It's not really a Labour Government issue, is it? I mean, the actual last closure of a coal-fired power station happened while they were in power but the policy goes back far further than the election.
Sure - but it hasn't been mentioned anywhere on the ship, and it forms part of the context for the pursuit of any green agenda. Also I believe the last government were backing a new mine and fracking, and this one isn't.
Sure - but it hasn't been mentioned anywhere on the ship, and it forms part of the context for the pursuit of any green agenda.
Yeah, but the wider context is that the UK still uses gas for around 30% of it's electricity generating needs (see the yearly chart here: https://grid.iamkate.com/ ), and so you could argue that the context includes the knock on effects of an earlier 'dash for gas'.
Additionally there's an annoying line labelled 'biomass', representing coal powered stations burning wood pellets over which there are serious questions of sustainability.
4. The media narrative is that it's the new lot that have the corruption/influence problem.
I don't read it that way - I think it's more "the new lot are corrupt as well". Which, when they went fairly hard against Tory Corruption during the election campaign, is a reasonable thing to report on.
Labour shouldn't be treated any worse than the Tories by the press, but they shouldn't be treated any better either. And for my $0.02 I don't care if it was declared by Starmer or not - I want to know what Lord Alli was really buying with all that money, because I don't believe for one second that he'd drop tens of thousands of pounds on clothes and glasses for the Starmers purely out of the goodness of his heart.
Ok. Tell me, if we'd worked together on a project, would you consider giving me £15 for some celebratory drinks?
A shared round of drinks at a bar is a far cry from celebrating by buying you tens of thousands of pounds worth of clothes and accessories.
Yes and no.
I chose the numbers carefully. Lord Alli has a net worth of reportedly £200m. Obviously I have no idea what your net worth is - nor would I presume to pry - but if, for the sake of argument it is £300k then the size of the donation Lord Alli made to his own party leader is the same proportionately as you spending £15 to get me a couple of drinks (One in London? ). It is not the case that for someone of his wealth to be donating to his own party leader automatically means he is expecting anything in return (beyond the interests of a party he's been a member of for decades). I remain of the view that all sorts of gifts that wash through politics are far from ideal and the system needs fixing. However, the assumptions being made here are based on very little. I learnt today that Alli did not ever use the Downing Street Pass that the press made such a fuss about.
Yesterday Scottish Labour lost two council by-elections it was expected to win really easily despite pouring lots of campaigning resources into them and Anas Sarwar himself coming up to campaign. They were important as they would have made Dundee Council change hands from the SNP if they'd won. The SNP vote fell but a lot of Labour supporters didn't vote.
Labour insiders told the Daily Record (which is a Labour supporting paper) that what they kept hearing from voters was about the 'freebies' plus withdrawal of winter fuel allowance as to why they wouldn't be supporting them.
So there you go - not only wrong but self-defeating.
There is a weak correlation between Council results and national elections at the best of times. It is nonsense to extrapolate from council By-elections 5 years before the next GE.
The Scottish Elections will be meaningful.
Besides, there are very good arguments against universal winter fuel payments.
By the way, for anyone interested in the history of gifts in politics, today's episode of The Bunker is fascinating.
I knew that Benjamin Disraelli was given a stately home but I had no idea of how Churchill was permanently in debt and lived a very lavish lifestyle from gifts and hospitality.
I'm not extrapolating anything about a UK general election - just reporting what Labour's own party workers who canvassed for them reported - those right wing stooges!
I've been watching Scottish council by-elections for some time. Rural seats with a lot of independents don't tell you very much but the trend in general has been grim for the SNP so this is surprising.
Sure you can claim it's an outlier but Labour is also falling in the Scottish polls post - election.
The elections up here are 2026 which is much closer.
So er... thanks for the services to Scottish independence but after such a long Tory government a little of the Labour Party not being awful and enthusiastically justifying it might go a long way with the voters...
4. The media narrative is that it's the new lot that have the corruption/influence problem.
I don't read it that way - I think it's more "the new lot are corrupt as well". Which, when they went fairly hard against Tory Corruption during the election campaign, is a reasonable thing to report on.
Labour shouldn't be treated any worse than the Tories by the press, but they shouldn't be treated any better either. And for my $0.02 I don't care if it was declared by Starmer or not - I want to know what Lord Alli was really buying with all that money, because I don't believe for one second that he'd drop tens of thousands of pounds on clothes and glasses for the Starmers purely out of the goodness of his heart.
Ok. Tell me, if we'd worked together on a project, would you consider giving me £15 for some celebratory drinks?
A shared round of drinks at a bar is a far cry from celebrating by buying you tens of thousands of pounds worth of clothes and accessories.
Yes and no.
I chose the numbers carefully. Lord Alli has a net worth of reportedly £200m. Obviously I have no idea what your net worth is - nor would I presume to pry - but if, for the sake of argument it is £300k then the size of the donation Lord Alli made to his own party leader is the same proportionately as you spending £15 to get me a couple of drinks (One in London? ). It is not the case that for someone of his wealth to be donating to his own party leader automatically means he is expecting anything in return (beyond the interests of a party he's been a member of for decades). I remain of the view that all sorts of gifts that wash through politics are far from ideal and the system needs fixing. However, the assumptions being made here are based on very little. I learnt today that Alli did not ever use the Downing Street Pass that the press made such a fuss about.
I chose the numbers carefully. Lord Alli has a net worth of reportedly £200m. Obviously I have no idea what your net worth is - nor would I presume to pry - but if, for the sake of argument it is £300k then the size of the donation Lord Alli made to his own party leader is the same proportionately as you spending £15 to get me a couple of drinks
This is ridiculous argument; the effect of the donation relates to the benefit it gives the recipient, not on how it reflects on the donors fortune.
