Labour Will Block New North Sea Oil & Gas
By Paul Homewood
h/t Robin Guenier
They’ve gone completely mad!
From the Guardian:
Labour has confirmed it will block all new domestic oil and gas developments if it wins power, proposing instead to invest heavily in renewable sources such as wind and also in nuclear power.
The shadow work and pensions secretary, Jonathan Ashworth, said details would be announced soon.
“What we’ll be doing in the coming weeks is outlining how we want to invest in the green jobs of the future, to bring bills down, to create a more sustainable energy supply,” he told Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday show.
“We’ll be outlining that in a significant mission in the coming weeks, and we’ll be announcing more details then.
A party source said: “We are against the granting of new licences for oil and gas in the North Sea. They will do nothing to cut bills as the Tories have acknowledged; they undermine our energy security and would drive a coach and horse through our climate targets.
Quite how developing North Sea oil and gas “undermines our energy security is a mystery.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I guess that’s what happens when the party accepts a £1.5 million donation from a Just Stop Oil activist.
Do you have a link or confirmation of that?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/05/28/labour-donation-dale-vince-just-stop-oil-15m/
Thanks!
Should Dale Vince be in the dock for funding terrorism?
Johnathan Ashworth is a mystery. I saw him interviewed a couple of weeks ago and he was referring to the renewable jobs yet when asked what they were it just kept saying renewable jobs.
Jonathan Ashworth is a supercilious and unintelligent mouthpiece that spouts the ‘current’ nonsense. When are UK politicians going to start representing the interests of the general population instead of following their own elitist and globalist dogmas?
“When are UK politicians going to start representing the interests of the general population….”
That would be called populism akin to Trump’s MAGA and barnded as extreme right wing,
I geuss most jobs with a high turnover or dissatisfied staff could be termed renewable.
“Thousands of Green jobs” was also the claim made by the Scottish government. By 2020, nearly 50,000 jobs were projected, few now exist. A company called CS Wind, based in Argyllshire, employed nearly 500 people in 2015 and right now there is no activity on site. How much taxpayer’s subsidy has been taken by these Green job companies? One day we will be forced to admit that the 2008 Climate Change Act has damaged our country. Sir Keir and the jolly Johnny Ashworth will only make bankruptcy come quicker.
Greens are all Bastiats at heart!
“Greens are all Bastiats at heart!”
A strange comment, since Frederic Bastiat was a clever French economist, totally opposed to all forms of Socialism and to most government action, which he described as “legalised plunder.’
One of his satirical pieces was a pretended petition to the King by the candle makers to block out the sun. Oil and gas is fossilised sun-shine according to most theories of its origin. So seems apt.
OTT, the mass-balance on Greenland seems fairlynormal this year:
Greenland is prominently colder than average at the moment.
Yes, Dave. I am aware of Bastiat’s paradox. I was taking a little licence because many Greens seem not to be aware of it.
Jobs are a cost. If we have more jobs doing the stuff we already do, then bills will rise. If we have new jobs doing stuff we don’t want, then we are made poorer. Markets work by directing resources – such as labour -to the things we we value, not the things politicians value.
Not too many posters (Or writers, for that matter) realise, as above, that jobs are a COST. Trying to sell something worthless because of the jobs it will create, reminds me of a joke. A western manager was visiting a site in an oriental country, and saw hundreds of labourers digging a canal. He asked a foreman why so many men? And was answered “to create jobs”. So the Westerner then asked “So why don’t you give them teaspoons?”
So no difference between “Labour” and “Conservative” except the labels. Why are BOTH parties determined to wreck the economy and make life worse and more expensive for ordinary people? and why haven’t they merged instead of pretending to be different?
The trade unions will most likely do whatever the Labour party says, but they should have had a field day protesting against unemployment and rising cost of living with a “Tory” government in power, but they seem to be completely silent.
