Forum menu
Wasn't there an outstanding arrest warrant for Ariel Sharon up until he died? I don't recall him being led away in handcuffs for that...
The problem with paying to upgrade peoples houses is that it excludes the poorest in society and benefits house owners and landlords. Now in the drive for cleaner energy I think it could/would be beneficial but I can't see how government can encourage it without benefiting the wealthiest, as with the child benefit cap I don't mind some who perhaps don't need or deserve the assistance actually getting that assistance if the major goal is achieved.
A quick google suggests that 50% of UK adults own their own homes (I have assumed that includes those who are still paying mortgages) and I suspect that brings in some social and age demographics that mainly excludes those who are already struggling most to have decent affordable homes.
IMO that would only be acceptable if there is also a sizeable investment in modern "council houses" so the 50% who don't own homes can also benefit from clean energy and affordable housing without being left even further behind. I don't think anyone wants tory mp's to get solar panels on their duck houses financed by the state, while those most in need get nothing.
Also I expected a larger percentage of home owners.
Wasn’t there an outstanding arrest warrant for Ariel Sharon up until he died? I don’t recall him being led away in handcuffs for that…
Instead of picking holes and dismissing the importance of the new Labour government's position on the ICC how about celebrating the fact that with the Tories out of government the UK now appears to have a more ethical attitude towards foreign policy?
The last two paragraphs in my link:
Once the arrest warrant for a person is issued it is valid for the rest of their lives, until they are arrested and sent to The Hague, home of the international courts, or until they die, he added.
“Overall, the whole process strengthens the institution of the ICC. It’s the first time that two western leaders are in the spotlight," he said.
Not everyone will welcome that but I certainly do, and I think the current Labour government should be given credit.
Instead of picking holes
Perhaps I'm missing something, but it didn't read like that to me?
Two separate posters diminishing the importance of the Labour government's announcement felt like picking holes at this important announcement. If they are celebrating the change in UK policy it wasn't obvious to me
Where to start.
The grid was originally designed to connect medium-ish sized generators typically at 33kV via 132/33kV sites.
The supergrid with the large power stations came later.
We have been successfully connecting small generators at LV and 11kV for decades now - yes there are occasional issues but generally it works. The Americans can’t work out how we do it.
I have no comment to make on the relative financial merits of fields or roofs. I can see obvious practical merits.
Home EV charging at 3.6-7.2kW adds around 1 to 1.5kW to the domestic ADMD. Networks were typically designed for around 2-2.5kW ADMD at each property, but loads have been falling to closer to 1-1.5kW so adding another 1-1.5kW (allowing for the fact that standard cables sizes mean the system will have been installed bigger than 2.5kW originally).
So urban networks allowing for a bit of workplace, destination etc charging ought to support EVs for a good long time.
Heat pumps are more challenging.
The problem with paying to upgrade peoples houses is that it excludes the poorest in society and benefits house owners and landlords.
Last time I rented a house I still had to pay my energy bills. And besides, there are plenty of ways of mitigating this problem, for instance landlords could be mandated to install solar panels at their own cost (yes you'd need protections against rent inflation before anyone says they'll just put the rents up), benefits claimants and other low income people could be given direct subsidies on their bills.
I agree that there could be innovative ways of benefitting those who rent and levering against the wealthy.
Perhaps the electricity generated on a building is used for free by the tenant, and a matching smaller payment made back to the landlord who has to pay a significant proportion of the install costs - but judged so that long term both tenant and landlord 'win' a larger income/lower costs.
Let us not forget that reducing costs such as this is more beneficial than a tax cut to a tenant, but increases taxes landlords pay.
This here GB Energy may be better focussing on smaller projects, insulation and efficiency for the lowest income folk in society than big projects...?
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1803314268504465882
They really shouldn't have gone with this £300 off the bills during the election campaign - with the creation of GB energy from 2030. The modelling for it was pretty terrible - which assumed price caps didn't change. Rather than looking at any benefit that may come with GB energy.
Now they are moving away from it as some sort of a promise.
Bit of a mess this one.
Yep Dazh is right, issues around low income families and energy efficiency need to be tackled separately. Theres plenty of poorly insulated rental properties pushing up the bills of those that can afford them least but we don't stop wealthy people from insulating their homes cos it isn't fair.
