UK Politics General Discussion

[GooseOnTheLoose]

And off topic, with all this flu about, you been grounded yet goosey?

Sadly I have not been able to emigrate south this winter, but do I get my wings back in a few weeks and will be seeking warmer climates, where I hear there might also be some coasters.

Provided Defra don't catch me first.

 

[Tom]

Still waiting for that so call 'good stuff'. Everything so far has been doom gloom lurching from one disaster to the next. Water bills up, energy bills up again, unemployment up, council tax significantly up for some.

Reeves is absolutely hammering retail leisure and tourism business. Triple whammy of NI increases, minimum wage increase and business rates relief reductions.

People wonder why Reform are polling well here's your answer. People want a bit of new Labour bounce and optimism after 14 years of the Tories and what were getting is just as bad if not worse. 22 billion black hole and all that nonsense

That’s precisely my point. The populist stuff will be drip fed between now and the next four years.

 

[Matt N]

We’ve had some potentially good news for the Labour government, particularly the likes of Ed Miliband, in their fight against right wing populism; according to the CBI, the net zero economy in the UK is “booming”: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...booming-cbi-green-sector-jobs-energy-security

The net zero economy is growing three times faster than the UK economy at large at present, and it’s also providing higher average wages than the country’s job market at large. Furthermore, it’s also growing fairly uniformly around the UK, allaying the age-old concern about London and the South East prospering while the rest of the UK flounders. Interestingly, the biggest regions for net zero economy growth are the West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber and South West England.

With this in mind, could Labour’s bet on all things green with the likes of Great British Energy potentially provide the key to economic growth?

At very least, I personally feel that this report by the CBI proves that going green and growing the economy are not mutually exclusive, and also provides strong ammunition against net zero sceptics like Reform UK who claim that “net zero is crippling the economy”.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

At very least, I personally feel that this report by the CBI proves that going green and growing the economy are not mutually exclusive, and also provides strong ammunition against net zero sceptics like Reform UK who claim that “net zero is crippling the economy”.

Yeah, but... GO WOKE GO BROKE!

It rhymes. Must be true.

Take any CBI report with a pinch of salt. They are Britain's largest lobby group for businesses, so they have a vested interest in trumpeting British businesses, whether they're actually successful or not.

 

[Quantum]

I'd rather be spending the money on defence than net zero. We have the most expensive electricity in Europe, Milliband is making things worse, the only people benefitting from Net Zero is the like of Dale Vance.

 

[Matt.GC]

Because, although populists get all emotional with the "go woke, go broke" falacy, Green is good for business.

China is investing heavily in Green energy, and are the biggest polluters on the planet. They make **** cars and rollercoasters, yet make clones of Range Rovers and Intamins.

Are they just big fans of Janguar Land Rover, rollercoasters, and polar bears?

No. They're a communist dictaroshi attempting to compete with, and dominate, mainly capitalist democracies. Hence why the other dictarship over in the USA is destined to long-term failure.

Green is growth, simple as. I don't understand why populists don't understand this?

 

[flyingguitar]

I'd rather be spending the money on defence than net zero. We have the most expensive electricity in Europe, Milliband is making things worse, the only people benefitting from Net Zero is the like of Dale Vance.

why?
electric prices have less to do with net zero and more to do with the Tories and shell making £20+million in profit during the Ukraine war.

net zero can actually help reduce prices for electricity, as unreliable pricing such as oil and gas can be eliminated for more consistent and known price (primarily the price of installation) of green infrastructure.

it also helps with our industries, funding research by businesses, for instance hydrogen trains research has recently shown a new hydrogen shunter at seven valley, funded and worked on by people in the uk:
From: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFSTJt9Qi5E&t=158s


Net zero also means we are less reliant on exterior forces (Russia, china etc) for natural resources as net zero isn't just CO2 (it is mainly) but also reducing the amount of non renewable material we dig up from the ground

 

[flyingguitar]

To drive this home a bit I am kate (https://grid.iamkate.com/) gives data on the grid, we are currently running 14% fossil fuels, the rest are renewable/green, over 50% of our power right now is wind.

you can see the average price each day (week view shows this effect better) corresponds with the amount of electricity generated by gas on the generation graph (gas is shown in orange) (only non renewable left)

 

[rob666]

... over 50% of our power right now is wind...

Sorry to be the obvious pedant here, but about 5% of our energy "right now" is wind generated, as typical wind speeds "right now" are around 5mph, and are forecast as such all day.
Overall around 30% of our power comes from wind...2024 figures.

More power storage is needed, essential with such sources.

 

[Dave]

I'd rather be spending the money on defence than net zero. We have the most expensive electricity in Europe, Milliband is making things worse, the only people benefitting from Net Zero is the like of Dale Vance.

This isn’t a zero sum game, net zero is not all that costly.

The two big issues at the moment for energy costs are lack of storage and the fact the south east is subsidised by the rest of the UK. We don’t pay for our energy regionally, so those areas with a lot of renewable generation pay more to subsidise those areas heavily dependant of fossil fuels (mostly the south east as they resisted wind farms). One of the changes I would like to see is regional pricing, that way Scotland and the north would see prices plummet, and the south might then actually embrace the renewable generation.

As for defence v net zero, net zero doesn’t cost the government (in fact the industry generates money for the government) so it has no impact on defence spending, that’s impacted by our relatively average tax rates, if you want defence spending lobby for tax increases (or cut the NHS, but that wouldn’t be popular).

