|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 25, 2023 9:09:50 GMT
If it's done properly yes, as always the devil will be in the detail in the manifesto. I'm interested to see whether his big ideas get watered down bit by bit............. If I'm not mistaken, it does not include bringing utilities back into public ownership? How I understand it Great British Energy would be another player in the market rather than taking over the ownership as a whole. The 2030 decarbonisation target is a bold one absolutely, it's whether this particular path would lead to lower (or at the very least stable) prices for the consumer................
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 25, 2023 9:21:48 GMT
If I'm not mistaken, it does not include bringing utilities back into public ownership? How I understand it Great British Energy would be another player in the market rather than taking over the ownership as a whole. The 2030 decarbonisation target is a bold one absolutely, it's whether this particular path would lead to lower (or at the very least stable) prices for the consumer................ The only way to lower prices for consumers for the long term is getting away from reliance on fossil fuels and then removing the law that pins electricity prices to gas prices
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 25, 2023 9:27:34 GMT
If I'm not mistaken, it does not include bringing utilities back into public ownership? No it doesn’t. It would be the most expensive time in history to nationalise utilities. What is much smarter is to create a state owned green energy company and to make that the cheapest electricity provider, which isn’t hard when you can regulate the fossil fuel companies and when electricity is currently linked to gas prices. If you de-link the prices but only for electricity produced in a green way, then everyone will want their electricity from the state company. Gas will slowly be phased out when gas boilers stop being installed, which won’t be long. Water companies need massive regulation to get them under control and to reign in profiteering and pollution. Inevitably they will then devalue and the state can take control perhaps. If Labour announces now they want to nationalise water, the water companies will be rubbing their hands with glee. We need them at their own expense to clean up the mess they have made out of profiteering water. If Starmer suddenly announces lots of Corbyn-esque policies, the tories will be delighted. The electorate need change but are scared of it. So if has to be gradual. Plus Starmer has potentially 2 years to the next election. He needs lots of rabbits in the hat for when it matters. He is already trouncing the tories in the polls. He seems to building slowly but surely towards a Labour majority at the next election. Surely that is a good thing? The most likely way Labour don’t win the next election is if Labour turns on itself. Starmer is not left wing and radical enough for many. But he needs to win an election, not have his name chanted at Glastonbury. I generally agree with your words here. Trouble is Starmer will have to rely on the millions that did vote for Corbyn in 2017 and 2019. His current antics make it difficult for people, including me, to trust him.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 25, 2023 9:34:11 GMT
How I understand it Great British Energy would be another player in the market rather than taking over the ownership as a whole. The 2030 decarbonisation target is a bold one absolutely, it's whether this particular path would lead to lower (or at the very least stable) prices for the consumer................ The only way to lower prices for consumers for the long term is getting away from reliance on fossil fuels and then removing the law that pins electricity prices to gas prices Correct, but as I said the devil will be in the detail......
