UK Politics

[Nobody Interesting]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

They’re gonna borrow for long term investment plans such as the Green policies but for day to day spending at the moment they’ve ruled it out.

 

If anything I think that any further tax cuts by the Tories opens up Labour to justify putting taxes back up saying that the Tories have been reckless but that will be said after the election I would imagine. 

Last II read was that the Green P:olicies now had a funding amount of zero so nothing to borrow - or have they back tracked on the back track to spend £28 billion a year?

[Nobody Interesting]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

Victory for common sense motorist types in Wales as looks like they're going to uturn on the 20mph thing...

And Greens going to vote on whether to ditch power sharing with SNP over that carbon uturn thingy.

Here endeth your news roundup.

As a citizen of Wales I see nothing wrong with the 20mph scheme - what I do see is, like Uxbridge, a minority of noisy moaners gettign policy changed.

Sends a really bad message that if you moan loud enough you will get change in election years.

Re Scotland, I did say when the news broke that the Greens were very unhappy about it and had tried to stop the change but they are a small minority so were voted down in the coalition. Now we will see how unhappy.

[clarkete]

1 hour ago, Ommadawn said:

It's a gift that keeps on giving.

 

 

[Ommadawn]

1 hour ago, clarkete said:

 

 

 

...and him as well.

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Last II read was that the Green P:olicies now had a funding amount of zero so nothing to borrow - or have they back tracked on the back track to spend £28 billion a year?

 

Not zero, not 28billion either.

[Nobody Interesting]

27 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

Not zero, not 28billion either.

How much then - what is their policy?

[steviewevie]

45 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

How much then - what is their policy?

 

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Make-Britain-a-Clean-Energy-Superpower.pdf

[Nobody Interesting]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Make-Britain-a-Clean-Energy-Superpower.pdf

 

Well I have looked at it and failed to see a single amount of public money spending being talked about - so if it is there can you please point us readers in the right direction.

As it stands I will stand by my previous comment of zero borrowing as there is zero public spending mentioned......... but my eyesight is old so maybe I missed it and you will show me where.

[steviewevie]

8 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Well I have looked at it and failed to see a single amount of public money spending being talked about - so if it is there can you please point us readers in the right direction.

As it stands I will stand by my previous comment of zero borrowing as there is zero public spending mentioned......... but my eyesight is old so maybe I missed it and you will show me where.

 

They're not saying how much. Nothing costs zero though. End goal is same, a clean energy paradise by the end of the decade 

Edited April 20 by steviewevie

[steviewevie]

This lot did costing...and they reckon labour's plan would cost ~15bn/annum up until 2030.

 

Policy Exchange - Decarbonising the Grid

[Nobody Interesting]

20 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

They're not saying how much. Nothing costs zero though. End goal is same, a clean energy paradise by the end of the decade 

 

9 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

This lot did costing...and they reckon labour's plan would cost ~15bn/annum up until 2030.

 

Policy Exchange - Decarbonising the Grid

 

Labour keep on making a big point that everything they announce is FULLY COSTED  so if there is a cost, and the Labour policy shows zero public funding, just lots of references to private input, then it is not fully costed.

As I have looked and you have been unable to show me any difference then there is zero public funding mentioned in this policy - so zero cost equals zero borrowing as I said in the first instance.

Incidently, if the UK could get to 100% clean electrcity by 2030 for £15 billion a year in 5 years then that would be amazing - the real cost is likely 10 times that amount as upgrading the National Grid alone would cost loads more than is mentioned anywhere

[steviewevie]

Just now, Nobody Interesting said:

 

 

Labour keep on making a big point that everything they announce is FULLY COSTED  so if there is a cost, and the Labour policy shows zero public funding, just lots of references to private input, then it is not fully costed.

As I have looked and you have been unable to show me any difference then there is zero public funding mentioned in this policy - so zero cost equals zero borrowing as I said in the first instance.

Incidently, if the UK could get to 100% clean electrcity by 2030 for £15 billion a year in 5 years then that would be amazing - the real cost is likely 10 times that amount as upgrading the National Grid alone would cost loads more than is mentioned anywhere

ok...I guess you're right, Labour are going to invest no money into their clean energy plans and to reach it anyway is going to cost 150bn per year which we really can't afford so may as well ditch it.

Anti net zero parties are going to win big in EU and Trump is going to win in November so it's all hosed anyway.