The reason the Labour & Conservative Parties haven’t merged is because it gives more politicians jobs and the electorate the false impression we live in a democracy where voting still affects policies.
“Why are BOTH parties determined to wreck the economy and make life worse and more expensive for ordinary people?”
Because the WEF/OWG/UN/Bilderberg have said so. Our votes no longer count. Ashworth would make the UK the Saudi Arabia of….sand. We shall no longer have the means to produce much more.
We are led by self-serving idiots who know not what they do (to coin a phrase).
“The trade unions will most likely do whatever the Labour party says,” I seriously doubt that. Check out what Gary Smith leader of the GMB says about Greens – you will be very surprised.
Current Tories are irredeemably stupid and completely venal. They have no actual principles or beliefs. So now they just keep moving closer and closer to Labour, hoping that somehow that will persuade people to vote for them. Despite the evidence that Labour’s support is actually very half-hearted and a large section of the electorate won’t vote for either.
A thought just struck me. What happens if the turnout by voters is extremely low, even zero, or all ballot papers are “spoiled”?
Admittedly the last two are unlikely as people vote for party X to keep party Y out of power rather than agreeing with _everything_ on the manifesto
>>large section of the electorate won’t vote for either.
I have been saying for a while that people need to abstain from voting in large numbers such that every turnout is below 50% – not that I suspect there are many MPs with the support of 50% of their electorate.
It is very hard to build a new party – although the Dutch farmers did it and AFD have risen quickly in Germany. Farage insisted that the way forward for UKIP was to win an election and not push for an EU referendum and yet they never won a single seat at a GE. They did scare Call Me Dave into promising a referendum by showing a big increase in constituencies like here in Surrey while still being short of winning.
Soros and WEF rules our so called leaders!
“On a CNBC panel in Davos, Labour Party leader Keir Starmer said he had been meeting with business leaders and policymakers to promote the idea of a Clean Power Alliance, should Labour win the next general election in 2024.”
“should Labour win the next general election in 2024.” I wonder what happens if the “next election” is in 2023 or even 2025?
Unless Sushi cuts and runs this Autumn, the next election will be next year. The rules state that the end of Jan 2025 is the last possible date but it is highly unlikely that the election campaign will be held over Christmas and New Year.
The media deserve a lot of the blame for this economic illiteracy, politicians know they will get a free procession, flanked by teams of cheerleaders, from the renewable bunnies of the BBC and fellow travelers.
I do not think Starmer knows what a scientist is. He only understands MSM who frighten everybody into believing what they say about energy is true.
He certainly doesn’t know what an economists is, since – like most of the Left – he simply wants to do the opposite of what the vast majority (and in some cases all) economists say we should do. Minimum wages, price caps, rent controls, planning, industrial strategy, – all of these are known to be bad choices that will not work and will make us pooorer. Yet off we go down that road.
Well we can’t have reliable plentiful energy resources driving a coach and horses through climate targets can we. Perhaps the deluded Ashworth might care to explain what a climate target is and how he will measure it. Horse drawn transport will be all that’s left if these idiots aren’t stopped.
Don’t horses fart as well? Yes, all horses must be shot. Cats and dogs don’t seem too – am I wrong?
Dogs can be smelly. I am not sure about cats.
“…’world leader’ in green energy…”
That is exactly Johnson’s “Saudi Arabia of wind” nonsense.
The country can have any colour it wants so long as it is sickly green.
Well, Labour’s energy policies may well solve the UK’s massive immigration and over population problems.
Offshore wind and other interconnectors are so secure that we have no idea where the Russians have placed the explosives.
Off topic, almost: the local paper reports that Greater Anglia train co. will not allow E scooters on their trains. Something to do with fire risk, I guess.
All the train companies are rapidly falling into line on that issue.
In the same vein, I just saw the Ad for Le Shuttle – where, to a pastiche of a rocket launch, an ELECTRIC car is shown being loaded on the Chunnel train.
And I thought EVs were banned by Le Shuttle….