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 25, 2023 9:38:52 GMT
No it doesn’t. It would be the most expensive time in history to nationalise utilities. What is much smarter is to create a state owned green energy company and to make that the cheapest electricity provider, which isn’t hard when you can regulate the fossil fuel companies and when electricity is currently linked to gas prices. If you de-link the prices but only for electricity produced in a green way, then everyone will want their electricity from the state company. Gas will slowly be phased out when gas boilers stop being installed, which won’t be long. Water companies need massive regulation to get them under control and to reign in profiteering and pollution. Inevitably they will then devalue and the state can take control perhaps. If Labour announces now they want to nationalise water, the water companies will be rubbing their hands with glee. We need them at their own expense to clean up the mess they have made out of profiteering water. If Starmer suddenly announces lots of Corbyn-esque policies, the tories will be delighted. The electorate need change but are scared of it. So if has to be gradual. Plus Starmer has potentially 2 years to the next election. He needs lots of rabbits in the hat for when it matters. He is already trouncing the tories in the polls. He seems to building slowly but surely towards a Labour majority at the next election. Surely that is a good thing? The most likely way Labour don’t win the next election is if Labour turns on itself. Starmer is not left wing and radical enough for many. But he needs to win an election, not have his name chanted at Glastonbury. I generally agree with your words here. Trouble is Starmer will have to rely on the millions that did vote for Corbyn in 2017 and 2019. His current antics make it difficult for people, including me, to trust him. Fair enough. But those people weren’t enough to win an election, so more votes are needed. Starmer cannot look further left for those votes, so has to look to the centre and the softer tories. And who else will Corbyn supporters vote for? Do you, and those people who voted for Corbyn, think the country is better off with the current lot, or is it worth giving labour a chance, even under Starmer? Will those voters really cut off their noses to spite their face and abstain/ vote against labour? Maybe a few, but not many. I would vote Starmer in my area if it was a Labour v tory seat. I will vote lib dem because it is a lib dem v tory seat. If I could risk voting for my favourite, I would have to wait and see who to vote for. Sadly our electoral system doesn’t allow that (Starmer should be promising electoral reform).
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 25, 2023 9:39:43 GMT
The only way to lower prices for consumers for the long term is getting away from reliance on fossil fuels and then removing the law that pins electricity prices to gas prices Correct, but as I said the devil will be in the detail...... Of course. But labour’s plan seems to be more likely to achieve that than the tory plan (status quo).
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jan 25, 2023 10:00:22 GMT
The only way to lower prices for consumers for the long term is getting away from reliance on fossil fuels and then removing the law that pins electricity prices to gas prices Correct, but as I said the devil will be in the detail...... The devil in the detail The current green agenda is suited for those able to financially chose to commit And does nothing to help those struggling The green agenda for the virtue signalling rich At the expense of the poor
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 25, 2023 10:03:13 GMT
Correct, but as I said the devil will be in the detail...... The devil in the detail The current green agenda is suited for those able to financially chose to commit And does nothing to help those struggling The green agenda for the virtue signalling rich At the expense of the poor Sorry fella but I think that's nonsense. Of course there are very real short to medium term concerns about people's bills but a green economy handled correctly could be a job and wealth creator and bring bills down. That's without even highlighting the threat to our long term existence........
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jan 25, 2023 10:08:39 GMT
The devil in the detail The current green agenda is suited for those able to financially chose to commit And does nothing to help those struggling The green agenda for the virtue signalling rich At the expense of the poor Sorry fella but I think that's nonsense. Of course there are very real short to medium term concerns about people's bills but a green economy handled correctly could be a job and wealth creator and bring bills down. That's without even highlighting the threat to our long term existence........ What do you call medium term
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 25, 2023 10:25:52 GMT
