news & politics:discussion

[steviewevie]

 

[fraybentos1]

Has anyone considered that if you put less money than the original 28bn into the policy then the same outcomes won’t be achievable over the same period of time?

Anyone?…

oh literally everyone has apart from one person

[fraybentos1]

49 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

well, it was never clear....now looks like will be official.

 

43 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

there will probably will be a lot more upset when announced.

 

40 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Yes the faux outrage will be back. 

How many times are we going to have to watch this bizarre, passive aggressive interaction on this thread? It’s very tiresome 

[steviewevie]

 

[fred quimby]

49 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Fortunately Labour remain committed to their green policies, clean energy by 2030 and home insulation etc. The Tories would rather people focus on the £28b. 

I am being lazy sorry and know you may have to hand. Do you have the policies, have heard about some of what they talked about but do you have the detail. Ta

[Guest]

1 minute ago, fred quimby said:

I am being lazy sorry and know you may have to hand. Do you have the policies, have heard about some of what they talked about but do you have the detail. Ta

I posted some of them a couple of days ago in here, if you go back a few pages you’ll find them. 

[fred quimby]

Found the plan doc so will have a read see what I have forgotten 

[fraybentos1]

3 minutes ago, fred quimby said:

Found the plan doc so will have a read see what I have forgotten 

If there’s anything you like I wouldn’t advise getting too attached cause they’ll likely water it down or reverse it as soon as it comes under a modicum of scrutiny 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, fred quimby said:

Found the plan doc so will have a read see what I have forgotten 

A rock and roll evening for you.

[Neil]

2 hours ago, Skip997 said:

What else did you expect, as soon as I saw the proposals I knew it was a no go.

He'll not stop until Gaza is cleared.

it's all Bibi's fault!, nothing to do with Hamas's 4 months of wanting the conflict to continue.

[fred quimby]

53 minutes ago, fred quimby said:

Found the plan doc so will have a read see what I have forgotten 

Had a read through. Remembered more than I thought. Obviously would like more ambition but understand that is just me. 

Alot does depend on investment and hope they don't allow it to all go private. Will have to see what they say over the next few months

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, fred quimby said:

Had a read through. Remembered more than I thought. Obviously would like more ambition but understand that is just me. 

Alot does depend on investment and hope they don't allow it to all go private. Will have to see what they say over the next few months

I think the ambition is the timeframe, clean energy by 2030 seems very ambitious to me. If the U.K. can get there in that time frame then we’ll have done an incredible job with both public and private sectors working together. 

[fred quimby]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I think the ambition is the timeframe, clean energy by 2030 seems very ambitious to me. If the U.K. can get there in that time frame then we’ll have done an incredible job with both public and private sectors working together. 

Well they want clean energy as part of the mix as fossil fuels are still in there. 

Need to see the detail on how they would do the partnership with private sector as they can end up costing alot over years as we pay them back. But the investment is needed. 

[fred quimby]

Will have to see what they say about reducing/cutting out the £28bn and how that affects the plans. Not that they will be honest and things will move to the right no doubt as these things always do

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, fred quimby said:

Well they want clean energy as part of the mix as fossil fuels are still in there. 

Need to see the detail on how they would do the partnership with private sector as they can end up costing alot over years as we pay them back. But the investment is needed. 

Well yeah because we can’t just switch off fossil fuels and be done with it. It has to be gradual but by 2030 all things going well we use clean energy.

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

So, what I’ve been saying all along. 

[Skip997]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

I think the ambition is the timeframe, clean energy by 2030 seems very ambitious to me. If the U.K. can get there in that time frame then we’ll have done an incredible job with both public and private sectors working together. 

100% clean energy?

They haven't got a hope in hell. Sure they may be able to get all electricity production "clean" by then, but only by continuing to use nuclear, which although relatively low carbon is not clean.

The big problem is transport.  Even if they managed to get all cars/vans etc running on electric, (very ambitious) there's still HGV/shipping/aviation/railways.

There are some relatively quick fixes, one "no brainer" which to the best of my knowledge isn't even in consideration, is using canals to transport non perishables.

But there is very little joined up thinking and real long term planning happening.

Said it before but a major problem is the 5 year government, it discourages the above and encourages parties to focus on retaining or regaining power. If we're to have any chance they the political parties need to properly work together long term.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

100% clean energy?

They haven't got a hope in hell. Sure they may be able to get all electricity production "clean" by then, but only by continuing to use nuclear, which although relatively low carbon is not clean.

The big problem is transport.  Even if they managed to get all cars/vans etc running on electric, (very ambitious) there's still HGV/shipping/aviation/railways.

There are some relatively quick fixes, one "no brainer" which to the best of my knowledge isn't even in consideration, is using canals to transport non perishables.

But there is very little joined up thinking and real long term planning happening.

Said it before but a major problem is the 5 year government, it discourages the above and encourages parties to focus on retaining or regaining power. If we're to have any chance they the political parties need to properly work together long term.

Yes it’s very ambitious and exactly the type of ambition I thought you would welcome. Maybe if it wasn’t Starmer’s Labour saying it you’d be more welcoming of the plan. 

[steviewevie]

10 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

100% clean energy?

They haven't got a hope in hell. Sure they may be able to get all electricity production "clean" by then, but only by continuing to use nuclear, which although relatively low carbon is not clean.

The big problem is transport.  Even if they managed to get all cars/vans etc running on electric, (very ambitious) there's still HGV/shipping/aviation/railways.

There are some relatively quick fixes, one "no brainer" which to the best of my knowledge isn't even in consideration, is using canals to transport non perishables.

But there is very little joined up thinking and real long term planning happening.

Said it before but a major problem is the 5 year government, it discourages the above and encourages parties to focus on retaining or regaining power. If we're to have any chance they the political parties need to properly work together long term.

What powers the boats and barges on the canals?

[steviewevie]

Still, takes the attention away from Sunak f**kups.

[Skip997]

5 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Yes it’s very ambitious and exactly the type of ambition I thought you would welcome. Maybe if it wasn’t Starmer’s Labour saying it you’d be more welcoming of the plan. 

I don't really care who is saying it or where it's coming from and of course we should try.

All I'm saying is that I know enough (Fdsc Renewable Energy Technologies, BSC Hons 2:1 Environmental Resource Management) to know that with the way we're going and the huge scale of the problem it's highly unlikely we will get anywhere near.

[Guest]

Just now, steviewevie said:

Still, takes the attention away from Sunak f**kups.

I imagine they are thinking the opposite, most of the attention will be on Sunak so they can get this out of the way. 

[steviewevie]

Securinomics is going to be a big let down if everything dictated by Reeves' fiscal bloody rules all the time.

[Guest]

Just now, Skip997 said:

I don't really care who is saying it or where it's coming from and of course we should try.

All I'm saying is that I know enough (Fdsc Renewable Energy Technologies, BSC Hons 2:1 Environmental Resource Management) to know that with the way we're going and the huge scale of the problem it's highly unlikely we will get anywhere near.

So what’s your point? Just seems like another excuse to moan about Labours plans even though it’d be something you support from anyone else.