What this shows is that British politics is relatively cheap to buy into (a point also made by Simon Kuper in his recent book), not that we need to measure donations by the proportion of the donors wealth they represent.
I chose the numbers carefully. Lord Alli has a net worth of reportedly £200m. Obviously I have no idea what your net worth is - nor would I presume to pry - but if, for the sake of argument it is £300k then the size of the donation Lord Alli made to his own party leader is the same proportionately as you spending £15 to get me a couple of drinks
This is ridiculous argument; the effect of the donation relates to the benefit it gives the recipient, not on how it reflects on the donors fortune.
What this shows is that British politics is relatively cheap to buy into (a point also made by Simon Kuper in his recent book), not that we need to measure donations by the proportion of the donors wealth they represent.
There is a difference between donating to the party coffers and donating to individuals. That is the flaw that few are pointing out. If Ali wants to support the party then he should pay into the general fund and not individuals. I’m sure he does already but the extra would be useful.
I chose the numbers carefully. Lord Alli has a net worth of reportedly £200m. Obviously I have no idea what your net worth is - nor would I presume to pry - but if, for the sake of argument it is £300k then the size of the donation Lord Alli made to his own party leader is the same proportionately as you spending £15 to get me a couple of drinks
This is ridiculous argument; the effect of the donation relates to the benefit it gives the recipient, not on how it reflects on the donors fortune.
What this shows is that British politics is relatively cheap to buy into (a point also made by Simon Kuper in his recent book), not that we need to measure donations by the proportion of the donors wealth they represent.
This.
Yes and No.
The argument was that Lord Alli expects something in return. I.e. The implication is that it's far too much money to just donate to a cause. It is indeed small change for him. That may not be the only factor but it is a relevant factor.
I'm not extrapolating anything about a UK general election - just reporting what Labour's own party workers who canvassed for them reported - those right wing stooges!
I've been watching Scottish council by-elections for some time. Rural seats with a lot of independents don't tell you very much but the trend in general has been grim for the SNP so this is surprising.
Sure you can claim it's an outlier but Labour is also falling in the Scottish polls post - election.
The elections up here are 2026 which is much closer.
So er... thanks for the services to Scottish independence but after such a long Tory government a little of the Labour Party not being awful and enthusiastically justifying it might go a long way with the voters...
There's an argument that SNP voters switched to Labour in July for two reasons, one being the issues around SNP finances and a general perception that the SNP Scottish Government hadn't delivered (though, my small anecdotal evidence from the door step is that this resulted in SNP voters staying home rather than voting for anyone else), the other because they expected a Labour government to rapidly reverse the worst excesses of Tory austerity and voted Labour to support that. Labour failure to deliver change, keeping the two child limit and evil "rape clause" as well as scrapping WFP and the gifts, has made people question that choice to vote for them - which would be reflected by a swing back to SNP in Scotland. I'm not sure where those voters will go in England, possibly the Greens.
I'm not extrapolating anything about a UK general election - just reporting what Labour's own party workers who canvassed for them reported - those right wing stooges!
I've been watching Scottish council by-elections for some time. Rural seats with a lot of independents don't tell you very much but the trend in general has been grim for the SNP so this is surprising.
Sure you can claim it's an outlier but Labour is also falling in the Scottish polls post - election.
The elections up here are 2026 which is much closer.
So er... thanks for the services to Scottish independence but after such a long Tory government a little of the Labour Party not being awful and enthusiastically justifying it might go a long way with the voters...
There's an argument that SNP voters switched to Labour in July for two reasons, one being the issues around SNP finances and a general perception that the SNP Scottish Government hadn't delivered (though, my small anecdotal evidence from the door step is that this resulted in SNP voters staying home rather than voting for anyone else), the other because they expected a Labour government to rapidly reverse the worst excesses of Tory austerity and voted Labour to support that. Labour failure to deliver change, keeping the two child limit and evil "rape clause" as well as scrapping WFP and the gifts, has made people question that choice to vote for them - which would be reflected by a swing back to SNP in Scotland. I'm not sure where those voters will go in England, possibly the Greens.
I'm not extrapolating anything about a UK general election - just reporting what Labour's own party workers who canvassed for them reported - those right wing stooges!
I've been watching Scottish council by-elections for some time. Rural seats with a lot of independents don't tell you very much but the trend in general has been grim for the SNP so this is surprising.
Sure you can claim it's an outlier but Labour is also falling in the Scottish polls post - election.
The elections up here are 2026 which is much closer.
So er... thanks for the services to Scottish independence but after such a long Tory government a little of the Labour Party not being awful and enthusiastically justifying it might go a long way with the voters...
There's an argument that SNP voters switched to Labour in July for two reasons, one being the issues around SNP finances and a general perception that the SNP Scottish Government hadn't delivered (though, my small anecdotal evidence from the door step is that this resulted in SNP voters staying home rather than voting for anyone else), the other because they expected a Labour government to rapidly reverse the worst excesses of Tory austerity and voted Labour to support that. Labour failure to deliver change, keeping the two child limit and evil "rape clause" as well as scrapping WFP and the gifts, has made people question that choice to vote for them - which would be reflected by a swing back to SNP in Scotland. I'm not sure where those voters will go in England, possibly the Greens.
And Reform…
Nope. The voters who switched from Labour to Reform are not the ones who care about these issues. Greens? Yes. Reform? No.
I'm not extrapolating anything about a UK general election - just reporting what Labour's own party workers who canvassed for them reported - those right wing stooges!
I've been watching Scottish council by-elections for some time. Rural seats with a lot of independents don't tell you very much but the trend in general has been grim for the SNP so this is surprising.
Sure you can claim it's an outlier but Labour is also falling in the Scottish polls post - election.
