Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
I’ve often, naively, wondered why we need to build solar farms covering entire fields, whilst building housing estates that are covering other entire fields.
Lots of new builds have solar panels - is it not mandatory now?
The problem is retrofitting them - the farmer is a business and can invest against future income or assets; the homeowner might not have the spare cash to splurge on solar panels - I certainly don't.
True. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen binners call people six-formers or have a rant about Jeremy Corbyn (the latest one was earlier today), not to mention the repeated use of the same monty python pictures which don’t add anything to the debate
It’s just a place where bored office workers come to avoid doing work so people can talk about what the hell they like as far as I’m concerned.
Hey!……….I resent that gross accusation…..…….jeez, I’ve been called some pretty disgusting things in my life but office worker?, some of us are disability benefit scroungers sat on our arse all day in our housing association house that’s paid for with nothing better to do than come on here and make a conscious effort to wind up binners
Anyways... as more eejits throw their hats into the ring.... Same old ****s enter Tory leadership race
The problem is retrofitting them – the farmer is a business and can invest against future income or assets; the homeowner might not have the spare cash to splurge on solar panels – I certainly don’t.
Me neither. I wasn't actually thinking of retrofitting. I guess my question was more about, if it's not already, can it be made mandatory that all new builds have solar as standard.
Jeezus, has that now become your standard reply when you can’t think of anything else to say?
How on earth is that relevant to Daz’s comment?
Just categorising the standard of discourse.
@igm probably knows far better than me, but to pick up on the point of large scale solar versus panels on houses. Obviously in an ideal world we should be putting them on all new builds. Again one of the problems as I understand it is the grid. It was designed for a small number of 'plants' to generate and distribute. The switch to renewables means a large number of smaller capacity points of generation. This is problematic to include within the existing grid, which wasn't built to incorporate lots of small scale generation.
Land use etc and rural/farmer attitudes towards these installations is one of my main areas of research. It's a contentious issue to say the least. A culture war fired up by the right/conspiracy theorists is brewing.
@fazzini - this was in last weeks Guardian. They're not mandatory as yet, but I think thats ultimately the plan
Labour’s ‘rooftop revolution’ to deliver solar power to millions of UK homes
Ministers are looking at bringing in solar-related standards for new-build properties from next year.
At present, while formal planning permission is not required, there are restrictions on where and how high up on buildings they can be placed. There are also restrictions in conservation areas and on listed buildings. These may also be re-examined.
I see the smilies/emoji’s are working as successfully as i can navigate my knackered carcass around the house, and a page load/response to a thread takes less time than using 2nd class Mail.
🙂
I was about to post exactly what Molgrips put. What we need is a return to subsidised retro fit solar for domestic users, you know like what we had before the Tory's scrapped it. Could be feed in tariffs but would be simpler as a grant. Fitting solar panels at the moment is pretty much break even or small gain for most people (unless you have an EV) so it's not worth taking on the debt.
And because this is a political thread the downside will be the left wing will wang on about it subsidising the wealthy (ie. those with mortgages) but in reality it will benefit everyone to move to more renewables, be less reliant of fossil fuel markets (which royally screwed lower income families), increase energy security and avoid the distribution grid falling over.
I'm not sure the suburban grid is capable of providing enough extra power. Lets take an example of the classic 4 bed estate (where EV ownership is likely to be higher). Average consumption is 5250 kW kW per year. Let's also assume you have a 60 kW EV battery you charge up by 60% 2 times a week, 36 kW for each charge, 72kW per week, that's 3750 kW per year, nearly doubling the estates consumption, factor in heat pumps, multi car ownership etc. and you can easily see that EVs will double the energy need for that estate. When the housing estate I'm on was built twenty years ago was developed I doubt the sub station they put in was intended to handle twice the load, and load will have already increased since installation eating up the overhead.
Me neither. I wasn’t actually thinking of retrofitting.
This is a good example of where we're getting the net zero approach wrong. Instead of 'we're going to build a windfarm on your favourite local landmark whether you like it or not', we could instead say 'we're going to pay for your house to be fitted with solar panels and that will save you loads of money on your energy bills'. If we did the latter then people would think net zero was the best thing that's ever happened to them, but sadly it doesn't because the large energy companies will stand to lose profits from it, and the govt would have to admit that the magic money tree actually does exist.
I worked out the break even on solar for our property was somewhere between 7 and 10 years. Given in that time we may move just not viable. Break evens need to be within 5 years or less, so grants / cheaper installs / better buybacks need to make that happen for wider adoption. If it was within3 I think you would see massive takeup
I was about to post exactly what Molgrips put. What we need is a return to subsidised retro fit solar for domestic users, you know like what we had before the Tory’s scrapped it.
I’d jump at the chance of solar panels as I already have an unused Tesla battery on my outside wall which could store the electricity generated, I rarely use above 4kw/day so to all intents and purposes I wouldn’t be paying anything.
I’ve tried to access grants/funding but nothing has came of them, from my experience (5 surveys over the previous 18months) they are scams designed to fill the pockets of the surveyors/dodgy companies who come out, promise you the earth only to eventually find that as I already have a heat pump (unused for heating/hot water for the previous 4 years due to running costs) and a Tesla battery (which was fitted to offset the heat pump running costs) mean I have too many “green” points so no funding for insulation (my house has none), no funding for new windows, doors, solar.
Meanwhile my log burner/multifuel inset stove is on 24/7 during the winter and has only been off for one day so far this year.
Now confirmed :
Britain will no longer be challenging arrest warrant proceedings for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant in a move officials described as a shift in stance on the war in Gaza.