[lost]

12 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

This lot did costing...and they reckon labour's plan would cost ~15bn/annum up until 2030.

 

Policy Exchange - Decarbonising the Grid

 

That link seems to suggest the money would be spent on "some stuff" but that stuff wouldn't achieve net zero

 

Quote

Labour have set a more ambitious target of a zero carbon electricity system by 2030

Neither a ‘zero carbon electricity system’ or ‘100% percent clean power’ is explicitly defined within their plan

 

Aurora’s modelling shows that NZ 2030 is deemed an infeasible scenario, justified by an insufficient time available to conduct what would be a radical overhaul of the power system, policy, planning systems and investment landscape. The speed required to build critical technologies – including offshore wind, onshore wind and solar – would need to increase to multiple times their historical installation speed, as would investment in grid capacity.

[Nobody Interesting]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

ok...I guess you're right, Labour are going to invest no money into their clean energy plans and to reach it anyway is going to cost 150bn per year which we really can't afford so may as well ditch it.

Anti net zero parties are going to win big in EU and Trump is going to win in November so it's all hosed anyway.

 

Well given the rich western world has spent years using China as a reason to not do anything but are now using China doing 'too much' complaining that China is driving down the cost of solar panels and renewable tech as a reason why we are still not doing enough - yep time to give up cos nobody seems to want to be arsed to do anything and before the new likely government even get into power the main policy, one of their most popular in polls, is funded with no money so cannot even start to happen.

Glad I will not be around to live through the f**ked up mess humans are making of this planet.

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

This lot did costing...and they reckon labour's plan would cost ~15bn/annum up until 2030.

 

Policy Exchange - Decarbonising the Grid

Labour took the focus away from the costing of their policy as that’s all the Tories/media were focussing on. They’ve said before that they’ll borrow to funding big public spending projects they’ve just taken the figure away so it’s not so much an albatross around their neck. 

[steviewevie]

17 minutes ago, lost said:

 

That link seems to suggest the money would be spent on "some stuff" but that stuff wouldn't achieve net zero

 

Yeah well it won't happen here or anywhere I expect, but doesn't mean shouldn't try and do as much as possible.

[Nobody Interesting]

2 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Labour took the focus away from the costing of their policy as that’s all the Tories/media were focussing on. They’ve said before that they’ll borrow to funding big public spending projects they’ve just taken the figure away so it’s not so much an albatross around their neck. 

 

You obviously did not see Rachel Reeves talking on BBC News when they said something very different to this.

Still, carry on the blind belief as long as you are prepared to be disappointed and admit they were not the gold plated wonders you thought they were........................ I shall happily admit I was wrong when they do wonders and get their policy on this done by 2030 - which they have no chance of doing I am afraid.

[steviewevie]

8 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

You obviously did not see Rachel Reeves talking on BBC News when they said something very different to this.

Still, carry on the blind belief as long as you are prepared to be disappointed and admit they were not the gold plated wonders you thought they were........................ I shall happily admit I was wrong when they do wonders and get their policy on this done by 2030 - which they have no chance of doing I am afraid.

 

Save this one Ozanne. 

[Guest]

 

[lost]

59 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Yeah well it won't happen here or anywhere I expect, but doesn't mean shouldn't try and do as much as possible.

 

According to the link you posted we will hit net zero in 2051 based on current investment levels. Even the Tory target of 2035 needs an extra £104.6bn

Edited April 20 by lost

[steviewevie]

10 minutes ago, lost said:

 

According to the link you posted we will hit net zero in 2051 based on current investment levels. Even the Tory target of 2035 needs an extra £104.6bn

 

well yeah, it's going to be expensive...but not doing anything will be expensive too. Basically we're f**ked, hopefully a 3rd world war will distract us.

[Nobody Interesting]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

 

Save this one Ozanne. 

I am sure they will....................... but then deny anything and everything they were wrong about like always.

Always good though to see the Chuckle Brothers working together.

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

I am sure they will....................... but then deny anything and everything they were wrong about like always.

Always good though to see the Chuckle Brothers working together.

 

they?

[mattiloy]

4 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

I am sure they will....................... but then deny anything and everything they were wrong about like always.

Always good though to see the Chuckle Brothers working together.

 

Labour being taken over by Thatcherites is good because Ian Dunt said so. Look how smart we are.

[Nobody Interesting]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

they?

When describing a third party whose gender you do not know it is normal to use the word 'they'.

Basic English Grammar.