The elections up here are 2026 which is much closer.
So er... thanks for the services to Scottish independence but after such a long Tory government a little of the Labour Party not being awful and enthusiastically justifying it might go a long way with the voters...
There's an argument that SNP voters switched to Labour in July for two reasons, one being the issues around SNP finances and a general perception that the SNP Scottish Government hadn't delivered (though, my small anecdotal evidence from the door step is that this resulted in SNP voters staying home rather than voting for anyone else), the other because they expected a Labour government to rapidly reverse the worst excesses of Tory austerity and voted Labour to support that. Labour failure to deliver change, keeping the two child limit and evil "rape clause" as well as scrapping WFP and the gifts, has made people question that choice to vote for them - which would be reflected by a swing back to SNP in Scotland. I'm not sure where those voters will go in England, possibly the Greens.
And Reform…
Nope. The voters who switched from Labour to Reform are not the ones who care about these issues. Greens? Yes. Reform? No.
No, the one’s that *are going* to switch from Labour to Reform…
I'm not extrapolating anything about a UK general election - just reporting what Labour's own party workers who canvassed for them reported - those right wing stooges!
I've been watching Scottish council by-elections for some time. Rural seats with a lot of independents don't tell you very much but the trend in general has been grim for the SNP so this is surprising.
Sure you can claim it's an outlier but Labour is also falling in the Scottish polls post - election.
The elections up here are 2026 which is much closer.
So er... thanks for the services to Scottish independence but after such a long Tory government a little of the Labour Party not being awful and enthusiastically justifying it might go a long way with the voters...
There's an argument that SNP voters switched to Labour in July for two reasons, one being the issues around SNP finances and a general perception that the SNP Scottish Government hadn't delivered (though, my small anecdotal evidence from the door step is that this resulted in SNP voters staying home rather than voting for anyone else), the other because they expected a Labour government to rapidly reverse the worst excesses of Tory austerity and voted Labour to support that. Labour failure to deliver change, keeping the two child limit and evil "rape clause" as well as scrapping WFP and the gifts, has made people question that choice to vote for them - which would be reflected by a swing back to SNP in Scotland. I'm not sure where those voters will go in England, possibly the Greens.
And Reform…
Nope. The voters who switched from Labour to Reform are not the ones who care about these issues. Greens? Yes. Reform? No.
No, the one’s that *are going* to switch from Labour to Reform…
I genuinely look forward to your and my post-mortem discussions following the next general election.
If we freeze frame now, I think we’ll both be wrong.
I'm not extrapolating anything about a UK general election - just reporting what Labour's own party workers who canvassed for them reported - those right wing stooges!
I've been watching Scottish council by-elections for some time. Rural seats with a lot of independents don't tell you very much but the trend in general has been grim for the SNP so this is surprising.
Sure you can claim it's an outlier but Labour is also falling in the Scottish polls post - election.
The elections up here are 2026 which is much closer.
So er... thanks for the services to Scottish independence but after such a long Tory government a little of the Labour Party not being awful and enthusiastically justifying it might go a long way with the voters...
There's an argument that SNP voters switched to Labour in July for two reasons, one being the issues around SNP finances and a general perception that the SNP Scottish Government hadn't delivered (though, my small anecdotal evidence from the door step is that this resulted in SNP voters staying home rather than voting for anyone else), the other because they expected a Labour government to rapidly reverse the worst excesses of Tory austerity and voted Labour to support that. Labour failure to deliver change, keeping the two child limit and evil "rape clause" as well as scrapping WFP and the gifts, has made people question that choice to vote for them - which would be reflected by a swing back to SNP in Scotland. I'm not sure where those voters will go in England, possibly the Greens.
And Reform…
Nope. The voters who switched from Labour to Reform are not the ones who care about these issues. Greens? Yes. Reform? No.
No, the one’s that *are going* to switch from Labour to Reform…
I genuinely look forward to your and my post-mortem discussions following the next general election.
If we freeze frame now, I think we’ll both be wrong.
Hee hee.
I strongly suspect the vote shares in 2029 will be roughly similar.
The Reform voters aren't going back to the Tories anytime soon. The Tory leader wannabes are doing their best to keep the other switchers from coming back. So I can't see the Tory voteshare going up much.
I think Reform has basically hit its ceiling but even if not, those disaffected Labour voters will go elsewhere, not to Reform. Traditional Labour voters who don't like Migration are the ones Reform is chasing.
Labour will be judged on what actually happens over the next 3-4 years...
This is ridiculous argument; the effect of the donation relates to the benefit it gives the recipient, not on how it reflects on the donors fortune.
Not entirely.
If I'm going to invest what for me would be a significant sum of money, I'd be wanting guarantees that I was going to get something of value in exchange for it. If I'm going to hand over the loose change I found down the back of the sofa, I almost don't care.
More precisely, it's £22b for unproven technology to allow the continued use of fossil fuels to generate electricity. There's probably good reasons to develop the technology for industries such as cement production, which will be very difficult to decarbonise. But, there's no real need to burn anything just to generate electricity, much less spending a lot of money to turn gas or oil into expensive hydrogen just to burn that instead. It's cheaper, and quicker, to simply cut how much stuff we need to burn - through efficiency improvements in buildings, electric heating, renewable generation etc.
More precisely, it's £22b for unproven technology to allow the continued use of fossil fuels to generate electricity. There's probably good reasons to develop the technology for industries such as cement production, which will be very difficult to decarbonise. But, there's no real need to burn anything just to generate electricity, much less spending a lot of money to turn gas or oil into expensive hydrogen just to burn that instead. It's cheaper, and quicker, to simply cut how much stuff we need to burn - through efficiency improvements in buildings, electric heating, renewable generation etc.
