Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Politics] The Labour Government



C

cunning fergus

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 18, 2009
5,001
Curious Orange said:
Wind and solar are brilliant, but they are unreliable - they can go from providing most of our electricity needs to barely any of it in the space of days. There is an expensive (and environmentally troublesome) gap to be bridged in terms of how we generate our base supply need of electricity without using fossil fuels (without relying on the unreliable), and how we store any excess that we can collect from wind and solar when it is available (more pumped storage perhaps? Where?) without damaging the environment, a problem exacerbated by increasing demand for electricity from industry (think data centres) and a population that has been predicted to grow significantly over the next few years.

It seems to me that we need to reduce demand in order for the transition to be realistically affordable for the consumer, but then if the consumer is paying less are the infrastructure changes needed going to be affordable? As with anything in life there needs to be a financial incentive in order for individuals and businesses to change - I think that this is likely to be technologically driven, and I don't think the government should be driving innovation down one specific route as we might be missing something beneficial that could be done elsewhere.

These are hard things for every government to circle, so why any government would hamper themselves with a net zero target is beyond me.
Click to expand...
I doubt anyone would deny that the implementation of renewables is negative as long as the implementation costs/ongoing maintenance are at worst broadly cost neutral. The introduction of renewables should a) lower energy costs and b) secure the UKs energy security.

Once the algorithm points to negative costs/effects that create punitive costs for domestic and industrial users then the position changes and we should have a pragmatic position where we continue to use fossil fuels.

Like many issues the British public might be sympathetic with there is a threshold, and lower energy bills with usage of gas reserves in North Sea is a prime example.

I suspect like countries in the EU we would still happily import gas from Russia if bills were 33% lower.
 




D

dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,805
cunning fergus said:
I doubt anyone would deny that the implementation of renewables is negative as long as the implementation costs/ongoing maintenance are at worst broadly cost neutral. The introduction of renewables should a) lower energy costs and b) secure the UKs energy security.
Click to expand...
How will it do that? Renewables combined with energy security must of necessity have massive redundancy in the system, because we need to be able to provide full power when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. If renewables were provided primarily by hydro-electric and tidal power, and by cutting down our own forests rather than Canadian ones, then we might have a chance - but even then, the technology has a long way to go to being cheaper than gas or coal. Remember we've been paying green energy supplements for a long time.
 


pb21

pb21

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2010
6,880
Ideal energy mix is clear IMO

Nuclear, providing baseload.
Energy storage, using surplus renewable generation
ERFs with CC.
Wind/solar/green hydrogen and other renewables.
Interconnectors to the continent.
Gas back up for peak demand, with CC.
 


C

cunning fergus

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 18, 2009
5,001
dsr-burnley said:
How will it do that? Renewables combined with energy security must of necessity have massive redundancy in the system, because we need to be able to provide full power when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. If renewables were provided primarily by hydro-electric and tidal power, and by cutting down our own forests rather than Canadian ones, then we might have a chance - but even then, the technology has a long way to go to being cheaper than gas or coal. Remember we've been paying green energy supplements for a long time.
Click to expand...
I get it, and thats the point with this fanatical drive to net zero as oppose to a pragmatic approach that accepts renewables will not be a solution on its own.

As ever we are being rinsed, and the implications will be the loss of industry and more unemployment, and far from the growing economy this Government wants to pursue.

Even the head of GB energy doesn’t agree that the renewable policies will replace existing jobs supported by North Sea gas.

As I said, I reckon most people would prefer more gas from the North Sea or even Russia if bills went down and it helped British industry be more competitive. It’s just our leadership that doesn’t.
 


Eeyore

Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
27,320
I coined a new phrase recently, as there seemed to be none.

I can't get my head round enslavement to political ideals. As in, a person will faithfully support a party or group regardless of whether or not they are clearly in the wrong. Additionally, they will argue against another party or group even if, all things considered, what they are doing may be right.

This is, of course, most evident in politicians themselves. The bizarre agreement on matters of security in a national crisis as if this was proof of some kind of cohesion on the higher ethics of life. Often tributes get paid with the words 'We rarely agreed on anything, but...' Yet you did agree on most things, you just cannot bring yourself to say it.

The phrase I use is 'Polidroid'. And it seems these half lived individuals are everywhere. I say it with sadness, because I was once one and thankfully no longer.

But it's evident too in things that matter less. I suppose here we could call them 'Footidroids'. A slightly more cuddlier phrase. Someone comes on NSC 'Palace fan in peace'. Well how else would you arrive here ? It's a default.

Of course, being a Polidroid is merely a reflection of insecurity within. A shame really, because threads like this could be great for rational discussion. Yet they end being a bun fight as the Polidroids take over and little gets agreed on, except within one camp. Unfortunate, because I suspect most who contribute are very intelligent and rational people in every other respect. Except, perhaps, the Trumpian Polidroids. That's another breed.
 