I generally agree with your words here. Trouble is Starmer will have to rely on the millions that did vote for Corbyn in 2017 and 2019. His current antics make it difficult for people, including me, to trust him. Fair enough. But those people weren’t enough to win an election, so more votes are needed. Starmer cannot look further left for those votes, so has to look to the centre and the softer tories. And who else will Corbyn supporters vote for? Do you, and those people who voted for Corbyn, think the country is better off with the current lot, or is it worth giving labour a chance, even under Starmer? Will those voters really cut off their noses to spite their face and abstain/ vote against labour? Maybe a few, but not many. I would vote Starmer in my area if it was a Labour v tory seat. I will vote lib dem because it is a lib dem v tory seat. If I could risk voting for my favourite, I would have to wait and see who to vote for. Sadly our electoral system doesn’t allow that (Starmer should be promising electoral reform). Close enough to win in 2017 and would have won if the right wingers in the Labour Party hadn't stabbed him in the back. There is broad support for bringing the key services/utilities back into public ownership, I fail to understand why Starmer is saying nothing on this.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 25, 2023 10:40:59 GMT
Fair enough. But those people weren’t enough to win an election, so more votes are needed. Starmer cannot look further left for those votes, so has to look to the centre and the softer tories. And who else will Corbyn supporters vote for? Do you, and those people who voted for Corbyn, think the country is better off with the current lot, or is it worth giving labour a chance, even under Starmer? Will those voters really cut off their noses to spite their face and abstain/ vote against labour? Maybe a few, but not many. I would vote Starmer in my area if it was a Labour v tory seat. I will vote lib dem because it is a lib dem v tory seat. If I could risk voting for my favourite, I would have to wait and see who to vote for. Sadly our electoral system doesn’t allow that (Starmer should be promising electoral reform). Close enough to win in 2017 and would have won if the right wingers in the Labour Party hadn't stabbed him in the back. There is broad support for bringing the key services/utilities back into public ownership, I fail to understand why Starmer is saying nothing on this. I think because he would potentially lose voters. Nationalising now makes no sense due to the cost. Think more of a hostile takeover after several years of regulations which reduce costs for an eventual takeover. I also think Starmer saying things now, 2 years before an election, is potentially pointless. His manifesto will come and people need to be patient (we don’t want labour playing their hand and the tories stealing the best ideas like both the tories and labour have done to the lib dems on the windfall tax and energy price cap for example).
|
|
|
Post by thewonderstuff on Jan 25, 2023 11:13:46 GMT
If I'm not mistaken, it does not include bringing utilities back into public ownership? But he needs to win an election, not have his name chanted at Glastonbury. You may well mock, but Starmer is taking a big risk with the under 25 demographic, two thirds of which have tended to vote Labour in recent times. Whilst him and Tory ghouls like Mandelson have calculated that they must go after the over 50 slightly ‘gammony’, mob who aren’t averse to the death penalty coming back or the Royal Navy sticking a garden fork into a dinghy full of scared kids in the channel they have left this area of society completely disenfranchised. Offering them nothing except ‘not being Tory’, actively being hostile to student organisations with the temerity to express vaguely left wing views. Not being Tory might be enough but I suspect many of this age group will find a home in somewhere like the Greens or most likely with voter ID coming in just fuck the whole show off. Starmer is about as a appealing (and offers as much hope) to a 19 year old as a night in watching Mrs Browns Boys with their Grandma.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 25, 2023 11:38:43 GMT
But he needs to win an election, not have his name chanted at Glastonbury. You may well mock, but Starmer is taking a big risk with the under 25 demographic, two thirds of which have tended to vote Labour in recent times. Whilst him and Tory ghouls like Mandelson have calculated that they must go after the over 50 slightly ‘gammony’, mob who aren’t averse to the death penalty coming back or the Royal Navy sticking a garden fork into a dinghy full of scared kids in the channel they have left this area of society completely disenfranchised. Offering them nothing except ‘not being Tory’, actively being hostile to student organisations with the temerity to express vaguely left wing views. Not being Tory might be enough but I suspect many of this age group will find a home in somewhere like the Greens or most likely with voter ID coming in just fuck the whole show off. Starmer is about as a appealing (and offers as much hope) to a 19 year old as a night in watching Mrs Browns Boys with their Grandma. I still think the youth vote (if voter ID does not stop them!) is more likely to vote Labour than tory at the next election, by some distance.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jan 25, 2023 12:12:06 GMT