I think that's probably a little unfair.
I was looking for good evidence on this but not unexpectedly it's almost impossible to find the data and there's a lot of sources who may well be over confident.
Here's what I do know:
In the short term, the UK needs gas for electricity production. That's not going to change quickly. (In my view we should have gone hard for new nuclear 20 years ago but hey...).
I completely agree that ultimately electricity generation should be completely free of fossil fuels but carbon capture for certain industrial processes will be important. I was assuming that developing it for electricity production means it can be adapted to our applications too.
I heard Ed Miliband on R4 and he pointed to expert analysis that said carbon capture needs to be part of the mix. I have nowhere near the expertise needed to unpick this from the well-funded propaganda of the gas and oil industry.
I do believe is massive tree planting programs for which there is good evidence. But why not both?
What's the time frame for the £22bn?
AFZ
P.s. as an aside, I want to see serious analysis of the viability and benefits of big, radical projects like the Severn barrier for electricity generation and the Wash Barrage for fresh water preservation. I am encouraged by a government that seems prepared to think boldly.
The 22 billion is over 20-25 years. Remember though the Labs dropped their green bill due to cost. It cost 6 billion more. The green lobby is not happy. The deputy leader of the Green Party pointed that, Labs get a donation from a hedge fund in the Cayman Islands which has interests in fossil fuels and drops their green bill in favour of carbon capture so we can still burn fossil fuels.
More precisely, it's £22b for unproven technology to allow the continued use of fossil fuels to generate electricity. There's probably good reasons to develop the technology for industries such as cement production, which will be very difficult to decarbonise. But, there's no real need to burn anything just to generate electricity, much less spending a lot of money to turn gas or oil into expensive hydrogen just to burn that instead. It's cheaper, and quicker, to simply cut how much stuff we need to burn - through efficiency improvements in buildings, electric heating, renewable generation etc.
I think that's probably a little unfair.
I was looking for good evidence on this but not unexpectedly it's almost impossible to find the data and there's a lot of sources who may well be over confident.
Here's what I do know:
In the short term, the UK needs gas for electricity production. That's not going to change quickly. (In my view we should have gone hard for new nuclear 20 years ago but hey...).
I completely agree that ultimately electricity generation should be completely free of fossil fuels but carbon capture for certain industrial processes will be important. I was assuming that developing it for electricity production means it can be adapted to our applications too.
I heard Ed Miliband on R4 and he pointed to expert analysis that said carbon capture needs to be part of the mix. I have nowhere near the expertise needed to unpick this from the well-funded propaganda of the gas and oil industry.
I do believe is massive tree planting programs for which there is good evidence. But why not both?
What's the time frame for the £22bn?
AFZ
P.s. as an aside, I want to see serious analysis of the viability and benefits of big, radical projects like the Severn barrier for electricity generation and the Wash Barrage for fresh water preservation. I am encouraged by a government that seems prepared to think boldly.
At present, both technological carbon capture and technological carbon storage are developing and unproven - there is, of course, a fully developed and proven carbon capture and storage system that utilises trees, peat bogs, seagrass and kelp beds etc.
They are different technologies, capturing carbon directly from industrial processes will need to be a suite of technologies as each process will be different - the temperature of CO2 output from the process, the concentration of CO2 in the waste gas stream, what other gases are present will all vary between industrial process. Developing technology from blue hydrogen production (conversion of fossil fuels to hydrogen) doesn't help very much in developing technology for cement production. Especially as carbon capture from blue hydrogen is very easy (the reaction between methane and water vapour produces only two products, H2 and CO2, along with some unreacted CH4 and H2O and impurities in the input gas), and as the whole process is enclosed and designed to recover a gas almost pure CO2 is readily available once the H2 has been extracted. The mix of gases from a cement plant or brewery is much more complex, the amount of CO2 produced at different stages in the processes vary, and the equipment used isn't inherently enclosed. But, carbon capture is relatively well developed, and in some industries becoming standard (eg: in brewing, which not only produced CO2 but also requires CO2, carbon capture to provide the CO2 to fizz beer from the fermentation process reduces costs by removing the need to buy CO2 - and provides a small amount of CO2 that can be sold to other markets).
The carbon storage side of the equation is almost entirely untested. Oil and gas companies have been pumping CO2 into old fields for decades, this increases the pressure in partially depleted fields allowing extraction of more oil or gas. But, investigations into the long-term fate of this CO2 are in early stages - in active wells much of it will come back out with the oil and gas being extracted, capped wells are monitored for gas releases (which will include CO2) but whether the assumption that a geological formation that held methane for millions of years will hold CO2 indefinitely is far from proven.
Added to which, as far as I can see the £22b announced this week will go to two sites in northern England which will produce CO2 in blue hydrogen production and pump it straight to old gas fields. There's no money in the announcement to address moving CO2 from a large number of production sites across the country to locations where it can be pumped into old gas wells, though the ACORN project in Scotland is looking into that (linking production sites across the central belt with Aberdeenshire) it's struggling because Scottish government doesn't have the funds to support it properly and this UK gov project isn't even matching the few £m that ScotGov is investing.
Finally, there are a range of industrial applications for CO2. We put it in drinks to give fizz, food packaging to extend shelf lives, we use dry ice for transport of food and medicine (especially where power for refrigeration isn't guaranteed) or cooling in various lab processes, we use it in fire extinguishers, it's a feedstock for various chemical reactions, it's used as a coolant in some designs of nuclear reactor including some of the proposed passive-safe small modular designs. Currently the vast majority of CO2 used for these applications is mined, extracted from natural reservoirs. It's simply bonkers to extract CO2 from some reservoirs and also pump CO2 into other reservoirs.
