeesh we need to get out of it and just do SMRs.
With our regulation and planning laws, it's not a given that they'd be significantly cheaper.
We (or rather S Korea and/or China) already know how to build conventional nuclear massively cheaper than Sizewell. It's just not possible in the UK, for now.
The biggest single disappointment from this government is their promise to reform our planning laws to make going stuff easier.
They've nibbled around the edges, but that's about it.
Indeed. Despite disagreeing with most of their positioning I lent them my vote last time purely to get planning reform as it is the number one most important thing we need in this country, by a long way. It is holding us back in every field, not just housing but industry, energy, transport and more.
They've piddled about tinkering with it, but done jack shit overall.
I don't know who I could possibly vote for next time. The Lib Dems pander to the NIMBYs, the Tories are still a joke and Reform are racist.
The green belt should be abolished, our population has grown yet our cities have not. They should be sprawling to accommodate our population growth.
So vote Labour then, who have shown they are now happy to build on the greenbelt while not doing much about reducing immigration to cut our population growth and demand for new homes
No thanks, Labour are just tinkering around the edges.
We need full scale liberalisation of planning, not pissing about.
Well you aren't going to vote Reform or LD or the Greens are you given they all oppose building on the greenbelt.
A few Tory councils have some greenbelt included for development in their local plans but nationally the Tories are more resistant, only Labour are committed to largescale development on greenbelt land they will class as greybelt
Comments
Meanwhile the CCS boondoggle - which will certainly add to electricity prices - marches on.
LG might also reflect that a fair bit of solar (thouigh, admittedly, not wind, to be fair to him) is actually generated and consumed on the level of the household, too.
It's interesting how the left can't see this.
So surely, local energy pricing leading to lower prices for the consumers is equally silly?
They were against a historically unpopular Tory Party who had completely run out of ideas. Showing a bit more vision in their campaign would have served them much better in government.
https://www.netzeroinvestor.net/news-and-views/aware-super-and-national-wealth-fund-join-investor-consortium-targeting-uk-based-battery-storage-platform
It is over the sea !!!!!!!!!!!!
All they needed to say was ‘no plans’ but they were scared especially after Rishi Sunak beasted SKS in a head to head on tax.
I think they would get the credit for being honest and straightforward, and could ask others what they would do in our present crisis
Some surprises:
* 70% of those who did not vote in 2024 and say they'll vote this time support Reform. This accounts for about 5-7% of the Reform vote share. Mmm (Find Out Now)
* Only 10% of past Labour voters say they'll vote Reform. And 10% of past LD voters also say they'll vote Reform! There's a surprise.
Non-surprises:
* Labour and Tory lose about 40% of their past voters.
* Reform loses only 7%
* About 30% of past Tory voters say they'll vote Reform next time.
These are averages from five different pollsters.
This switching matrix excludes those who didn't vote last time including youngsters and those who can't be bothered.
In addition to nodal pricing, I think a radical and transformative energy policy would look something like:
- Significant reduction of CCL on electricity, commensurate increase on gas
- Impose 30-minute tariffs on all domestic users of electricty (to help balance demand with supply)
- Cut VAT to 0% on domestic electricity, commensurate increase on gas
- Cut VAT to 10% on business electricity, commensurate increase on gas
- Regional fuel duty rates based on urban:rural index
- Aggressive CBAM (too late really but time to make up for it)
It would hard to argue against that on a national level but people owning large houses and driving a lot around the SE of England would be hit very hard indeed.
I am sure the wind farm is lovely and shiny and big, as is your energy bill, which you acknowledged to me was still well above pre-crisis levels, despite all the freebies you were so delighted about.
Don't get me wrong, it is a huge success - for those who own windfarms.
When the 'desperate' people had to buy, or be bought, tickets on one or other of the ferries we didn't have the same problem, although I seem to recall tales of riots in the East End of London back in the 1930's.
I'm not denying that there are people crossing who we would regard as unwanted rogues but there are many to whom we promised 'care and support' but made it impossible to get here.
It would be interesting, and perhaps informative, to have journalists talk to people who actually have travelled here by rubber boats, instead of making assumptions.
LD voter retention isn't that much better than Lab or Con, which is surprising.
Nobody who actually voted Green is switching to Sultanarama. It is just the Gaza crowd who have jumped on the Green bandwagon who are turning to a sexier option.
Given we've financed these schemes at guaranteed prices for the developer - over decades - it might/would have made much greater financial sense for government to take large stakes in them.
Especially back when interest rates were at rock bottom.
Ignore the YP column. I shouldn't have put it in. Most pollsters don't poll for YP.
1) it is much harder to do this now that Labour have spent the last year carefully boxing themselves in to no tax rises on working people, and then nailing the lid down on the box more firmly at every opportunity. They could have been vaguer (even if not bolder) before the election. They could have made better use of the "now we've seen the books" gambit after getting in. They could have used the need for increased defence spending as an unprecedented one-off reason. Getting out of the box at this point is very difficult.
2) If the last year has taught us anything, it is that the government are hopelessly bad at formulating and communicating a coherent economic and political strategy. Even if they do bite the bullet and raise income tax, I would expect them to do it in a halfassed way, to fail to make the case for why it's necessary and the long term reward for this taxpayer pain, and to leave themselves open to easy lines of attack by their opponents.