Corbyn was undoubtedly left wing and he lost two elections. I think the electorate has shifted somewhat to the left since then (certainly economically and perhaps socially too). Perhaps Starmer knows he needs to also move slowly to get elected. Had they switched order of when they were leaders, brexit may not have happened, Starmer may have won an election, and Corbyn could be to follow. But who knows. Starmer's too much of an establishment man to do anything other than tinker round the edges. You're right when you say there would be an appetite for a genuine left wing Democratic Socialist party though, I think those who say otherwise are wrong. Combine Labour's 2017 manifesto (not 2019 when they got carried away on the back of the Brexit debacle) with a leader that has the left wing principles of Corbyn but willing to stand and fight against the bullshit that's thrown at him/her (a Mick Lynch type) and you're away. Or at least a compromise with someone such as Clive Lewis or Andy Burnham who are probably less principled but more pragmatic in moving to the left........ England is the battleground (as it normally is) in the next GE The results in Scotland and NI are entirely predictable and in Wales to a certain extent. I agree their is a desire for a Democratic Left Party as most people in England are fair minded and are as Socially Liberal as in the rest of UK What differentiates English Votes is that despite being Socially Liberal they are also Monarcists and believe Empire was a good thing. The Conservative Party represent that to most people. So we get the strange phenomenon of people voting for a Party that doesn't represent their core principles. I also think English Voters may not yet be ready to admit they made a mistake in 2016 and 2019 and the beneficiary's may be the alternative Party's like Oggy's lot.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 25, 2023 13:44:58 GMT
But he needs to win an election, not have his name chanted at Glastonbury. You may well mock, but Starmer is taking a big risk with the under 25 demographic, two thirds of which have tended to vote Labour in recent times. Whilst him and Tory ghouls like Mandelson have calculated that they must go after the over 50 slightly ‘gammony’, mob who aren’t averse to the death penalty coming back or the Royal Navy sticking a garden fork into a dinghy full of scared kids in the channel they have left this area of society completely disenfranchised. Offering them nothing except ‘not being Tory’, actively being hostile to student organisations with the temerity to express vaguely left wing views. Not being Tory might be enough but I suspect many of this age group will find a home in somewhere like the Greens or most likely with voter ID coming in just fuck the whole show off. Starmer is about as a appealing (and offers as much hope) to a 19 year old as a night in watching Mrs Browns Boys with their Grandma. The Greens have miscalculated greatly by not courting the left wing socialist vote, it's a natural home for them and I know locally and in constituencies where I have friends involved in politics they've done nothing proactive to make this happen.........
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 25, 2023 13:46:59 GMT
Sorry fella but I think that's nonsense. Of course there are very real short to medium term concerns about people's bills but a green economy handled correctly could be a job and wealth creator and bring bills down. That's without even highlighting the threat to our long term existence........ What do you call medium term In this case probably the next 4/5 years. Instant results are great especially when you can't pay the bills but competent governments look beyond the next election result (doesn't happen very often to be fair)
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Jan 27, 2023 15:33:09 GMT
How I understand it Great British Energy would be another player in the market rather than taking over the ownership as a whole. The 2030 decarbonisation target is a bold one absolutely, it's whether this particular path would lead to lower (or at the very least stable) prices for the consumer................ The only way to lower prices for consumers for the long term is getting away from reliance on fossil fuels and then removing the law that pins electricity prices to gas prices There is no law that ‘pins electricity prices to gas prices’. It’s a market where prices are set at the margin. The consumer is (generally) indifferent to how their electricity is produced. Some times gas is expensive so the marginal unit of electricity is expensive and vice versa. Increasing the supply of renewable electricity is a good thing but regulation won’t fix it nor necessarily will having a state run producer.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 27, 2023 15:42:36 GMT