In summary, the £22b addresses (in part) two of the three stages needed for CCS, ignoring transport of CO2 around the country entirely and only working on the easiest industrial process for CO2 capture. Also, it treats CO2 as a waste product to be disposed of, rather than a potential resource.
Carbon Capture is the latest in a line of technological solutions supported by the oil and gas industries as a means of greenwashing their industry and postponing the day in which it'll face obsolescence (prior to this it was 'carbon credits' - a field rife with fraud).
The third of Starmer's 10 pledges was 'Climate Justice' including a 'Clean Air Act' and a 'Green New Deal'. The reality is a boondoggle for the fossil fuel industry which he takes to the pages of the Sun to defend (in an op-ed probably authored for him):
Carbon Capture is the latest in a line of technological solutions supported by the oil and gas industries as a means of greenwashing their industry and postponing the day in which it'll face obsolescence
There’s nothing inherently wrong with keeping the oil and gas industries alive, if they can indeed be made cleaner.
Carbon Capture is the latest in a line of technological solutions supported by the oil and gas industries as a means of greenwashing their industry and postponing the day in which it'll face obsolescence
There’s nothing inherently wrong with keeping the oil and gas industries alive, if they can indeed be made cleaner.
Sure, in an ideal theoretical world different from the one we inhabit. The reality is that even the most promising of the experimental technologies either fail to capture a significant proportion of carbon emitted or create more emissions themselves, with mature versions at least a decade or more away. So any realistic mitigation strategy involves a significant reduction in fossil fuel use.
Meanwhile, between pretending that the Chagossian deal is a threat to the Falklands and Gibraltar,* The Tories are running ads on social media of wealthy pensioners complaining about making the Winter Fuel Payment means tested...
There has been a proper, robust debate here about the policy and we hold a range of views but I have to laugh at a video (put out by the Tories) of a pensioners wearing a Rolex saying he can't manage without the WFP.
AFZ
*This argument is so stunningly ignorant, it must be deliberate. They are not that thick.
I said Starmer will not last to the next General Election. These policies add more fuel to that fire. He needs to do something good quickly or he could be toast by this time next year
I said Starmer will not last to the next General Election. These policies add more fuel to that fire. He needs to do something good quickly or he could be toast by this time next year
I said Starmer will not last to the next General Election. These policies add more fuel to that fire. He needs to do something good quickly or he could be toast by this time next year
Nope.
By what mechanism do you think Starmer will be 'toast'?
When you say 'these policies' to what are you referring? The most recent topics bring Diego Garcia and the Winter Fuel Payment... you think they're fuel? Why? How?
His personal polling is bad. The policies he is putting forward are not up to what he promised. In fact he has dropped quite a few things he has promised. Taking money from pensioners and keeping kids in poverty is not a good look. His honeymoon period didn’t last long. A lot is riding on this budget. He is spending too much time shouting at the dark left by the Tories, but not telling us enough about the light that is coming. The party will be watching this.
The election was in July.
It's been less than 100 days with Parliamentary summer recess, right in the middle.
There was no honeymoon. There never was going to be with our media. You are extrapolating from virtually nothing.
But even if you are right that he's failing everywhere, it still means nothing in terms of the short term. Starmer will remain PM until he dies or loses the support of The Commons. There is zero chance of his own MPs turning on him in the next year.
Yes, "toast" seems melodramatic to me. I think the Tories are in the toilet, and it's very early to make predictions. Of course, the Telegraph agrees.
Exactly.
I predicted in 2019 that Johnson wouldn't last 5 years but it still took quite a while for it all to finally fall apart despite the fact that by then, he'd already spent 4 months failing. By comparison, Starmer's first 2 and half months have been a masterclass in control and media management.* The projections on to the new government's position seem to be a large amount of wishful thinking
In other news, Sue Gray has just resigned as Starmer's Chief of Staff.
Cue various over-interpretations.
AFZ
*But only by contrast. The Labour's media management machine has not been up to scratch so far.
It's quite amusing to watch the right wing press straining to damn Starmer, over things that the Tories breezed through. I guess Labour have to grit their teeth, and keep going, and improve their media work.
I said Starmer will not last to the next General Election. These policies add more fuel to that fire. He needs to do something good quickly or he could be toast by this time next year
Nope.
By what mechanism do you think Starmer will be 'toast'?
The obvious answer is a leadership election within the Labour Party, there's precedence here, there was a period around 2021 when there were mutterings sourced from disgruntled MPs that he was uninspiring and needed to move on. If he was to be replaced I would expect a reprise of the same.
I said Starmer will not last to the next General Election. These policies add more fuel to that fire. He needs to do something good quickly or he could be toast by this time next year
Nope.
By what mechanism do you think Starmer will be 'toast'?
The obvious answer is a leadership election within the Labour Party, there's precedence here, there was a period around 2021 when there were mutterings sourced from disgruntled MPs that he was uninspiring and needed to move on. If he was to be replaced I would expect a reprise of the same.
It's quite amusing to watch the right wing press straining to damn Starmer, over things that the Tories breezed through.
If you make a deal with Murdoch to get elected, don't be surprised when you get asked to kick up.
As I said, various over interpretations.
There is of course multiple factions in Labour. There always has been, regardless of who happens to be leader.
Many of us would say that it was fairly obviously the result of an unrelenting media campaign from many who don't like Labour. Two data points for you: 1. The reported source of the story on Gray's salary was Simon Case. 2. There was a news story of Gray 'berating a colleague in the Downing Street Gardens' with an accompanying photo. The photo was taken in Downing Street and not in the Gardens and showed nothing of the sort.
What deal with Murdoch?? The Sun has been full on anti-Labour all the way through.
And do you really think there's going to be a leadership challenge? When was the last time that happened in the Labour Party, when they were in government?