The rental market needs a proper overhaul and basic standards around housing enforced including things like insulation and solar panels as well as basics wlike the building being water tight and secure.
Personally I'd still expect the wealthy to contribute to the cost, generate some of the mythical private sector investment Rone can't get his head around. As DT78 says pay back needs to be 3 to 5 years and people will happily contribute. Ironically the cost of installing panels would come down as demand increased, when the Torys killed the feed in tariffs loads of solar companies just going went to the wall as demand dried up. Grants for 50% of the cost is simple and will work, feed in tariffs, 3rd party ownership etc. are complex and put people off.
Wasn’t there an outstanding arrest warrant for Ariel Sharon up until he died? I don’t recall him being led away in handcuffs for that…
Aye. We were and still occasionally scoop up shitbags with warrants. Bosnia and those connected to the atrocities there are some notable examples, however they were not in positions of power or privilege anymore and often shunned by their state.
It's a strong position for sure, but until such a time that he is in a position that is deemed vulnerable and with zero blowback, he's quite safe from being detained.
Sad but true.
There was no International Criminal Court arrest warrant issued for Ariel Sharon. The Belgium courts tried and unsurprisingly failed to prosecute him. You would expect the ICC might have more luck. It is widely assumed that Netanyahu wants to prolong the conflict and extend it beyond Israel's northern boarders to save his political skin. But eventually one day he will no longer be PM, any arrest warrant will stay in place until the day he dies.
They (windfarms) are more likely to be generating too much electricity rather than none.
I'm not great on renewables or storage, but as i look out the window at another grey drizzly summer day.... I understand the sun can power a solar panel that creates electricity that can turn a turbine.
Can we not use the too much electricity from windy days to feed into the solar panels and back upwards and turn the ****ing sun up a few notches to burn these clouds off instead.
IANAE.
I agree with having solar and other energy efficiency areas such as adequate insulation and heat pumps where viable should be mandatory for new builds. There’s one glaring issue with it as far as I can see. Houses are already pretty much unaffordable for a lot of people. I’d imagine energy efficiency mandates would simply push them even further out of reach of your average person or family looking to purchase a property. It will just benefit those who are already better off. God knows what the actual solution is beyond capping house prices at a sensible level.
New builds aren't the key issue here. Existing building stock is absolutely dire compared to most of the rest of Europe. In the context of Net Zero by 2050, around 80% of existing building stock will still be in use in that timeframe. We need a fully funded retrofit insulation plan for these buildings, including training installers etc in order to ease the path to net zero. This is one very small measure, but it is pretty much universally accepted, from the Chris Skidmore (former Tory MP) side of the arguement, right through to NGO's such as Greenpeace* and Friends of the Earth.
*This is a campaign that I actively lobby for as a Greenpeace activist.
I have insulated and draft proofed my flats - the difference is astonishing. They were particularly bad being lath and plaster walls in attics
We live in a modest 1950's 3 bed semi, when we were renovating the living room we discovered the 3 foot cavity beneath the entire house, luckily we were in a position financially to be able to adapt and insulate. The cost wasn't great and extended the work by a measure.
There are identical properties to ours in the street that are rental, I'd hate to think how much energy/money they're hemorrhaging in the winter.
I do not have the numbers but I think a programme of house insulation could well be a significant carbon saver.
Yeah, we rationalised it as short-term pain for longer term gain. The test will be this winter when the heating goes back on to see the impact. The house had already had cavity and loft insulation, I've improved the loft with fresh more efficient stuff. The outstanding jobs are insulating the two bay windows, especially the upstairs bedroom.
Hoping all this work and time will pay itself back as we're not moving anywhere until one of us needs a bungalow!
I do not have the numbers but I think a programme of house insulation could well be a significant carbon saver
Very hard to answer with a definitive figure, but in short, yes it'd have a huge effect. Domestic heating is around 17% of C02 emissions in the UK. To quote Chris Skidmore (shudders) the cleanest energy is that which we don't use.
It looks like we now know why Mel Stride was employing the masochistic strategy of doing all the morning media rounds before the election. He too has now declared his interest in being Tory leader. Will this be another one every day from now until November in their bid to lead HM Opposition?