“EVs were banned by Le Shuttle.”
I think the ban has been quietly* dropped.
There are boasts about there being charging points at the tunnel. I do not suppose they are expecting the people of Kent to drop in for a quick charge and then return to the A20!
* If one googles “Can I take an electric car?” NO DIRECT ANSWER appears.
Yes, Southern Trains ban battery bikes, scooters and skateboards from Thursday 1 June.
Miliband speaking during the Energy Bill debate on May 9th
We also believe—this is an important point—that the Bill should remove the 2015 duty to extract every last drop, the so-called maximum economic recovery, from the North sea. I can do no better than to quote the net zero tsar, the right hon. Member for Kingswood, praised by the Secretary of State, who did a very serious piece of work—Government Front Benchers are nodding. What he said could not be clearer:
“developing new oil and gas fields is incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5°… There is no such thing as a new net zero oilfield.”
…
Let me try to explain the position. Nobody is talking about turning off the taps in the North sea. The question is this: do we defy the International Energy Agency? He cites the IEA. The IEA says, in absolutely clear terms, that if we invest in new fields in the North sea and have new exploration, we will bust way through 1.5°. The point is that every country can say, “Well, we’re going to do it, but you shouldn’t.” But if we do that, we will end up at a 3° world. That is what all the scientists tell us.
One great thing in this House, compared with other countries, is that we have established a cross-party consensus on following the science. But the science could not be clearer. That is why 700 scientists wrote to the newspapers a few weeks ago to say, “This is our view.” That is why the IEA says it. That is why the UN Secretary-General says it. That is why the net zero tsar, when he looked at the evidence, said it. It is not me making it up; it is what the clear evidence is. The hon. Gentleman is right that we will continue to use our existing fields, but to grant new licences and new exploration, defying what all the science tells us, would be a betrayal of future generations. I do not pretend it is easy—I do not—but it is absolutely crystal clear. [Interruption.] They say, “More imports.” No, the answer is to get off fossil fuels and drive towards low carbon.
“We have established a cross-party consensus…”
I’ve seen this referred to elsewhere. Is there in fact a written formal agreement signed by all the main UK political parties that they will not dispute (a) “the science”, or (b) each other’s policies to address this (illusory) issue. I know it looks that way, but is it formalised?
Effectively yes…signed by Labour, Liberals and Conservatives under David Cameron in 2015.
We have reached the point where are insane politicians are about to do great harm to the country in terms of energy prices, energy security and economic viability. Its difficult to know whether to call it moronic or treasonous.
If Russia were to attack, we’re fucked.
Even if it exists, it is only between politicians and they “conveniently forgot” to ask the actual population.
>>“We have established a cross-party consensus…”
“David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband have signed a joint pledge to tackle climate change, which they say will protect the UK’s national security and economic prosperity.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/14/cameron-clegg-and-miliband-sign-joint-climate-pledge
They have pretty much completed the promised shutdown of UK coal. Next oil and gas, then the lights go out.
Thank you for the reminder. I see it is expressed in terms of outcomes rather than means.
“We will bust way through…”
What a load of nonsense. It’s an outright lie. What happens with future emissions isn’t dependent on whether the UK develops new North Sea production. Miliband is so sure he is brilliant, he believes every ignorant, apid thought he ahs to be a brilliant insight.
Miliband doesn’t know China added more carbon dioxide emissions in the past six months than the UK net zero plans will save by 2050.
I imagine Unicorn poo and fairy dust will feature heavily in labours announcement, either that or ‘ you must all live in the cold and dark.’
It is time to introduce performance contracts for politicians. Their tenure must be dependent on achievement of specific outcomes by year-not by 2035/2050. Goals must be specific and measurable. Failure to meet the goal results in dismissal. This must be cascaded down to all State employees.
Unless we hold these individuals accountable we will never evolve.
Installing offshore windfarms in international waters, with undersea electric cables everywhere, presumably poses no security risk? Is that so, Mr Putin?