I said Starmer will not last to the next General Election. These policies add more fuel to that fire. He needs to do something good quickly or he could be toast by this time next year
Nope.
By what mechanism do you think Starmer will be 'toast'?
The obvious answer is a leadership election within the Labour Party, there's precedence here, there was a period around 2021 when there were mutterings sourced from disgruntled MPs that he was uninspiring and needed to move on. If he was to be replaced I would expect a reprise of the same.
It's quite amusing to watch the right wing press straining to damn Starmer, over things that the Tories breezed through.
If you make a deal with Murdoch to get elected, don't be surprised when you get asked to kick up.
As I said, various over interpretations.
Right. So who replaced Sue Gray ? Do you really believe she came into post expecting to stay there only 2 months? Presumably McSweeney got into post because they posted a job, got a number of CVs and have just hired the most qualified applicant?
What deal with Murdoch?? The Sun has been full on anti-Labour all the way through.
The one where he provides occasional columns to them where the culture war is sketched out in crayons in return for them not going after him too hard.
And do you really think there's going to be a leadership challenge?
Not at the moment, but I don't think its that unlikely across the entire term in government, we are living through rather more volatile times than the 60s/70s, and Labour's current staffers are uniquely fond of factional warfare.
Labour said Ms Gray will be replaced by Morgan McSweeney, who was previously chief adviser to the PM and masterminded Labour’s election campaign.
Plus he’s brought in three others one of whom will be a strategic comms lead. She has been shuffled sideways to another position.
That said, this being a male dominated thread: I will just point out than an ambitious and successful female professional just got displaced by what appears to have been a jealous coterie of men who thought she should had been paid less, and should have been less dominant in her role. As Jane Goodall said “ It actually doesn’t take much to be considered a difficult woman. That’s why there are so many of us.”
I said Starmer will not last to the next General Election. These policies add more fuel to that fire. He needs to do something good quickly or he could be toast by this time next year
Nope.
By what mechanism do you think Starmer will be 'toast'?
The obvious answer is a leadership election within the Labour Party, there's precedence here, there was a period around 2021 when there were mutterings sourced from disgruntled MPs that he was uninspiring and needed to move on. If he was to be replaced I would expect a reprise of the same.
It's quite amusing to watch the right wing press straining to damn Starmer, over things that the Tories breezed through.
If you make a deal with Murdoch to get elected, don't be surprised when you get asked to kick up.
As I said, various over interpretations.
Right. So who replaced Sue Gray ? Do you really believe she came into post expecting to stay there only 2 months? Presumably McSweeney got into post because they posted a job, got a number of CVs and have just hired the most qualified applicant?
What deal with Murdoch?? The Sun has been full on anti-Labour all the way through.
The one where he provides occasional columns to them where the culture war is sketched out in crayons in return for them not going after him too hard.
And do you really think there's going to be a leadership challenge?
Not at the moment, but I don't think its that unlikely across the entire term in government, we are living through rather more volatile times than the 60s/70s, and Labour's current staffers are uniquely fond of factional warfare.
Of course, she expected to stay longer. Of course, Starmer would reshuffle among the people he knows. That doesn't mean anything at all. I'm not denying that McSweeney ambitious nor that there were tensions among the team. I have no idea one way or the other. If you read modern political history - as I do - and then compare what becomes clear 5 years or so after events, it shows that media narratives about rivalries are part truth and part what makes a good story. Conversely, it is categorically the case that various right-wing commentators have been targeting Sue Gray ever since she indicated that she was joining Starmer's office.
More volatile times than the 60s/70s? Maybe. Sort of. My memory does not go back before the late 80s but it's well documented that Labour party was a very volatile place in the '70s. Current staffers 'uniquely fond of factional warfare?' Really? Compared to the Blair/Brown years?
The open question is whether tactically it's better for the government for Gray to go now - as she's become the story - or it would have been better to fight for her. The Right Wing press have their pound of flesh now, so we'll see what happens next.
I also agree with @Doublethink that there is probably a significant degree of sexism at play here. It should be noted however that Starmer has appointed a cabinet that is 46% female. (That's a record by a very long way).
Comments
Yeah, but the wider context is that the UK still uses gas for around 30% of it's electricity generating needs (see the yearly chart here: https://grid.iamkate.com/ ), and so you could argue that the context includes the knock on effects of an earlier 'dash for gas'.
Additionally there's an annoying line labelled 'biomass', representing coal powered stations burning wood pellets over which there are serious questions of sustainability.
Yes and no.
I chose the numbers carefully. Lord Alli has a net worth of reportedly £200m. Obviously I have no idea what your net worth is - nor would I presume to pry - but if, for the sake of argument it is £300k then the size of the donation Lord Alli made to his own party leader is the same proportionately as you spending £15 to get me a couple of drinks (One in London?
AFZ
There is a weak correlation between Council results and national elections at the best of times. It is nonsense to extrapolate from council By-elections 5 years before the next GE.
The Scottish Elections will be meaningful.
Besides, there are very good arguments against universal winter fuel payments.
AFZ
I knew that Benjamin Disraelli was given a stately home but I had no idea of how Churchill was permanently in debt and lived a very lavish lifestyle from gifts and hospitality.
AFZ
This is a genuinely terrible (and weak) column arguing for this policy:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/30853358/keir-starmer-great-british-industry-net-zero/
I've been watching Scottish council by-elections for some time. Rural seats with a lot of independents don't tell you very much but the trend in general has been grim for the SNP so this is surprising.
Sure you can claim it's an outlier but Labour is also falling in the Scottish polls post - election.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html
The elections up here are 2026 which is much closer.
So er... thanks for the services to Scottish independence but after such a long Tory government a little of the Labour Party not being awful and enthusiastically justifying it might go a long way with the voters...