A very good summary by John Crace..
https://Twitter.com/johnjcrace/status/1816538823611781185?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
I actually enjoy watching the tories now on TV as they have no power so I can just laugh at the shit they say rather than worry about what they are coming out with.
Domestic heating is around 17% of C02 emissions in the UK. To quote Chris Skidmore (shudders) the cleanest energy is that which we don’t use.
My flats were very poor from an insulation point of view. the one done a while ago has perhaps saved 30%, the one done morw recently and done better has saved more like 50 or even 60% of energy used to heat them
@Kerley - whats most hilarious about it is watching the likes of Kemi Badanoch, who's supreme levels of arrogance and self-regard has led her to be in some form of delusional denial, that somehow she's still in power. Somebody really needs to take her to one side and have a quiet word
This is priceless. Badanoch is condescending, patronising, bitter and just generally unpleasent, while Rayner just stares back, laughing at her and not havnig any of it, happy to let her get on with just embarrassing herself.
https://Twitter.com/RaVe_74/status/1814592565234073680
I can't wait for the full on rats-in-a-sack stuff to start
TLDR : "my colleagues were useless shitbags... over promising without any intention to deliver... so it stands to reason yours will be to" .... "Deporting people to Rwanda and denying them asylum is essential for UK home building plans [and no doubt anything and everything else you can think of]" ... "the Leeds riots [ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ]"
Sorry, I'm not listening to 13 mins of Kemi Badenoch this early in the morning without the aid of narcotics
Understandable. You don't really need to. She's particularly vile, even by her standards.
I really hope that the bookies are right and she does become Tory leader. The Tory membership may all love her but she's so thoroughly unpleasent on a personal level - arrogant, aggressive, patroniising and condescending - that she'll be an absolute gift to Labour
Yep, hoping for that too. She may take back a few of the ****ers who vote reform though but then again, a black woman - so maybe not so much.
I’d imagine energy efficiency mandates would simply push them even further out of reach of your average person or family looking to purchase a property
I don't think it works like that. House prices and land prices are extremely elastic. A large part of the cost of a housing development is the land, and since land only has value based on what you can do with it, the price of the land is the price you can get for all the houses you can build on it minus their cost.
In other words, people can only afford to pay so much for their houses, so if you make them cost more to build then the landowner gets less. Boo hoo.
Back in Labour land.
More silly fantasy economics coming from Reeves - but will be interesting to see what she does do to Taxation. I wouldn't like to predict anything but it will be pretty tame I'd imagine.
Don't want to upset those fantasy wealth creators!
https://twitter.com/DavidMcNab17/status/1816735809132732622?t=ZzwCgj_4L1xEDc9NMp1O4w&s=19
Besides even based on regular OBR neoclassical data the shortfall was known months ago. So the fact that it's coming now as a surprise - not really, anyone can get access to this info.
Constant play ground economics like this will get us nowhere.
So the fact that it’s coming now as a surprise – not really, anyone can get access to this info.
It would be surprising indeed if the government of the day was allowed to keep the nation's finances secret and away from prying opposition eyes.
It would also of course mean that Rachel Reeves could be less than honest with apparently complete impunity.
It does crack me up, some of the Tory leadership candidates. Mel Stride, bless him, literally his only qualification for the job is that he was willing to defend the indefensible on a daily basis throughout the GE. The sensible ones went on holiday!
Badenoch is toxic, really can't see her appealing to the public. If she wins I think that she'll be unlikely to last as long as the GE.
It would be surprising indeed if the government of the day was allowed to keep the nation’s finances secret and away from prying opposition eyes.
It would also of course mean that Rachel Reeves could be less than honest with apparently complete impunity.
Or that the Tories have been cookng the books? I know its a difficult thing to get your head around, with them being such upstanding pillars of honesty and financial good practice
Remember that one of the biggest (of many) crisis the new government is about to face is the tripling of spending on kids with SEND*. They changed the funding model (10 years ago) so that the obligation was transferred wholly to local government from central government, but that (unfunded) increased spending was kept 'off the books'. This is about to hit home big-time and amounts to tens of billions in itself.