Rdodge30

Rdodge30

Well-known member
Dec 30, 2022
1,024
Within days of entering government Miliband blocked all new licenses for North Sea oil and gas. Unions were quick to say this would cost 1000’s of jobs.

It’s Milliband who has to decide on Jackdaw gas field and Rosebank oil field which have been blocked pending government assessment of environmental impact.

These projects would bolster Britain’s energy independence, create thousands of jobs and raise billions in tax revenues. If he approves them it will be a significant boost to future economic growth but that would be completely at odds with his commitment to Net Zero and Great British Clean Energy

He also has to take it on the chin with the 3rd runway at Heathrow

I still think Slippery Ed wants Number 10 and he has absolutely nailed his colours to the mast with his Green Agenda.
 


peterward

peterward

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 11, 2009
12,549
Rdodge30 said:
Within days of entering government Miliband blocked all new licenses for North Sea oil and gas. Unions were quick to say this would cost 1000’s of jobs.

It’s Milliband who has to decide on Jackdaw gas field and Rosebank oil field which have been blocked pending government assessment of environmental impact.

These projects would bolster Britain’s energy independence, create thousands of jobs and raise billions in tax revenues. If he approves them it will be a significant boost to future economic growth but that would be completely at odds with his commitment to Net Zero and Great British Clean Energy

He also has to take it on the chin with the 3rd runway at Heathrow

I still think Slippery Ed wants Number 10 and he has absolutely nailed his colours to the mast with his Green Agenda.
Click to expand...
Im as concerened as everyone about the impact of global warming and the world my son will grow up in, however, Net zero is totally barmy in the context of global realities.

As trump goes all in on his "Liquid Gold" and both China and India keep building ever more carbon producing power stations, hampering our own economy, jobs, tax revenues and energy independence by banning North Sea Oil/Gas is very short sighted.

Its pissing in the wind at the bigger problem as US/China/India are going the other way.

The correct solution imho is to invest heavily in Green technologies and to try and reach a point where such technologies can provide for our entire energy needs, nuclear is painfully obvious in this.

But when we are going to still require to import other nations Gas/Oil at a higher cost at the expense of domestic and energy independence, it makes no sense to virtue signal at huge cost, making little real world difference as we continue to import.
 


Rdodge30

Rdodge30

Well-known member
Dec 30, 2022
1,024
I read an interview once about electric articulated Lorries and the difficulties with producing them.. the batteries alone are between 2000 and 4000 kg. apparently when this company approached the local authorities about building a factory the electricity they needed to pull down for production was the same amount that the whole town used.

I’ve no idea what the answer is unless it simply hasn’t been developed yet
 




D

dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,805
peterward said:
Im as concerened as everyone about the impact of global warming and the world my son will grow up in, however, Net zero is totally barmy in the context of global realities.

As trump goes all in on his "Liquid Gold" and both China and India keep building ever more carbon producing power stations, hampering our own economy, jobs, tax revenues and energy independence by banning North Sea Oil/Gas is very short sighted.

Its pissing in the wind at the bigger problem as US/China/India are going the other way.

The correct solution imho is to invest heavily in Green technologies and to try and reach a point where such technologies can provide for our entire energy needs, nuclear is painfully obvious in this.

But when we are going to still require to import other nations Gas/Oil at a higher cost at the expense of domestic and energy independence, it makes no sense to virtue signal at huge cost, making little real world difference as we continue to import.
Click to expand...
Agreed. If the UK were to try and achieve net zero in the sense of impact on the world emissions, rightly or wrongly, that would be a fair policy. But they aren't - they're trying to achieve net zero purely on a UK calculation.

So if, for example, the vast quantities of steel needed for wind turbines is produced in the UK, there is a big net emission on both the UK and the world net emissions total. If the wind turbines are produced in China, the net emission on the world scale is even worse (because of the transport) but the net emission on the UK total is eliminated. It makes the UK figures look better but has no effect on what actually matters, the global emissions.
 


LamieRobertson

LamieRobertson

Not awoke
Feb 3, 2008
49,321
SHOREHAM BY SEA
Rdodge30 said:
Within days of entering government Miliband blocked all new licenses for North Sea oil and gas. Unions were quick to say this would cost 1000’s of jobs.

It’s Milliband who has to decide on Jackdaw gas field and Rosebank oil field which have been blocked pending government assessment of environmental impact.

These projects would bolster Britain’s energy independence, create thousands of jobs and raise billions in tax revenues. If he approves them it will be a significant boost to future economic growth but that would be completely at odds with his commitment to Net Zero and Great British Clean Energy

He also has to take it on the chin with the 3rd runway at Heathrow

I still think Slippery Ed wants Number 10 and he has absolutely nailed his colours to the mast with his Green Agenda.
Click to expand...
he won’t be happy if there’s any truth in this article today …..maybe KS thinks the same as you

Sir Keir Starmer is expected to back one of Britain’s biggest offshore oil field developments despite fierce opposition from Ed Miliband, his Energy Secretary.