This is ridiculous argument; the effect of the donation relates to the benefit it gives the recipient, not on how it reflects on the donors fortune.
What this shows is that British politics is relatively cheap to buy into (a point also made by Simon Kuper in his recent book), not that we need to measure donations by the proportion of the donors wealth they represent.
This.
Yes and No.
The argument was that Lord Alli expects something in return. I.e. The implication is that it's far too much money to just donate to a cause. It is indeed small change for him. That may not be the only factor but it is a relevant factor.
And Reform…
Nope. The voters who switched from Labour to Reform are not the ones who care about these issues. Greens? Yes. Reform? No.
No, the one’s that *are going* to switch from Labour to Reform…
I genuinely look forward to your and my post-mortem discussions following the next general election.
If we freeze frame now, I think we’ll both be wrong.
Hee hee.
I strongly suspect the vote shares in 2029 will be roughly similar.
The Reform voters aren't going back to the Tories anytime soon. The Tory leader wannabes are doing their best to keep the other switchers from coming back. So I can't see the Tory voteshare going up much.
I think Reform has basically hit its ceiling but even if not, those disaffected Labour voters will go elsewhere, not to Reform. Traditional Labour voters who don't like Migration are the ones Reform is chasing.
Labour will be judged on what actually happens over the next 3-4 years...
On the other hand, I'm used to being wrong...
AFZ
Not entirely.
If I'm going to invest what for me would be a significant sum of money, I'd be wanting guarantees that I was going to get something of value in exchange for it. If I'm going to hand over the loose change I found down the back of the sofa, I almost don't care.
https://news.sky.com/story/government-pledges-22bn-for-carbon-capture-and-storage-technology-in-net-zero-drive-13227230
One of many sources
I think that's probably a little unfair.
I was looking for good evidence on this but not unexpectedly it's almost impossible to find the data and there's a lot of sources who may well be over confident.
Here's what I do know:
In the short term, the UK needs gas for electricity production. That's not going to change quickly. (In my view we should have gone hard for new nuclear 20 years ago but hey...).
I completely agree that ultimately electricity generation should be completely free of fossil fuels but carbon capture for certain industrial processes will be important. I was assuming that developing it for electricity production means it can be adapted to our applications too.
I heard Ed Miliband on R4 and he pointed to expert analysis that said carbon capture needs to be part of the mix. I have nowhere near the expertise needed to unpick this from the well-funded propaganda of the gas and oil industry.
I do believe is massive tree planting programs for which there is good evidence. But why not both?
What's the time frame for the £22bn?
AFZ
P.s. as an aside, I want to see serious analysis of the viability and benefits of big, radical projects like the Severn barrier for electricity generation and the Wash Barrage for fresh water preservation. I am encouraged by a government that seems prepared to think boldly.
They are different technologies, capturing carbon directly from industrial processes will need to be a suite of technologies as each process will be different - the temperature of CO2 output from the process, the concentration of CO2 in the waste gas stream, what other gases are present will all vary between industrial process. Developing technology from blue hydrogen production (conversion of fossil fuels to hydrogen) doesn't help very much in developing technology for cement production. Especially as carbon capture from blue hydrogen is very easy (the reaction between methane and water vapour produces only two products, H2 and CO2, along with some unreacted CH4 and H2O and impurities in the input gas), and as the whole process is enclosed and designed to recover a gas almost pure CO2 is readily available once the H2 has been extracted. The mix of gases from a cement plant or brewery is much more complex, the amount of CO2 produced at different stages in the processes vary, and the equipment used isn't inherently enclosed. But, carbon capture is relatively well developed, and in some industries becoming standard (eg: in brewing, which not only produced CO2 but also requires CO2, carbon capture to provide the CO2 to fizz beer from the fermentation process reduces costs by removing the need to buy CO2 - and provides a small amount of CO2 that can be sold to other markets).
The carbon storage side of the equation is almost entirely untested. Oil and gas companies have been pumping CO2 into old fields for decades, this increases the pressure in partially depleted fields allowing extraction of more oil or gas. But, investigations into the long-term fate of this CO2 are in early stages - in active wells much of it will come back out with the oil and gas being extracted, capped wells are monitored for gas releases (which will include CO2) but whether the assumption that a geological formation that held methane for millions of years will hold CO2 indefinitely is far from proven.
Added to which, as far as I can see the £22b announced this week will go to two sites in northern England which will produce CO2 in blue hydrogen production and pump it straight to old gas fields. There's no money in the announcement to address moving CO2 from a large number of production sites across the country to locations where it can be pumped into old gas wells, though the ACORN project in Scotland is looking into that (linking production sites across the central belt with Aberdeenshire) it's struggling because Scottish government doesn't have the funds to support it properly and this UK gov project isn't even matching the few £m that ScotGov is investing.
Finally, there are a range of industrial applications for CO2. We put it in drinks to give fizz, food packaging to extend shelf lives, we use dry ice for transport of food and medicine (especially where power for refrigeration isn't guaranteed) or cooling in various lab processes, we use it in fire extinguishers, it's a feedstock for various chemical reactions, it's used as a coolant in some designs of nuclear reactor including some of the proposed passive-safe small modular designs. Currently the vast majority of CO2 used for these applications is mined, extracted from natural reservoirs. It's simply bonkers to extract CO2 from some reservoirs and also pump CO2 into other reservoirs.
In summary, the £22b addresses (in part) two of the three stages needed for CCS, ignoring transport of CO2 around the country entirely and only working on the easiest industrial process for CO2 capture. Also, it treats CO2 as a waste product to be disposed of, rather than a potential resource.
[it helps if I link to the correct video]
Thanks
Starting in 2028.