The only way to lower prices for consumers for the long term is getting away from reliance on fossil fuels and then removing the law that pins electricity prices to gas prices There is no law that ‘pins electricity prices to gas prices’. It’s a market where prices are set at the margin. The consumer is (generally) indifferent to how their electricity is produced. Some times gas is expensive so the marginal unit of electricity is expensive and vice versa. Increasing the supply of renewable electricity is a good thing but regulation won’t fix it nor necessarily will having a state run producer. “Gas sets the price of electricity, because the electricity price in every half hour period is set by the marginal cost of the last generating unit to be turned off to meet demand – which is invariably a gas power plant with high marginal costs.” www.goodenergy.co.uk/why-does-the-price-of-gas-drive-electricity-prices-including-renewables/So if you regulate and change how prices are set, favouring renewables, and there is a big state run renewables energy company, the companies offering renewables will be cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Jan 27, 2023 16:02:11 GMT
There is no law that ‘pins electricity prices to gas prices’. It’s a market where prices are set at the margin. The consumer is (generally) indifferent to how their electricity is produced. Some times gas is expensive so the marginal unit of electricity is expensive and vice versa. Increasing the supply of renewable electricity is a good thing but regulation won’t fix it nor necessarily will having a state run producer. “Gas sets the price of electricity, because the electricity price in every half hour period is set by the marginal cost of the last generating unit to be turned off to meet demand – which is invariably a gas power plant with high marginal costs.” www.goodenergy.co.uk/why-does-the-price-of-gas-drive-electricity-prices-including-renewables/So if you regulate and change how prices are set, favouring renewables, and there is a big state run renewables energy company, the companies offering renewables will be cheaper. Great. Glad you agree there’s no ‘law’. How do you want to regulate the price of gas? Why do you think the state is going to be able to increase the supply of renewables faster than the private sector? Hold in mind that renewable production has already more than tripled in ten years. Do you also think the government should solve the inevitable storage problem caused by intermittent renewables? Or can we leave that to the private sector.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 27, 2023 17:43:18 GMT
“Gas sets the price of electricity, because the electricity price in every half hour period is set by the marginal cost of the last generating unit to be turned off to meet demand – which is invariably a gas power plant with high marginal costs.” www.goodenergy.co.uk/why-does-the-price-of-gas-drive-electricity-prices-including-renewables/So if you regulate and change how prices are set, favouring renewables, and there is a big state run renewables energy company, the companies offering renewables will be cheaper. Great. Glad you agree there’s no ‘law’. How do you want to regulate the price of gas? Why do you think the state is going to be able to increase the supply of renewables faster than the private sector? Hold in mind that renewable production has already more than tripled in ten years. Do you also think the government should solve the inevitable storage problem caused by intermittent renewables? Or can we leave that to the private sector. We should stop giving tax breaks on the windfall tax if the producers invest in fossil fuels for a start. The same tax breaks don’t apply to renewable investment. Producers are reluctant to properly invest in renewables because they make so much money from fossil fuels. So a business run by the state only investing in renewables is in a great position to dominate the market if you regulate the price so that the electricity produced is cheaper than the electricity produced by companies who derive energy from both fossil fuel and renewable providers. Production of renewables is far cheaper and therefore can be charged to the consumers for far less if you change the way prices are currently regulated (by law, regulations are laws) so that the price of renewable electricity is not set by the price of gas, as is the case now. You don’t regulate gas, you change the way the proce of electricity is calculated when produced by a business only producing energy from green sources.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Jan 27, 2023 18:38:46 GMT
Great. Glad you agree there’s no ‘law’. How do you want to regulate the price of gas? Why do you think the state is going to be able to increase the supply of renewables faster than the private sector? Hold in mind that renewable production has already more than tripled in ten years. Do you also think the government should solve the inevitable storage problem caused by intermittent renewables? Or can we leave that to the private sector. We should stop giving tax breaks on the windfall tax if the producers invest in fossil fuels for a start. The same tax breaks don’t apply to renewable investment. Producers are reluctant to properly invest in renewables because they make so much money from fossil fuels. So a business run by the state only investing in renewables is in a great position to dominate the market if you regulate the price so that the electricity produced is cheaper than the electricity produced by companies who derive energy from both fossil fuel and renewable providers. Production of renewables is far cheaper and