Forum menu
If your only point was that I am wrong about energy costs, which was based on the couple of articles which I linked rather than my personal view, then this makes even less sense as it has nothing to do with energy costs:
Anyway **** it. Kier Starmer privatised everything and lied to us while he did it, that OK?
Cos you were using that false assertion to attack Starmer. There's plenty to go at without making shit up.
Saying that in the last 35 years since privatisation electricity has gone up a third in real terms and gas by a half isn't "making shit up". It isn't even an attack on Starmer.
Yeah but one of the main drivers for that has been a policy decision to shift from coal to gas and renewable sources. Not just that the energy co's are trousering the difference and that Starmers fine with that. Which was your point.
No my point is that Starmer appears to be supporting a failed strategy which does not have widespread public support. And that I can understand that from the Tories for various reasons but I can't understand it from the leader of the Labour Party.
the main drivers for that has been a policy decision to shift from coal to gas and renewable sources.
Yeah I can understand that but you haven't provided any evidence that it has had such a significant effect on the cost of electricity and gas.
Has gas really gone up by more than half in real term because we use less coal?
There was a very significant drop in the dependency on coal in the first 5 years or so after privatisation, however this coincides with the only period in the last 35 years when energy costs actually fell in real terms.
The next approximately 20 years UK coal dependency remained more or less fairly stable, during this period energy costs increased significantly in real terms.
In the last 10 years or so coal dependency has completed collapsed and has been replaced by renewables to the point that they are now the dominant source. Despite renewables being considerably cheaper than either coal or gas energy prices have still continued to significantly increase in real terms - even before the current crises.
I am happy to accept that moving away from coal has had an effect on energy costs but I am sceptical that it has been so significant as to explain the third increase in real terms in electricity prices and the even higher increases in gas prices.
Gas prices have increased since privatisation for several reasons:
1) We weren't allowed to use gas for power generation under an EC directive that was only repealed around 1992, once that was repealed we had the so-called 'dash for gas'.
2) Initial fuel stock was taken from the North Sea, as I understand it those reserves are seriously depleted and must be supplemented with imports.
3) Storage capacity has dropped over the years going from [url= https://www.carbonbrief.org/is-the-uks-limited-gas-storage-capacity-a-problem/ ]14 days worth in 2013[/url] to [url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/sep/24/how-uk-energy-policies-have-left-britain-exposed-to-winter-gas-price-hikes ]4 days worth last year[/url]. When was the last time you saw a gasometer? There used to be one in every town, now they're all but extinct, I don't think there's any left at Provan in Glasgow, they were the last ones I saw. This means we need to buy it as we go rather than building up reserves when it's cheap.
****ing hell, repeating myself. Renewables are cheaper NOW. They were very expensive early doors and we're still paying for a lot of the high tariffs on earlier sources
There was a very significant drop in the dependency on coal in the first 5 years or so after privatisation, however this coincides with the only period in the last 35 years when energy costs actually fell in real terms.
Dash for gas. Then gas went up steadily until the banking crash.
In the last 10 years or so coal dependency has completed collapsed and has been replaced by renewables to the point that they are now the dominant source
Gas is still ~50%, so even including nuclear - which the grid dont; no
Plus other stuff in bills, mostly network costs, CCL, and yes profit
I thought gasometers had become a thing of the past because natural gas is piped at much lower pressure than coal gas and also because coal gas can't be produced on demand?
It does still appear that the real term increase in gas prices is linked to cost cutting and "efficiency" in the privatised industry according to the linked article:
The Rough storage facility, owned by Centrica, the parent company of British Gas, provided 70% of the UK gas storage capacity for more than 30 years before it shut in 2017 following a government decision not to subsidise the costly maintenance and upgrades needed to keep the site going.
The government claimed that it would save £750 million over 10 years, which presumably wasn't a cost that Centrica was prepared to pay.
And according to the FT:
https://www.ft.com/content/c88039ce-96e5-4eed-b6e8-58a01623987e
Investment in the North Sea by energy companies has fallen 90 per cent since 2014, according to OEUK, the trade body for Britain’s offshore oil and gas industry, and capital spending is expected to at most plateau in the coming years.
I consider that to be a failure of the privately owned industry. Although I do understand that less investment might well be needed with considerably cheaper renewables now being the dominant source.
But all this lack of investment whilst explaining the possible reasons for high energy prices it doesn't justify it, nor does it make the case for privatisation, quite the contrary.
So the answer to over reliance on catastrophically expensive gas is to go and look for it in hard to exploit unproven reserves? OK.