Your SNP membership card is in the post.
Dr Paul Dorfman
@dorfman_p
1h
Green energy industrialist Dale Vince and other wealthy individuals have not renewed their Labour Party donations.
“We’ve committed £22bn to carbon capture and storage, a bogus technology, and £15bn to Sizewell C #nuclear.”
https://x.com/dorfman_p/status/1962072338637144170
I do suspect though that slowness in processing applications isn't helping, and IIRC the previous government wasn't exactly brisk in this activity.
When I was an activist, the LD vote was always the softest. Diehard Tories remained diehard Tories come what may - LDs were more open to the blandishments of other parties and our retention rate was lower.
The converse was more voters were willing to listen and give us a try so we picked up a lot of the disillusioned and the uncommitted simply by knocking on doors, getting things done locally and being there whereas the Tories (back then) took their voters for granted and only came out at election time.
Even in places like Sutton and Carshalton, we had to keep the engagement going otherwise the voters would drift back to old allegiances.
Working illegally is extremely difficult in some countries.
You don’t even need ID cards - just enforcement of existing laws. I’ve sketched out several times, how you could make laws on employment virtually self enforcing. In a manner that every good progressive should like - the burden is on the employer.
But like the obvious criminal enterprises on the high street, token interest is shown.
So it shows up as LD to Reform but it is really Labour to Reform.
As will Labour.
We (or rather S Korea and/or China) already know how to build conventional nuclear massively cheaper than Sizewell. It's just not possible in the UK, for now.
The biggest single disappointment from this government is their promise to reform our planning laws to make going stuff easier.
They've nibbled around the edges, but that's about it.
Because wind is cheap, gas is not.
There are many broken elements to our energy system. Replacing expensive gas with cheap wind is not one of them.
They've piddled about tinkering with it, but done jack shit overall.
I don't know who I could possibly vote for next time. The Lib Dems pander to the NIMBYs, the Tories are still a joke and Reform are racist.
What a depressing situation we are in.
Just to clear, I've no problem with people who apply for asylum or otherwise to come in, being refused, if they have no justification. I do think though that those with genuine claims, particularly for asylum, should be processed promptly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Coalfield
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14181357/Angela-Rayner-Green-Belt-SURREY-houses-homes.html
14% of 2024 Labour voters switched to Tories or Reform, 21% to the LDs or Greens or potentially Your Party showing Starmer or a new Labour leader needs to shore up support lost to their left, maybe with more taxes on the rich etc to fund extra spending not just reduce immigration to contain voters win back voters lost to their right.
While Tory and Reform voteshare down on the GE, LD, Green and Reform voteshare up so the minor parties just need to largely hold their gains
And the numbers arriving that way are rising under Labour.
We need full scale liberalisation of planning, not pissing about.
https://x.com/rcolvile/status/1962065302977384572?s=61
If our population grows by 10% then the land constructed on should be growing by ~10% too.
Yet the other side is we can’t simply build homes simply for the benefit of construction company shareholders. There has to be a sense in which the word “affordable” applies to all parties. In truth, the cost of construction is the bigger deterrent to building than notions of NIMBYism which are more about political points scoring.
The non- religious national dogma favouring it always seemed a bit bizarre to me.
The US circumcision rate is slowly, but steadily, declining. Below 45% nationwide now.
Medicaid no longer covers the procedure in many states, which leads to substantial declines. The growing Hispanic/Latino and Asian shares of the population also push down the nationwide rate.
https://x.com/StatisticUrban/status/1961615711081795962
If you build up, you can build same-size homes as you build them one on top of the other. Not everyone needs or wants a garden.
Former DPP and Liberal on the migrant situation:
"The definition in the [UN] Convention - that anyone with a well-founded fear of persecution is entitled to asylum - is too broad. That’s what has allowed the whole question of migration to get out of control. So millions of people are on the move who are, in reality, economic migrants, not entitled to settle in the UK."
"We are staring authoritarianism in the face here. If we don't deal with this, it's going to take us down. That may mean making some decisions which, a few years ago, might have been unpalatable. But a few years ago, we didn't have tens of millions of people on the move across the globe."
https://frasernelson.substack.com/p/were-risking-authoritarianism-if
The latter point is firmly in the school of David Frum:
"Either liberals protect our borders or the fascists will."
We are running out of time.
Better to be a safe troglodyte than a persecuted above-grounder.
Be a policy best cellar....
Parting predictions...
Strictly: Jimmy (WACCOE, MOT)
Iraqi Federal Election: Al-Takadum biggest party or civil war
MotoGP WC: Marc Marquez at the Motegi round
SMO: Over by Christmas
But just right now, when Reform has got a recent 35% in the polling, and the USA is disappearing into a gangster oligarchy, by a curious coincidence the entire of the liberal, non extreme, non right wing, centrist, social democrat, liberal democrat world is overnight shifting its ground to positions which just recently were the very stuff they were all against.
A few Tory councils have some greenbelt included for development in their local plans but nationally the Tories are more resistant, only Labour are committed to largescale development on greenbelt land they will class as greybelt