The Prime Minister and Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, are expected to wave through the Rosebank oil project in the North Sea despite the risk of exacerbating a Cabinet split with Mr Miliband, who has previously referred to it as “a colossal waste of taxpayer money and climate vandalism”.

Sir Keir is understood to have given assurances to executives at Equinor, Rosebank’s lead developer, that he will support the project, which is expected to generate nearly £7bn of investment and hundreds of millions of pounds in taxes for the UK.
 


Chicken Run

Chicken Run

Member Since Jul 2003
NSC Patron
Jul 17, 2003
20,336
Valley of Hangleton
LamieRobertson said:
he won’t be happy if there’s any truth in this article today …..maybe KS thinks the same as you

Sir Keir Starmer is expected to back one of Britain’s biggest offshore oil field developments despite fierce opposition from Ed Miliband, his Energy Secretary.

The Prime Minister and Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, are expected to wave through the Rosebank oil project in the North Sea despite the risk of exacerbating a Cabinet split with Mr Miliband, who has previously referred to it as “a colossal waste of taxpayer money and climate vandalism”.

Sir Keir is understood to have given assurances to executives at Equinor, Rosebank’s lead developer, that he will support the project, which is expected to generate nearly £7bn of investment and hundreds of millions of pounds in taxes for the UK.
Click to expand...
If it pisses off Dick Ed then i’m all for it!!
 




Is it PotG?

Is it PotG?

Thrifty non-licker
Feb 20, 2017
26,328
Sussex by the Sea
Not a happy bunny

554c72dfdd08958f1a8b45c2.jpg
 


Rdodge30

Rdodge30

Well-known member
Dec 30, 2022
1,024
Remember when we were going to get £28billion green investment EVERY year of this parliament? …. Admittedly that promise was cut in half but even so 🙄

I think Ed will have to fight his leadership campaign as a backbencher
 


peterward

peterward

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 11, 2009
12,549
Rdodge30 said:
Remember when we were going to get £28billion green investment EVERY year of this parliament? …. Admittedly that promise was cut in half but even so 🙄

I think Ed will have to fight his leadership campaign as a backbencher
Click to expand...
Leadership campaign!

Davids talentless brother is unelectable.......far more chance of a second "Edstone" than him getting anywhhere near leadership again.
 




Rdodge30

Rdodge30

Well-known member
Dec 30, 2022
1,024
peterward said:
Leadership campaign!

Davids talentless brother is unelectable.......far more chance of a second "Edstone" than him getting anywhhere near leadership again.
Click to expand...


I think there will be turmoil in the parliamentary party this year but I can’t predict which way it will go. Don’t forget it’s the Labour Party that elects their leaders not the country. There are already factions within the party - Streeting has his eye on the prize for certain and almost certainly the stick they will beat the PM with is the budget and economy- will he sack his Chancellor to keep his job.. will Ed stick the knife in and resign in a flounce over the net zero situation if the PM ploughs ahead with Heathrow and new oil fields?
 


WATFORD zero

WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
28,508
My goodness, the regular posters on this thread now seem to have turned their hopes to an increasingly desperate clamour for some machiavellian plot to develop within the Labour party and undermine the current Government.

Solely for the benefit of the country of course, as always :wink:
 


Rdodge30

Rdodge30

Well-known member
Dec 30, 2022
1,024
WATFORD zero said:
My goodness, the regular posters on this thread now seem to have turned their hopes to an increasingly desperate clamour for some machiavellian plot to develop within the Labour party and undermine the current Government.

Solely for the benefit of the country of course, as always :wink:
Click to expand...


Maintaining your track record of posting about the people who post rather than the subject itself 👍

At the risk of actually given opinion doo you think that Reeves and Milliband can continue when they are both pulling in opposite directions?
 


peterward

peterward

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 11, 2009
12,549
Rdodge30 said:
I think there will be turmoil in the parliamentary party this year but I can’t predict which way it will go. Don’t forget it’s the Labour Party that elects their leaders not the country. There are already factions within the party - Streeting has his eye on the prize for certain and almost certainly the stick they will beat the PM with is the budget and economy- will he sack his Chancellor to keep his job.. will Ed stick the knife in and resign in a flounce over the net zero situation if the PM ploughs ahead with Heathrow and new oil fields?
Click to expand...
Of course you're right and thus why we had Corbyn.

It would be a monumental Labour f*** up if Ed Milliband ever became leader again. However he may be perceived in the PLP, he'd never win a GE.

Streeting is a far more polished option and would hold a broader appeal. It needs to be someone from the parties right (more left of centre)

Getting a bit ahead of ourselves here, but I don't see two tier ever having the electoral maths he did prior last GE, in what was more a "kick out the Tories" landslide versus a we want Starmer landslide.

At some point the night of the long knives will be upon us!
 
Last edited:








You must log in or register to reply here.
Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Share this page


Top
Link Here