therefore can be charged to the consumers for far less if you change the way prices are currently regulated (by law, regulations are laws) so that the price of renewable electricity is not set by the price of gas, as is the case now. You don’t regulate gas, you change the way the proce of electricity is calculated when produced by a business only producing energy from green sources. I don’t really know where to start with this. The cost of products by renewables isn’t a whole lot less than the cost of fossil fuel production, in ordinary times. In ordinary times, is a very important qualifier. Absent war in Ukraine and pandemic stop/start production hardly anybody would be talking about energy prices. It’s also useful to understand that most of the electricity currently being consumed has been paid for at nowhere near the current market rate. It’s that marginal pricing. I’m at a loss to know why you think a nationalised organisation will be able to procure imported gas more cheaply and/or increase domestic renewables production more quickly than the existing players. How do you change the way the price of renewables is calculated without driving out private sector investment? Full disclosure, I’m quite heavily invested (given my relatively modest means) in renewables both in the UK and overseas. My largest holding is with a fairly boring investment trust that pays around 5% dividend. Checking the financials the profitability has hardly changed much over the past several years (those contracts at play I presume). What do you want to do? I’m cool with a nationalised firm setting up in competition because I’m fairly certain it wouldn’t be able to compete and produce more cheaply. I’m willing to take the rough with the smooth but if you want to regulate the price I’m fucking off and investing elsewhere to be honest 🙂 unless you want to put a floor as well as a cap on the price. Then I might reconsider.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Jan 27, 2023 18:40:38 GMT
We should stop giving tax breaks on the windfall tax if the producers invest in fossil fuels for a start. The same tax breaks don’t apply to renewable investment. Producers are reluctant to properly invest in renewables because they make so much money from fossil fuels. So a business run by the state only investing in renewables is in a great position to dominate the market if you regulate the price so that the electricity produced is cheaper than the electricity produced by companies who derive energy from both fossil fuel and renewable providers. Production of renewables is far cheaper and therefore can be charged to the consumers for far less if you change the way prices are currently regulated (by law, regulations are laws) so that the price of renewable electricity is not set by the price of gas, as is the case now. You don’t regulate gas, you change the way the proce of electricity is calculated when produced by a business only producing energy from green sources. I don’t really know where to start with this. The cost of products by renewables isn’t a whole lot less than the cost of fossil fuel production, in ordinary times. In ordinary times, is a very important qualifier. Absent war in Ukraine and pandemic stop/start production hardly anybody would be talking about energy prices. It’s also useful to understand that most of the electricity currently being consumed has been paid for at nowhere near the current market rate. It’s that marginal pricing. I’m at a loss to know why you think a nationalised organisation will be able to procure imported gas more cheaply and/or increase domestic renewables production more quickly than the existing players. How do you change the way the price of renewables is calculated without driving out private sector investment? Full disclosure, I’m quite heavily invested (given my relatively modest means) in renewables both in the UK and overseas. My largest holding is with a fairly boring investment trust that pays around 5% dividend. Checking the financials the profitability has hardly changed much over the past several years (those contracts at play I presume). What do you want to do? I’m cool with a nationalised firm setting up in competition because I’m fairly certain it wouldn’t be able to compete and produce more cheaply. I’m willing to take the rough with the smooth but if you want to regulate the price I’m fucking off and investing elsewhere to be honest 🙂 unless you want to put a floor as well as a cap on the price. Then I might reconsider. By the way. I’m sure we had this discussion last week. I’m getting de ja vu (or however it’s spelt). 😀 Have a nice weekend.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Jan 27, 2023 18:48:07 GMT
I’m trying to work out what Labour are actually planning. Miliband is usually good on energy stuff.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Jan 27, 2023 19:31:44 GMT