“Party says details of how UK can become ‘world leader’ in green energy transition will be announced soon”
Construction of Carrousel* will be announced. The delay in announcement is they haven’t figured out the age of termination. They’ll probably start high til they get acceptance, then bring it down as needed.
*”Logan’s Run”
Politicians talk in riddles and soundbites which bear no relation to reality.
‘World leaders’. OK Jon, how does the UK outbid China when our electricity costs 10 X theirs?
How does the UK out-bid the US after Bidens (absurdly mis-named) Inflation Reduction Act firehoses an estimated $800 billion – $1.2 trillion at the Green economy. UK cannot and should not attempt to compete with those excessive numbers.
Likewise the EU is going head-to-head with the US and by default, China. The UK cannot have any hope of competing in any energy sectors those three are active in.
In fact just about the only area the UK has a clear advantage over the RoW would be in home-produced energy, from our own waters and lands.
This should be obvious even to our current crop of political titans.
To address this our expert politicians now want to block new O&G from the North Sea and continue with the ban on onshore fracked gas!
Apparently if you just say ‘world leaders’, ‘renewables’, and ‘green jobs’ it’ll all magically come to pass!
I regret to announce it’s clear we’re being run by absolute weapons.
The irony is, given that China, the EU and the US are no all state-directed energy markets, it’s very likely that we could successfully compete just by doing the opposite and having markets find solutions.
‘At last year’s Labour conference, Starmer said Labour would set up a publicly owned energy company run on clean UK power, to be known as Great British Energy.’
Step #1 in nationalizing energy production.
There will be energy for the elite. All others, too bad, so sad.
The Scottish Party of Nationalists had a grand policy announcement a couple of years ago. It would create a Scottish publicly-owned not-for-profit Energy Supplier to sell cheap Scottish renewable energy to lucky voters in Scotland.
Scotland has been said to be the “Saudi Arabia of Wind”, at least for anybody daft enough to listen to Boris Johnstone.
The Nationalists of Scotland must have jumped to the assumption that Energy Supply is an easy and low-risk business. If anybody jumps to that assumption, they are likely to jump to the conclusion that customers are being stitched-up by greedy profiteers.
This was all shortly before a majority of UK Energy Suppliers went bust. The grand announcement from the Nationalist Party of Scotland was quietly dropped.
Today, there appears to be two left-leaning political parties in the UK who harbour aspirations to create a publicly owned electricity business. One of them is Labour. The other is NOT the Scottish Nationalists.
So now we have confirmation – Labour really are clueless……
Policy No 1 – Windfall tax on Oil & Gas companies – this tax has already been spent 10 times over on Labour’s ‘fully costed’ spending plans.
Policy No 2 – No new licences for oil and gas drilling = therefore no Windfall Tax to collect
Remind me how labour will fund it’s spending plans?
“Remind me how labour will fund it’s spending plans?”
Diane Abbott has it all worked out.
They are going to borrow it.
“Labour has pledged to spend £28 billion on green investment every year until 2030 to tackle the climate crisis. Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a new Climate Investment pledge that would fund green jobs and industry”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/27/labour-promises-spend-28bn-year-tackling-climate-crisis
On the Labour Party website:
“Our Climate Investment Pledge will transform our economy and follow the example set by the Labour Government in Wales by investing £28 billion of capital into the green economy for each and every year over this decade…”
https://labour.org.uk/stronger-together/a-fairer-greener-future/green-and-digital-future/
Every year until 2030 so depending on how you count it that’s somewhere in the region of 5 – 7 years at £28 billion = £140 – £196 billion.
What could possibly go wrong?
Also an interesting misdirect (lie?) on the Labour website:
“The invasion of Ukraine has exposed just how insecure our energy system has become under the Conservatives, with the Prime Minister going cap in hand to Saudi Arabia in response to Putin’s threats to turn off the gas taps to Europe.”