I'm sure there are plenty more of these kind of little treats waiting for Rachel Reeves and co, that they're now going to have to deal with
* God only knows how, given the absolutely woeful provision
@rone, what language would you like the press to use instead of "shortfall"? Or indeed the worse language politicians love to use: "black hole"?
As far as the Tory leadership race is concerned and Tim Tugenhats recent defection to the wilder, Bravermanesque fringes of the right, Ian Dunt nails it again...
They were a bunch of clowns, using clown techniques in clown projects to attain clown outcomes. Those NAO reports are a final testament to their criminal negligence. And until a Tory leader can read them, concede their points and admit them openly, they'll stay in the toxic wasteland where they belong.
what language would you like the press to use instead of “shortfall”?
How about they actually explain what it means instead of pretending that it's the same as we would experience if we didn't get paid? There may well be a deficit between forecast spending plans and future tax receipts, and on the surface that looks bad and Labour can make political capital out of it (which is what Reeves is doing with her 'audit'). In reality though it doesn't actually matter, because that 'black hole' doesn't actually exist or matter because the govt can simply create the money to fill it.
Instead of pretending that the govts finances are the same as a family's or business, Reeves could tell the truth and explain that the govt is going to run a deficit with the aim of generating economic growth as that deficit will represent a cash surplus in the real economy which will be invested and spent on goods and services. She could also then explain that while that happens, the govt will continually be monitoring and forecasting inflation and will take appropriate action when the need arises by raising taxes and other measures. She won't do that though will she? Because there's no political advantage in it.
The debate shouldn't be whether there is a black hole in the nations's finances, the debate should be about how that money should be spent to provide the most benefit. As usual though everyone is obsessing about how much money we have to spend rather than what we need to spend it on. Nothing much will change until this upside down mindset is reversed.
I( too could not watch that Badenoch clip. ~What a vile woman she is. I think she counts as a Christian nationalist - a rather nasty mix of fundamental Christianity and right wing nationalism. Her faith gives her the certainty she is right and thus she hectors and is patronising.
If the tories do go for her they are truly fubar. I think the MPs will keep her off the final 2 ballot of the membership - they know how toxic she is
In reality though it doesn’t actually matter, because that ‘black hole’ doesn’t actually exist or matter because the govt can simply create the money to fill it.
They could, but it would have the same effect as Kwarteng's surprise budget did.
that deficit will represent a cash surplus in the real economy which will be invested and spent on goods and services.
you'd have to add the words "I hope" at the end of that sentence rather than horded.
the govt will continually be monitoring and forecasting inflation and will take appropriate action when the need arises by raising taxes and other measures.
And this is where MMT falls down. We’ve literally just been through high inflation where the government of the day was proposing tax cuts as the solution, and indeed making rumblings about B of E independence being ended so that interest rates could be cut. ?
I think she counts as a Christian nationalist – a rather nasty mix of fundamental Christianity and right wing nationalism.
She apparently claims to be an agnostic but "cultural Christian" whatever the **** that is...... secular Christian?
Tugendhat on the other hand I believe is a practising Catholic. So Badenoch should be your choice if you would rather a non religious type
And this is where MMT falls down. We’ve literally just been through high inflation where the government of the day was proposing tax cuts as the solution
It's exactly the opposite. It's why MMT needs to be properly communicated and acknowledged rather than dismissed or denied. Economic policy is driven by ideology rather than reality. If we remove the ideology and short term policticking, we could actually have an economy which works for everyone rather than a tiny few vested interests.
If we remove the ideology and short term policticking,
“If”.
There are loads of economic theories that should work if only people would understand them and behave properly.
In a democracy, when there is inflation and the cost of living is rising, there will always be populists who want to give people more money in their pocket.
There are loads of economic theories that should work if only people would understand them and behave properly.
The bit of MMT which explains how govt finances work with fiat currencies and deficits isn't a theory, it's a description of reality. The ideology around economic policy is the wllful obfuscation and misrepresentation of how everything works so that policy can be focused on benefiting elites rather than the public at large.
The bit of MMT which explains how govt finances work with fiat currencies and deficits isn’t a theory, it’s a description of reality.
“All models are wrong; some are useful.”
I think you are overstating the evidence for MMT. IANAE and I presume neither are you. However I can see no evidence that what you say is established fact in economics, outside of limited economic schools of thought.