Also it's one thing to nationalise generation and transmission/distribution but exploration too?
**** hell, repeating myself
You are not really, you are saying different things to justify how much energy prices have increased since privatisation 35 years ago.
Initially it was because the UK moved away from cheap coal, although that started well before the privatisation of gas and electricity so it should have been predictable before privatisation. Voters were told that privatisation would result in cheaper consumer prices.
No, I just pointed out that you were wrong to attribute 100% of that increase on privatisation/profiteering. All the subsequent thrashing about youve been doing has been you trying to deflect from that.
you were wrong to attribute 100% of that increase on privatisation/profiteering.
No, you have completely made that up. I have not made any claim concerning what is 100% responsible for the real term increases in electricity and gas prices.
I said that privatisation has not resulted in lower prices for consumers as it was claimed it would. For reasons which I can only assume are idealogical you have decided to have an argument over that undeniable fact.
I am perfectly prepared to accept that multiple factors are responsible for the failure of privatisation to lower electricity and gas prices.
Including that the whole premise of lower consumer prices was based on the lie that privatisation would result in greater efficiency which would be passed on to customers.
Oh. I see. Because you can't be wrong I must be ideologically impure. All makes sense now.
He's crap but he's going to win the next election.
Oh. I see. Because you can’t be wrong I must be ideologically impure. All makes sense now.
Yeah that's what I said. ffs
Yeah that’s what I said. ffs
Yes, it is.
For reasons which I can only assume are idealogical
He’s crap but he’s going to win the next election.
I don't like to predict anything in politics but I will be surprised if Starmer wins the next general election.
Especially if Liz Truss chooses to do what the last two PMs who were chosen midterm did and calls an early general election.
The Labour lead in the opinion polls is currently surprisingly small, it hasn't been in double figures for quite some time. With a honeymoon period Truss is very likely to wipe out that Labour lead I would have thought. I am less sure that she would have a working majority though.
Because you can’t be wrong I must be ideologically impure.
FFS what does that even mean? Are you suggesting that people having consistent principles which they don’t break is a bad thing? On the other thread I’m being called a hypocrite for not wanting to pay tax on small building jobs. A good example of ideological ‘flexibility’ if only a small one, and yet here Ernie is being accused of the opposite. What the hell is it that you people want?
Oh. I see. Because you can’t be wrong I must be ideologically impure. All makes sense now.
Don't get this idealogically pure / impure label.
It's a an ill-thought out smear that James O'Brien likes to throw around whilst looking like he's demolishing the Tories.
You people?
Are you suggesting that people having consistent principles which they don’t break is a bad thing?
if ever there was a sentence written in haste.
if ever there was a sentence written in haste.
Not really. He was accusing Ernie of ideological purity as if that’s a bad thing. Agree with him or not, but Ernie is probably the most ideologically consistent poster on here. Call that purity if you like but in my book that’s something to be admired rather than the opposite.
in my book that’s something to be admired
But it's for that reason (consistent principles from which they will not deviate) that neither Truss or Sunak would ever consider re-nationalisation of the monopoly industries, you think that's to be admired?
Politics is compromise. Ideological purity is rarely accommodating of dissenting opinions
Truss and Sunak would consider nationalisation if it benefitted them/ their mates financially.
Yes @ctk you're probably right. It's one of the ways that the Tory party has been so successful over the years, they have a very loose set of principles, over which they are very flexible.
And why Communism falls to totalitarianism and dictatorship so easily
This term 'ideology' or sometimes 'idealogy'(!) gets banded about and its meaning is lost. Do people mean 'ideology as opposed to science' (as with 60s US sociology) or ideology as a perspective or ideology is something I disagree with? What does 'ideological purity' mean? These discussions sadly do get derailed with 'grown up, cock sucking, cult, idealogy' word salads, it seems to suggest an inability to understand or stick to arguments and evidence and therefore a resort to contumely.
they have a very loose set of principles, over which they are very flexible.
Whilst the position has moved over time its more the emphasis on which key principles are foremost which has changed. Plus a lot of PR work to pretend other factors are considered when in reality they arent. This is, of course, leaving Johnson to one side who was principleless although its worth remembering when he deviated too far he was shown the door.
I am really not sure where you are going with the communism one. Its a bizarre comparison against the tories. You might as well say the right wing falls to dictatorship easily by looking at those new states emerging at about the same time communism did.
Personally I would rate communism as unworkable for the same reason libertarianism is (unsurprising since the intended outcome is effectively the same) but thats a separate area.