Because (a) prices were rising quickly from November 2020 and all the UK energy comanies went bankrupt BEFORE Ukraine invasion and (b) the small amount of Russian gas we bought has largely been replaced by US (fracked) gas.
And of course if we had not intentionally closed nearly 20GW of coal power baseload since 2010 there would be no problem at all.
” follow the example set by the Labour Government in Wales ” !!!
Drakeford and his cronies are in the process of wrecking Wales, an example being the dismal industrial performance of South Wales, shackled by poor transport links.
Taking lessons in madness from New Zealand
Gary Smith leader of the GMB
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/24/the-left-needs-to-drop-its-bourgeois-environmentalism-and-back-fracking-and-nuclear-says-union-leader/
Perhaps the other union leaders will also wake up to the damage caused by the “climate”, “green” and “net zero” obsessions
The UK has a serious anti-enterprise culture.
The Labour Party doesn’t know whether it prefers to tax an extremely profitable oil industry, or to kill it by refusing new PEDL Licenses. This will only encourage oil and gas producers to re-locate to other countries and stock exchanges.
Some of Glencore’s biggest shareholders have turned on the company because it owns an extremely profitable coal producing business. This will only encourage the company to dispose of these assets, with the prospect of China or another major economy increasing global reach and influence.
NONE of this nonsense will make ANY difference to production and consumption of fossil fuels on a global scale. NONE of it will make any difference to the climate.
I don’t know the new management at Glencore. But I did meet Ivan Glasenburg who would never have allowed activists (or governments) to run his business or decide where it should invest. The Teck deal and proposed coal demerger might have made sense when coal was riding high a year ago – selling at the top of the market. But I feel that the new management is not quite in the same league. Its origins as Marc Rich seem long forgotten. He made his fortune out of shipping Iranian oil from Kharg Island in expendable rust buckets during the Iran-Iraq war. A calculated risk, subject to Exocet attack. Some of it helped to defeat the UK miners’ strike.
The Tories (Blue Labour) are also against enterprise. Millionaire Chancellor kHunt has removed VAT-free shopping for tourists and hit investors with a halving of tax-free dividend income and capital gains this tax year AND again next tax year. The inept moron probably hasn’t given any thought to how many more tax returns will be submitted by people like me who have never needed to. And on top of all that, the much needed rise in interest rates will bring the return of tax on savings interest above the £1000 limit.
Rees-Mogg had a decarbonise bloke on tonight who said stopping new oil licenses was the way to go and the oil in the North Sea was dwindling anyway! Mogg and David Starkey, as anyone opposing these nutters, never ask them , ‘how much fossil fuel is required to manufacture, place and connect one windmill and dispose it at end of use and replace?’
Sitting alone in a cold unit; energy is too expensive to have a heater on…
Like most plebs my understanding of MSM “news” is rather superficial…
So more oil exploration etc sounds like a solution to high energy prices –
and Labour has declared it’s against improving my lot – is my perception…
What a way to shoot yourself in the foot – and let the other mob win the
next election…
More oil exploration AND much lower taxes at point of sale are what are needed. Look at the tax element of the actual price at the pump. also look at what the taxes on diesel are doing to the price of everything.
>>So more oil exploration etc sounds like a solution to high energy price
irrespective of whether you believe in net zero or not you have to work back from the end point a plan how to get there. Even the half baked plans recognise that fossil fuels will be needed during the so called transition so for us not to have as much indigenous production is plain daft. Problem is Labour are appealing to younger generation to capture green voters.
The real problems there are the brainwashing and indoctrination in the “education”system since the climate scam started.
>>Problem is Labour are appealing to younger generation to capture green voters
To quote Beyond Thunderdome – ‘Plan? Plan? There ain’t no plan.’
Labour’s McTiernan was on GB News tonight. He may as well have been a robot – droning on with all the standard words and phrases (many of which you’ll hear coming from the mouths of many Tories). GB News are good in that, unlike the BBC and Sky, do at least have opposing voices on. Where they make a mistake is relying on the news anchor instead of setting the nutters against people who have the technical credibility to shoot them down with authority.
