Forum Topic

Mr IxerWhat actions were possible in Mrs Thatcher's premiership for the UK to 'becoming leaders in renewable energy' ?And why does the Labour government not simply nationalise the North Sea oil and gas companies and then stop any further extraction work and rely on renewable sources ?Something close to the latter point is the policy of the Green Party who we are lead to believe are snapping at Labour's heels and I don't understand why Milliband's proposals are 'aggressive and possibly unrealistic in the current economic and world political climate'.What's it to do with the rest of the world.Where there's a will there's a way, no ?And why do you cleverly segue into comment about the NHS.You must be the only person who thinks it is perfect.Yet stories of 24 hour or greater A&E waiting times are quite common and even Health Minister Wes Streeting says its annual calls for more funding should be challenged until it can show this will be an investment leading to improved services and not just a bigger payment for what is being delivered now.And - 'It's surely better than some fragmented insurance system that many may not be able to afford to get adequate health care, let's hope if we were to have a Reform government they won't rip it to pieces and replace it with a US style system that some of Nigel's friends would like to implement and exploit here'- is just diversionary gaslighting and a chance to take a dig at Reform.Whenever the efficiency of the NHS, from which I have received excellent service, is questioned there are those, you for instance, who wheel out the old cliched argument about 'a US style system' (that is insurance based) 'that many may not be able to afford to get adequate health care'.It's not that binary which I would have thought you with your IT background would recognise as demonstrated by many EU  health care systems.

John Hawkes ● 24d

You raise an interesting point, Mr Hawkes. Strategy often does have an impact for decades, particularly if it impacts infrastructure and policies that are subsequently difficult to change or reverse. Even if they're supported by most in power or opposition they may still span decades; for example, I believe the current UK's STEP nuclear fusion programme is planned to deliver a prototype in the 2040s, a couple of decades or so in the future.)I understood in the mid 70s there was an expectation that the UK would receive the proceeds from the North Sea oil and gas directly into a national wealth fund but, if my memory is correct, the incoming 1979 Conservative government scrapped that idea so the oil companies took ownership of the oil to sell on the world markets, with the UK receiving just tax on the profits, not the full revenue to invest in a sovereign wealth fund. The then government further set the policy for future decades by privatising energy companies.When climate change was explained to Mrs Thatcher she apparently, given her science background (a degree in Chemistry from Oxford and an early career as a research chemist), understood it but, sadly, Nigel Lawson - who I assume was scientifically ignorant (another PPE from Oxford ...) - talked her out of taking action thus losing the opportunity for the UK to possibly becoming leaders in renewable energy. Yes, subsequent governments of all persuasions have failed to address this mistake.Milliband's proposals are aggressive and possibly unrealistic in the current economic and world political climate but at least he's now trying to address this disaster. The more that climate change remediation is kicked down the road the more it's going to cost future generations in, firstly, fixing it and, secondly, suffering from its affects a lot more than if actions to mitigate it had started a few decades ago.Yes, Mr Hawkes, these decisions on policy and strategy do have lasting consequences for decades. A different, perhaps more positive, example is, that for all its difficulties, we still have the NHS that was created by the post war Labour government. It's surely better than some fragmented insurance system that many may not be able to afford to get adequate health care, let's hope if we were to have a Reform government they won't rip it to pieces and replace it with a US style system that some of Nigel's friends would like to implement and exploit here. (Ok slightly off topic ....)m

Michael Ixer ● 24d

Of course, if there is any history left after the climate is done with us. My point is that Steve's assertion that high energy prices are to do with Ed Milliband's 'obsession with net zero', is utter nonsense. Steve has some notion that if oil drilling started again in the North Sea then prices would come tumbling down here! Yes, I know, on every level it is patent nonsense. Part of the reason for high prices here is that there has been next to no investment in the energy grid, just like the water treatment and supply infrastructure. In order to achieve a reliable supply of green energy for the 21st century huge investment is required in both the supply grid and how our energy plants are powered. Most of our plants are powered by very expensive gas brought in from Qatar or the US. Drilling for North Sea oil 'aint going to make an iota of difference to price.Similarly, switching to wind energy is not going to result in lower prices as there is a huge cost of investment which, if we don't want to pay for it, needs to come from private investors. The same applies to nuclear power; it takes time and investment, and planning reform, to bring it on line.This idea that North Sea Oil is the answer is incorrect. If we are looking for energy security and reliability, then the only option is to invest in green energy and de-carbonise the grid, even if, like Steve, you don't give two hoots about the environment, climate change, or international binding agreements that we signed up for, let alone future generations.

Gerry Boyce ● 26d

It is a fantasy to suppose that China, America and India, who together are responsible for over half of global CO2 emissions, would ever change their policies because the UK has achieved net zero. These countries only pursue their own economic interests, which this country is sadly failing to do. For example, the UK has the highest industrial electricity prices and the fourth highest domestic electricity prices in Europe. High industrial prices slow growth and high domestic prices place a burden on the poorest in society. This is in large measure due to Labour's obsession with net zero. The fact that Ed Miliband has suspended further oil drilling in the North Sea while the UK continues to import oil from abroad shows that that Labour's policy is not about saving the planet (because the same quantity of hydrocarbons are being consumed). It's so we can feel good about ourselves as world leaders in environmentalism. It's virtue signalling on a grand scale.This is my objection to so much of what passes for left of centre ideology nowadays. Policies are adopted, not because they are practical, but because the proponents can present themselves as well-meaning, good people. It's theology rather than politics. The Green Party, to return to the topic of this thread, are perfect examples of this theological tendency. Take, for example, Zack Polanski's policy of an annual tax at 1% on assets over £10 million and  2% over £1 billion. It's obvious that the rich, who provide a high proportion of the nation's tax take - the richest 1% pay around 30% of all income tax receipts - would not wait around to be fleeced in this way. They would take their money and move to kinder tax jurisdictions (like Italy), leaving this country poorer. So why propose this nonsense? His answer: 'it's all about reducing inequality'. But really it's all about acquiring a reputation for virtue. And many people, including, I suspect, contributors to Putney Forum, go along with this, especially when it is unlikely that they will have to stump up  1% of their own assets each year.

Steven Rose ● 26d