‘ideology as opposed to science’
No space in the discussion for scientism then?
Its a bizarre comparison against the tories.
It' wasn't, it was the most extreme version of Ideological thought that came immediately to mind, you could equally apply it to Fascism
All the sewerage pumped into the sea is surely a vote winner for Labour? Assuming they still want to nationalise water.
It needs massive investment, including new reservoirs. Private water companies are never going to do it.
Re nationalising water is the easiest nationalisation to sell imo.
Blimey another one. What is 'ideological thought' and what is its opposite?
most ideologically consistent poster on here. Call that purity if you like but in my book that’s something to be admired rather than the opposite.
Being unable to change course in the light of new evidence is not the mark of an adult. (For the avoidance of doubt because it's a partial quotation I am not applying this to Ernie).
Our polity has a habit of decrying the "u-turn" when the change in direction is beneficial to the country.
Our polity has a habit of decrying the “u-turn” when the change in direction is beneficial to the country.
Or even when the u-turn is the result of someone honestly admitting that they were previously wrong.
There's an argument that willingness to u-turn is a positive attribute.
Being unable to change course in the light of new evidence is not the mark of an adult.
I agree. So given the obvious failure of 40 years of neo-liberalism to improve the lives of working people, surely the pragmatic, sensible course of action for the Labour Party is to offer an alternative?
There’s an argument that willingness to u-turn is a positive attribute.
It depends on the reason and approach and generally when it is criticised its not so much the u-turn but the bad decisions leading up to it.
The "float" an idea via the press and then rapidly u-turn when the glaring errors are pointed out is problematic. The u-turn is fine but its that its needed at all which is a problem.
Changing position over time as evidence accumulates (or rapidly in rare cases of sudden evidence emerging) is a good thing.
I am not sure if it always is with the voters. People like to know where they are with someone. And if a politician changes their mind on one thing how can you trust them not to on something else?
I don't really know ideoligically pure - but you do have to stand for something.
And the point is - last year's ideologically pure is this years pragmatism.
Why is a sixth former sneered at? When does an adult become a gammon? What does ideological impurity mean? Does pragmatic mean unprincipled? Does a clean sheet reveal a neoliberal agenda? I'm still struggling with forensic and agile ceremonies and haven't even got on to hard working families. Questions, questions, questions.
And if a politician changes their mind on one thing how can you trust them not to on something else?
For me it would depend on the reasons for that change.
New evidence fine.
Catching up with existing evidence. Somewhat dodgier ground since why did it take that time.
Changing due to bad evidence: Bad sign.
Changing because of public outcry. Definitely a red flag about their decision making
Random changing: Also red flag.
(For the avoidance of doubt because it’s a partial quotation I am not applying this to Ernie).
Thank you. There is a poster on here (I won't mention his current username but he keeps changing it) who has recently taken to repeatedly referring to me as "ernietruss".
I'm not entirely sure why but I have to assume that, apart from the fact that he undoubtedly thinks it is hilariously funny, it is because I have expressed the opinion that whilst there is very little to differentiate between Truss and Sunak on balance I probably prefer Truss to be PM as with Sunak there is imo greater possibility of harsh austerity - which would impact on the lives of ordinary working people.
Unable to see issues like that from a pragmatic perspective he no doubt translates that as me being practically a Tory and definitely a Truss fan.
In his world everything is black and white and all Tories should be despised in equal measure - no distinction should ever be made between them, and the interests of ordinary working people, which he also despises anyway, should never come into it.
I think it would be fair to say that he is a centrist. He certainly expresses the same level of political intolerance which other centrists on here tend to express.
Here we go. What’s the plan Keir?
It's only a question of time now before someone has to show a big hand.
It’s only a question of time now before someone has to show a big hand.
In a small stakes poker game that no one cares about?
That's basically what the Labour Party is.. A bunch of simpletons arguing amongst each other and then wondering why the conservatives keep winning elections.
A bunch of simpletons arguing amongst each other and then wondering why the conservatives keep winning elections
Now is the time for either party to go big in their ideas.
But for sure no one's got the imagination or guts it appears.
But as one economic model starts to collapse something has to be born out of it - currently looking like mad Max 2.
But as one economic model starts to collapse something has to be born out of it
I’m not a follower of economics so I’d be interested to hear if there is anything out there other than the current consensus? Neoliberalism had been a thing for a while elsewhere in the world before the US and Europe embraced it?
Is there an alternative or is the best we can hope for a return to old models ?