Just spotted Nicholas’ comment. It was JRM’s session. Having a historian to answer to McT was a typical GBN mistake. That said, he said all the right things but without the authority of an insider.
Doh! Sorry, Wrinkle. Time I knocked off.
A sure way to create scarcity and drive prices up. At some point this will drive push back and real change. Bring it on.
I saw this
and went to look here
https://onebillionresilient.org/expert/eleni-myrivili/
“…turned urban areas into…”
Heat Islands? I thought this idea was banned, because it is an alternative explanation for measured warming.
Like all religions, CAGW will splinter into sects when its basic ideas have been implemented and only produced epic fails. It will does no good of course. Whichever sect comes into temporary power, the repression and cruelty can only increase.
Labour. true to previous form side with the vocal minority…… “for the few not the many”
If you can’t beat them join them, that’s what I say. In pursuant of the great green future, I’ve invested in a new property portfolio to suit the needs of the great unwashed under the next Labour administration – caves. (Sadly, we’ve had to ditch the integral fire pits to keep the pesky co2 emissions down a bit). I will also produce a natty line of renewable fashion wear to suit the needs of the new generation of urban knuckle draggers – moss loin cloths. And, after many months of tortuous negotiations with none other than the great Elon Musk, I’m pleased to announce the launch of our prototype stone EV (Energy Vacant) automobile – the Fred Flinstone Special Edition Roadster – guaranteed to get every self respecting cave dweller from A to B in no time at all. In fact, never. What’s not to like?
When we’re shivering in the dark with a flat EV battery we’ll console ourselves that chasing the climate targets was the thing.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12138513/Fury-Keir-Starmers-1-5million-Just-Stop-Oil-donor-Dale-Vince.html
That link was meant for ThinkingScientist at the head of the thread.
Pleased to see Forest Green get relegated….
As a Labour supporter of many years, the proposed policy is madness, blame Silly Billy Milliband, Greens and the BBC.
Labour can say what they want pre election, they won’t actually do this though. When the 2024 election looms and they finalise their manifesto it will be chock full of qualifications and time constraints around this proposal. ‘If’s’, ‘May’s’ and ‘targets’, ‘global challenges’, ‘economic conditions allowing’ etc.
Even Starmer isn’t this dumb, they are testing the water early to see what the polls come back with.
And right on time, I opened up a Spectator article immediately after my post:
“Trade unions rounded on Labour after reports that Keir Starmer is planning to ban all new gas and oil developments.”
Watch their proposal being shuffled into the long grass as the election approaches.
It doesn’t stop damage being done, gas/oil companies won’t invest anew and may abandon existing projects in anticipation of a Labour government.
Invest has already been reduced by Sushi and kHunt’s tax raid that has wiped out profits and cost jobs.
That was the original outcry, but BP etc. admitted it made little difference as they can deduct offsets/allowances for new investment.
It was a Labour politician when asked about things in the manifesto replied that they were not promises but campaigning. And they wonder why they are not trusted.
With the low level of education and general understanding of energy markets the vast majority of voters have a hard time understanding truth from Starmer and other politicians and the implications of Green policies. We are heading for a train wreck with both Conservatives and Labour driving the train over the cliff.
The only talent politicians have is jumping on the bandwagon and dodging the issue with a smattering of deliberate untruths, (But only when their lips move).
This will be another successful political strategy that fails in implementation, but does it really matter?
It will be interesting to see whether the Rosebank prospect west of Shetland goes ahead. It has already been hugely invested in (3000+ meters of water) and is one of the most difficult and expensive developments ever. This is the future of the North Sea – fewer prospects and more complex. Rosebank may well be the last. Meanwhile Aramco is pushing ahead developing the vast Jafurah gas and condensate field and who is investing? China.