 

[flyingguitar]

Sorry to be the obvious pedant here, but about 5% of our energy "right now" is wind generated, as typical wind speeds "right now" are around 5mph, and are forecast as such all day.
Overall around 30% of our power comes from wind...2024 figures.

More power storage is needed, essential with such sources.

looking at the data the lowest percentage of wind power generated today was 35%, storage dose need to be a thing with renewables, but the UK is really good at wind power, it is quite reliable and storage is mainly a problem of infrastructure and needs to be built, once that is done the only cost is a bit of maintenance.

The two big issues at the moment for energy costs are lack of storage and the fact the south east is subsidised by the rest of the UK. We don’t pay for our energy regionally, so those areas with a lot of renewable generation pay more to subsidise those areas heavily dependant of fossil fuels (mostly the south east as they resisted wind farms). One of the changes I would like to see is regional pricing, that way Scotland and the north would see prices plummet, and the south might then actually embrace the renewable generation.

I don't think the south is that resistant for it, mainly a lot of the industry is up in Scotland (building the turbines, installing, etc) and that is probably because the highland and north sea are really windy, if you wanted to build a wind farm would you so it where there is low wind, or reliable higher wind. both would cost about the same but one would generate much more energy.

 

[Quantum]

As if by magic the defence budget has been increased by 2.5%which is welcome but we need to get to 3% as a bare minimum. The United States are giving up on Europe. I will also commend Steamer for taking a chunk out of Foreign aid, which is great when times are good but times are not good and we need security first. It's also an industry that supports thousand of highly skilled jobs.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I will also commend Steamer for taking a chunk out of Foreign aid, which is great when times are good but times are not good and we need security first.

Studies have continuously demonstrated that foreign aid spending decreases the need for defence spending, as people are less likely to fight if they have access to basic human rights and necessities.

Foreign aid spending is also critical when trying to implement as stable an environment as possible in conflict zones, during and after the fighting.

Starmer's cut to foreign aid spending is incredibly concerning, as it comes hot on the heels of the destruction of USAid by Musk and Trump.

It's all well and good spending on defence, but you actually ought to have something to defend first.

 

[Squiggs]

As if by magic the defence budget has been increased by 2.5%which is welcome but we need to get to 3% as a bare minimum.

It's being increased to 2.5% of GDP. It's already 2.3%.

 

[Dave]

As if by magic the defence budget has been increased by 2.5%which is welcome but we need to get to 3% as a bare minimum. The United States are giving up on Europe. I will also commend Steamer for taking a chunk out of Foreign aid, which is great when times are good but times are not good and we need security first. It's also an industry that supports thousand of highly skilled jobs.

I don’t envy Starmers choice here but he was clear he didn’t want to cut aid spending but as this country refuses to pay taxes for the things it wants there was limited wiggle room.

If you don’t like migration then this cut in aid spending will increase the migrant pressure.

 

[IanB]

The issue Labour had is they promised not to raise taxes. The state of the finance and the situation we are in clearly needs tax rises. With the local elections coming up in May, why not use that as an opportunity to put it to a public vote.

We made this promise to not raise taxes, so we are going to keep it, but there is things that need funding which can only be done via tax rises, so if you want to have this and that, we need to raise this and that tax.

The public can then vote for it or against it. If the public vote for it, it gets Labour out of the bind they are in, they can increase tax with the backing of the public, and fund what they agreed to. If the public don't vote for it, then it means more cost cuttings and savings.

 

[WillPS]

The issue Labour had is they promised not to raise taxes. The state of the finance and the situation we are in clearly needs tax rises. With the local elections coming up in May, why not use that as an opportunity to put it to a public vote.

Pinning national issues on a local election while in government is a no win situation.

Voters tend to punish them, which inevitably gives their detractors ammunition; but even if they do relatively well those detractors will just say legitimately that people weren't voting on those issues - if, indeed, they were voting at all.

 

[Tom]

Democracy rarely leads to anyone not promising tax freezes or tax cuts.

A real deterrence to migration is strong security, border control, and possibly more so deterrence to other countries starting conflicts, which displace far more people than a lack of foreign aid (overseas funding) ever would.

All the US is doing is trying to shock Europe into getting its act together and paying its way, lessening the burden on the US. Europe is strategically critical to the US as it neighbours Russia - the day they give up on Europe would be the day they align with China. Think about it strategically. Trump is being fairly effective in snapping people into action simply through fear.

 

[flyingguitar]

All the US is doing is trying to shock Europe into getting its act together and paying its way, lessening the burden on the US. Europe is strategically critical to the US as it neighbours Russia - the day they give up on Europe would be the day they align with China. Think about it strategically. Trump is being fairly effective in snapping people into action simply through fear.

you say that but who is the only one who has used NATO?

America
I think it was Iraq / Afghanistan they got NATO involved

and consider how many times the UK, Canada, etc has helped the US out in their wars (Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc)

I do thing the UK and Europe should increase their logistical forces as they were apparently heavily reliant on the US, the US can complain but they got the F-35 cheap because other NATO countries paid for them and their development.

They get to be the super power of the world, that comes with a cost for their military.

 

[rob666]

In forty years of voting, I can't recall a single election campaign where a party promised to raise taxes after being elected, not one.
Blair could have, and should have, but didn't...a big part of our full divided society today...the haves, and the have nots.

To go back to my favourite topic of aviation use, around half of people in this country are planning international flights this year, down 1% I am pleased to say.
25% of our population have never been on a plane in their lives.

Haves and have nots.

We have had military on the cheap post ww2.

Time to start paying our way in the real world.