I suppose I figured mandate it for new buildings, commercial and domestic for a 'sensible' starting point, then look at the issue of existing buildings/housing stock etc. I wonder how the figures would stack up - investing in grants etc for homeowners vs investment for big infrastructure. I assume we need a bit of both ideally.
Britain will no longer be challenging arrest warrant proceedings for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant in a move officials described as a shift in stance on the war in Gaza.
That's great, but it'll never happen, unlike Hollywood movies, this type of scenario has no real positive outcome.
The Israeli government does not appear to share your opinion over the matter:
And to add to the growing bad news for the far-right regime there is the likelihood that the recent judgement by the International Court of Justice will put pressure on the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant :
Israel is in the process of learning that they might be held accountable for war crimes and that no country should be above international law.
I am hugely encouraged that the new Labour government is playing a small part in that that process, in sharp contrast to the previous Tory government.
How difficult are those storage options technically? (Planning, nimbyism) aside).
Thermal storage seems to have potential at a fairly local level. Used in the nordic countries currently especially for community heating which goes back to tight coupling between the new towns/dense housing and energy supplies.
Can't you keep the middle east issues on its own thread?
I agree with Ernie, the landscape is changing for Israel their international political support is shrinking, I don't think anything is going to change quickly for the people in Palestine, but maybe the next generation will be able to grow up without fear of genocide.
The worry is that Israel now lashes out and becomes even more brutal before that happens.
And I have to say this move by labour has surprised me, I really thought they were going to stick by Israel no matter what.
This is a good example of where we’re getting the net zero approach wrong. Instead of ‘we’re going to build a windfarm on your favourite local landmark whether you like it or not’, we could instead say ‘we’re going to pay for your house to be fitted with solar panels and that will save you loads of money on your energy bills’. If we did the latter then people would think net zero was the best thing that’s ever happened to them, but sadly it doesn’t because the large energy companies will stand to lose profits from it, and the govt would have to admit that the magic money tree actually does exist.
Exactly. Labour keep going on about what is going to happen by tweaking this and that but they are simply expecting the private growth fairy in the private sector to turn up and deliver it.
Everything they suggest is underminded by this sort of small print thinking.
They created this daft fiscal restriction.
Labour really don't plan to deliver much at all without the private sector growth fairy. Time and time again it's been proven that this conservative economic thinking just simply doesn't work.
Can’t you keep the middle east issues on its own thread?
The link I posted was specifically in relation to a UK government issue/policy and how it has changed as the result of the general election.
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.
However I can see no evidence that what you say is established fact in economics
Yeah you're right. Fiat currencies, central banks and govt accounting practices don't really exist. The earth is also flat, climate change is a conspiracy and the world is governed by lizards.
Yeah you’re right. Fiat currencies, central banks and govt accounting practices don’t really exist. The earth is also flat, climate change is a conspiracy and the world is governed by lizards.
Lovely stuff.
Aaaanyway..... What's the crack with the Badenoch stories floating around? I'm reading something about a blog?
I could be totally wide of the mark, but I really don't think she's all that popular amongst MPs..... they'll eventually whittle it down to two to put to the party members....is she going to get that far?
As someone above said, it is nice to watch the infights without worrying about what fresh hell they're about to do in power. Of course the Tories as a vacuum of sensible opposition will mean Reform getting more coverage. The Lib Dems need to go back into GE campaign mode, or certainly Ed Davey does. Hardly heard a peep from them! 70+ of them and plenty of sensible ideas, I'd like to hear more from them.
Just harking back to the snippy reply I got on the Netanyahu/Sharon point - does anyone actually think we'll see Netanyahu in the dock or at The Hague? Seriously?
But, in any case, it is the right thing for our government to do. On that, I assume, we might agree.
The tetchiness on this thread is already reaching Rishi levels.
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.
House prices are continually increasing and any around my way that have any green tech are more expensive, by a fair margin, than those without. Therefore I don’t think it works how you think it does either. People on average salaries aren’t affording to either upgrade their current house or move in to a more modern one with newer greener technology. It needs big subsidies for existing stock to be upgraded and reasonable caps on pricing for new.
The biggest con with solar, in my mind, is the crappy rate you get for selling units back to the grid... it makes it a lot less attractive.
I'm not nessesarily insisting you should be able to sell back at the full price you buy units for, but it seems to me there is a huge disparity.
Just harking back to the snippy reply I got on the Netanyahu/Sharon point – does anyone actually think we’ll see Netanyahu in the dock or at The Hague? Seriously?
Do you think any scenario of this ends in anything but disaster, say an actual nation does apprehend him, sends him off to the Hague, you now have given the Israeli's even more ammunition to become more isolated, more threatening and it'll cause absolute chaos with nations pitted against each other over it, the next option is someone grabbing the headlines by trying to 'citizens arrest' the leader of Israel, flanked by his heavy security, that will end messy as well.
The way this whole conflict has turned out, it's only going to reduce through the US getting tough, or citizens of Israel actually asking questions and pushing for change internally.
So you think that the far-right government in Israel is above international law and those accused of war crimes should not face the consequences?
Does that apply to other countries too or just Israel?
I think the Labour Foreign Secretary, who is a member of Labour Friends of Israel btw, is absolutely spot on in believing that Netanyahu should not be above the law.
It is a very welcome change from the previous Tory government position on the issue
Btw although relatively unpopular with the Israeli people Netanyahu's popularity has been growing significantly in recent months, if you are arguing that Israelis should deal with him themselves