Carbon Capture is the latest in a line of technological solutions supported by the oil and gas industries as a means of greenwashing their industry and postponing the day in which it'll face obsolescence (prior to this it was 'carbon credits' - a field rife with fraud).
The third of Starmer's 10 pledges was 'Climate Justice' including a 'Clean Air Act' and a 'Green New Deal'. The reality is a boondoggle for the fossil fuel industry which he takes to the pages of the Sun to defend (in an op-ed probably authored for him):
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/30853358/keir-starmer-great-british-industry-net-zero/
This is the kind of culture-war adjacent crap that Johnson peddles in the Mail.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with keeping the oil and gas industries alive, if they can indeed be made cleaner.
Sure, in an ideal theoretical world different from the one we inhabit. The reality is that even the most promising of the experimental technologies either fail to capture a significant proportion of carbon emitted or create more emissions themselves, with mature versions at least a decade or more away. So any realistic mitigation strategy involves a significant reduction in fossil fuel use.
There has been a proper, robust debate here about the policy and we hold a range of views but I have to laugh at a video (put out by the Tories) of a pensioners wearing a Rolex saying he can't manage without the WFP.
AFZ
*This argument is so stunningly ignorant, it must be deliberate. They are not that thick.
Nope.
By what mechanism do you think Starmer will be 'toast'?
When you say 'these policies' to what are you referring? The most recent topics bring Diego Garcia and the Winter Fuel Payment... you think they're fuel? Why? How?
It's been less than 100 days with Parliamentary summer recess, right in the middle.
There was no honeymoon. There never was going to be with our media. You are extrapolating from virtually nothing.
But even if you are right that he's failing everywhere, it still means nothing in terms of the short term. Starmer will remain PM until he dies or loses the support of The Commons. There is zero chance of his own MPs turning on him in the next year.
AFZ
Exactly.
I predicted in 2019 that Johnson wouldn't last 5 years but it still took quite a while for it all to finally fall apart despite the fact that by then, he'd already spent 4 months failing. By comparison, Starmer's first 2 and half months have been a masterclass in control and media management.* The projections on to the new government's position seem to be a large amount of wishful thinking
In other news, Sue Gray has just resigned as Starmer's Chief of Staff.
Cue various over-interpretations.
AFZ
*But only by contrast. The Labour's media management machine has not been up to scratch so far.
The obvious answer is a leadership election within the Labour Party, there's precedence here, there was a period around 2021 when there were mutterings sourced from disgruntled MPs that he was uninspiring and needed to move on. If he was to be replaced I would expect a reprise of the same.
It's fairly obviously the result of factional battles that have gone on since the election between Gray, McSweeney and who knows who else.
Of course if you don't believe that factions exist in Starmer's Labour I can't help you.
If you make a deal with Murdoch to get elected, don't be surprised when you get asked to kick up.
As I said, various over interpretations.
There is of course multiple factions in Labour. There always has been, regardless of who happens to be leader.
Many of us would say that it was fairly obviously the result of an unrelenting media campaign from many who don't like Labour. Two data points for you: 1. The reported source of the story on Gray's salary was Simon Case. 2. There was a news story of Gray 'berating a colleague in the Downing Street Gardens' with an accompanying photo. The photo was taken in Downing Street and not in the Gardens and showed nothing of the sort.
What deal with Murdoch?? The Sun has been full on anti-Labour all the way through.
And do you really think there's going to be a leadership challenge? When was the last time that happened in the Labour Party, when they were in government?
It's mostly all noise.
AFZ
oh dear .... are they 'greedy'?
https://x.com/Psythor/status/1842897628201099569
Right. So who replaced Sue Gray ? Do you really believe she came into post expecting to stay there only 2 months? Presumably McSweeney got into post because they posted a job, got a number of CVs and have just hired the most qualified applicant?
The one where he provides occasional columns to them where the culture war is sketched out in crayons in return for them not going after him too hard.
Not at the moment, but I don't think its that unlikely across the entire term in government, we are living through rather more volatile times than the 60s/70s, and Labour's current staffers are uniquely fond of factional warfare.
Plus he’s brought in three others one of whom will be a strategic comms lead. She has been shuffled sideways to another position.
That said, this being a male dominated thread: I will just point out than an ambitious and successful female professional just got displaced by what appears to have been a jealous coterie of men who thought she should had been paid less, and should have been less dominant in her role. As Jane Goodall said “ It actually doesn’t take much to be considered a difficult woman. That’s why there are so many of us.”
Of course, she expected to stay longer. Of course, Starmer would reshuffle among the people he knows. That doesn't mean anything at all. I'm not denying that McSweeney ambitious nor that there were tensions among the team. I have no idea one way or the other. If you read modern political history - as I do - and then compare what becomes clear 5 years or so after events, it shows that media narratives about rivalries are part truth and part what makes a good story. Conversely, it is categorically the case that various right-wing commentators have been targeting Sue Gray ever since she indicated that she was joining Starmer's office.
More volatile times than the 60s/70s? Maybe. Sort of. My memory does not go back before the late 80s but it's well documented that Labour party was a very volatile place in the '70s. Current staffers 'uniquely fond of factional warfare?' Really? Compared to the Blair/Brown years?
The open question is whether tactically it's better for the government for Gray to go now - as she's become the story - or it would have been better to fight for her. The Right Wing press have their pound of flesh now, so we'll see what happens next.
I also agree with @Doublethink that there is probably a significant degree of sexism at play here. It should be noted however that Starmer has appointed a cabinet that is 46% female. (That's a record by a very long way).
AFZ
Let me remind you that the author of this piece is in the current intake and slated for the whips office:
https://i.redd.it/rl1orb5ooj881.png
I don't know what point you're making here.