I have thought for some time (well over a decade, at any rate) that this energy nonsense must eventually become an issue at the ballot box. As long as both main parties are competing for the approval of the articulate members of the deep green blob (journalists, school teachers, university lecturers, civil servants, students, yoof, people with a half-baked degree, etc…[with sincere apologies to all those to whom apology is due – I have belonged to some of these categories myself]) then nothing serious will change.
At the moment, both main UK parties are sold on Net Zero.
The deep multi-aspect insanity of Net Zero will, however, eventually become clear. The first party to pick this up, and make opposition to Net Zero a major aspect of policy, will clean up.
I am sure this will happen. How, though, is difficult to predict. First, we need some kind of gigantic metaphorical train-crash, involving energy availability, price and supply. The most likely form this will take is still, perhaps, a very cold winter. We’ll see. (there are other possibilities, of course; Russia might invade Ukraine…)
The party that is in power, when such an event occurs, will find it hard to shrug off responsibility for the darkness. The party in opposition, however, should find it easier to say ‘this is just what we always thought would happen’, and campaign accordingly for the following election, with a fair wind behind them.
As has been discussed above, both parties have a strain within them that should point them towards rational energy policy.
The Labour Party has a mission to make life better for the poorer people in society. If energy bills are going through the roof because of green energy policy, then the poorer people might legitimately look to the Labour Party for support.
The Conservative Party has (surely, somewhere?) a belief that prosperity is best served by allowing the free market to decide how resources are allocated, and how prices are set. Intervention against the free market should occur only where absolutely necessary, and there has of course been a long-running row about ‘where absolutely necessary’ might be. One answer is ‘in cases of market failure’. The ‘global warming’ scare is built upon the idea that the entire global fossil-fuelled economy is one gigantic ‘market failure’, which it is the duty of policy-makers to resolve. This is why the entirety of the green movement is of a left-wing (often extreme left-wing) character. It is also why (or at least partly why) the Conservative Party has been so feeble in its approach to the promises of green energy; even the most free of free market economists allow that market failure sometimes happens; what if it is really the case that the use of fossil fuels is one such failure?
It seems to me most likely that a revulsion against Net Zero policies is most likely to come from within the Conservative Party (but that may just be wishful thinking – mea culpa).
But, it depends on the timing, especially on the sequence of UK elections and the energy cataclysm referred to above.
I tried to construct some possible sequences, but things got too complicated, so I won’t bore you with them.
And whatever happens in the dance of election timing, energy train crash, and the Conservative and Labour parties, there is also a real possibility that a third party will emerge to claim the issue to its own benefit. Given the personnel involved, it seems impossible that this could be the Lib Dems. So who else?
Answers on a post-card, please.
Thanks to Paul and all the participants in this forum, for affording me the knowledge and opportunity for these reflections. I hope I haven’t wasted your time.
Conservative and Labour parties have no power.
Power is held by Guardian, BBC, et al. No politician is going to cross those who buy ink by the barrel. They want Net Zero.
Politicians say what the press wants them to say. Ashworth is a sock puppet.
‘UK can become ‘world leader’ in green energy transition will be announced soon’
Cirrusly? What does that even mean?
It’s worse here in the US. The press take Twitterverse as reality. Resulting in major corporations doing things like launching trans-based ad campaigns. And Disney sexuallizing little children. They are shocked when customers revolt and boycotts are overwhelming; they thought they were doing what the people wanted.
” It’s worse here in the US. ”
Gillette’s advertising campaign featuring “toxic masculinity” in 2019 was a real shambles, possibly costing Gillette $8 billion or more.
The only UK television advert that I’ve had any time for in recent years is where a man reverses his boxy Volvo estate into the closed door of his garage. I can’t recall what the advert was trying to sell, but it was funny.
You don’t get the political correctness anywhere near as much as in Europe and the USA for TV channels not in those places.
>>” It’s worse here in the US. ”