We should stop giving tax breaks on the windfall tax if the producers invest in fossil fuels for a start. The same tax breaks don’t apply to renewable investment. Producers are reluctant to properly invest in renewables because they make so much money from fossil fuels. So a business run by the state only investing in renewables is in a great position to dominate the market if you regulate the price so that the electricity produced is cheaper than the electricity produced by companies who derive energy from both fossil fuel and renewable providers. Production of renewables is far cheaper and therefore can be charged to the consumers for far less if you change the way prices are currently regulated (by law, regulations are laws) so that the price of renewable electricity is not set by the price of gas, as is the case now. You don’t regulate gas, you change the way the proce of electricity is calculated when produced by a business only producing energy from green sources. I don’t really know where to start with this. The cost of products by renewables isn’t a whole lot less than the cost of fossil fuel production, in ordinary times. In ordinary times, is a very important qualifier. Absent war in Ukraine and pandemic stop/start production hardly anybody would be talking about energy prices. It’s also useful to understand that most of the electricity currently being consumed has been paid for at nowhere near the current market rate. It’s that marginal pricing. I’m at a loss to know why you think a nationalised organisation will be able to procure imported gas more cheaply and/or increase domestic renewables production more quickly than the existing players. How do you change the way the price of renewables is calculated without driving out private sector investment? Full disclosure, I’m quite heavily invested (given my relatively modest means) in renewables both in the UK and overseas. My largest holding is with a fairly boring investment trust that pays around 5% dividend. Checking the financials the profitability has hardly changed much over the past several years (those contracts at play I presume). What do you want to do? I’m cool with a nationalised firm setting up in competition because I’m fairly certain it wouldn’t be able to compete and produce more cheaply. I’m willing to take the rough with the smooth but if you want to regulate the price I’m fucking off and investing elsewhere to be honest 🙂 unless you want to put a floor as well as a cap on the price. Then I might reconsider. The nationalised organisation wouldn’t import gas. The current producers have no incentive to actually change to renewables. They make so much on fossil fuels, and that will only ever increase in price as there are limited resources. So green energy is obviously cheaper longer term. And why not a state owned company rather than the ridiculous monopoly at the moment getting rich beyond belief during a cost of living crisis. I am of the view essential things should be state owned. Energy is one.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 15, 2023 13:30:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Feb 15, 2023 13:50:36 GMT
If Corbyn stands as an independent in the Islingtom election he'll beat New New Labour hands down. Starmer needs to be very careful. He's in danger of splitting the party and letting in the Tories by default if the Tories can make up ground in the next two years. It would be ironic if those on the left of the Labour Party moved their allegiance to the Lib-Dems rather than voting for an autocratic leader of this new thing Starmer has created. Both the Tories and the Lib-Dems will be rubbing their hands with glee at what he's doing. I'm beginning to dislike Starmer as much as I do the Tories.
OS.
Ps. It will be interesting to see how the unions react to this. Some will be very angry and may withdraw their funding to Starmer's lot.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 15, 2023 13:58:22 GMT
The antisemitism scam comes to a convenient end. All is well in the world again.
One of the biggest McCarthyite scandals in modern day politics with the sole aim of keeping out a democratic socialist government and kicking the Israel/Palestine issue into touch, and the sad thing is the Jewish population of the UK have been used as collateral damage and are far less safe now than they were 10 years ago............
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 15, 2023 14:00:09 GMT
If Corbyn stands as an independent in the Islingtom election he'll beat New New Labour hands down. Starmer needs to be very careful. He's in danger of splitting the party and letting in the Tories by default if the Tories can make up ground in the next two years. It would be ironic if those on the left of the Labour Party moved their allegiance to the Lib-Dems rather than voting for an autocratic leader of this new thing Starmer has created. Both the Tories and the Lib-Dems will be rubbing their hands with glee at what he's doing. I'm beginning to dislike Starmer as much as I do the Tories. OS. Ps. It will be interesting to see how the unions react to this. Some will be very angry and may withdraw their funding to Starmer's lot. Starmer is one of the most duplicitous politicians of our time........
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 15, 2023 14:02:06 GMT
George Monbiot has entered the stables, 3 years after the horses bolted.....
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Feb 15, 2023 15:54:02 GMT
George Monbiot has entered the stables, 3 years after the horses bolted..... He's quite good at that is George.
|
|