Starmer Confirms Ban On North Sea Exploration
By Paul Homewood
h/r Robin Guenier
Ignore the waffle about cutting bills and energy security, Starmer confirms he will ban all new North Sea exploration, although existing licences will be honoured.
Quite how this enhances our energy security is a mystery!
Labour will end new North Sea oil and gas exploration, but help communities profit from clean power projects, Sir Keir Starmer is to pledge.
Speaking in Edinburgh later the Labour leader will vow to "cut bills, create jobs and provide energy security".
He will also say that a previously announced publicly-owned green energy company will be based in Scotland.
Sir Keir is under pressure from environmentalists and the oil industry over the scale and pace of change.
Climate campaigners have criticised the party for rowing back on a pledge to invest £28bn a year in green industries.
In England, planning rules which effectively ban new onshore wind farm developments will be scrapped if Labour wins the next election.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65945214
And once again the BBC repeat the outright lie about an effective ban onshore wind. In fact there are ten projects currently being constructed on the back of CfDs.
If the silly man is so concerned about “communities”, why will he abolish the right of local communities to decide whether they have a wind farm built next door?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
This should be election suicide. But it isn’t. What does that say about the ‘great British public’?
Not only election suicide, but a cry for a couple of beaming guys with white coats strolling over to Starmer to pop this nice pill in his mouth and let them dress him in this lovely straight jacket, for his trip to a Funny Farm where he will be safe from himself and from many others.
But, of course, today even the NHS thinks Starmer is the answer to all their little worries.
“But, of course, today even the NHS thinks Starmer is the answer to all their little worries.” Agree – it says all you need to know about the deficit of able management – I wish I had the space to reveal why I know that. Starmer will, if elected, sink this country into the swamp of left wing wokery; if it takes one term to expose that to the masses such “they” will realise they have been had, bring that on…..on the other hand….
186no – you mean we can get deeper into the swamp of leftwing wokery than swampy sunak is taking us?!!!
Seldom does a party achieve what they say that they will do particularly when said while in opposition. The Lib Dems have been masters of this in the knowledge that they are unlikely to ever be in a position to deliver. Don’t hold your breath.
Yes.
But look at the damage the Limp Dim twats achieved when Chris the Convict Huhne and Potato Ed Davey got hold of the levers of power as Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change under Hug a Husky Dave Boy Cameron.
You could argue that the ‘at last departing’ witch Caroline Lucas was, whilst ostensibly only a lone backbencher, had some responsibility for the lunacy that overcame at least 630 of her 649 colleagues.
There’s got three points I would like to take about Chris Huhne…but it appears someone already has.
What Communities think?
Brown Muir Wind farm, just South of Elgin
2,102 Objections 10 Support
Dersalloch Wind farm, East of Straiton
4,723 Objections 23 Support
Blair wants to prohibit local objections in the planning process for renewables, and as he will be advising/running Starmer, there will be no future objections.
Starmer says he will “cut bills, create jobs and provide energy security” by increasing prices, reducing employment opportunities and making all energy supplies unreliable and at the mercy of changing weather and imports!
Yep, – that’s the la la land of Westminster.
Next election i vote for Guy Fawkes – he had the right idea.
Meanwhile i’m buying another diesel generator.
Em, a modern Guy Fawkes or watching Starmer castrate the country with the metaphorical equivalent of a rusty spoon? Ooh that’s a real toughie.
Back to the Future, with Labour.
Forward to the past.
“cut bills, create jobs and provide energy security”
‘Quite how this enhances our energy security is a mystery!’
‘Security’ in cM speak means “government control.” They use the word because focus groups told them it was important, not because it has anything to do with being free from danger or threat.
He could have said “provide energy justice” or “provide energy democracy.”
Anywho, nothing warms the heart of a Marxist more than SCARCITY. By mucking up energy and INTENTIONALLY creating scarcity (called “security”), they know the people will clamour for government to take it over. Yes, the people who messed it up will be put in charge, and the public will be HAPPY, because government is doing something about their problems. Ironic, idnit?
“Only government can manage scarcity fairly.” — Jimmy Carter
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” ― H.L. Mencken
Remove a vital source of fuel for the immediate future without detailing exactly how he will rebuild the UK power grid, or completely change the way UK industry requires power, copes with intermittency – must be a politician who knows zero about all of this – how many decadal career power engineers does Starmer have in his advisory circle versus recent graduate SPADS with zero experience of industry deciding the destination of energy policy…?
“…help communities profit from clean power projects, Sir Keir Starmer is to pledge.”
If ‘clean power’ was so profitable it wouldn’t need tax/bill-payer subsidies. Nor would it need the market to be rigged by putingvthe opposition out of business by law. (Isn’t that ‘anti-trust’?)
It is difficult to see how adopting more labour intensive energy sources is good for the economy. “More good paying jobs” as a result of producing no more energy is just the same as other employment generating schemes that simply destroy wealth. Odd how these political types think that is a good selling point, pay more people more money for producing the same amount of energy ( less energy in some instances).
As I understand it, Sucker Starmer is a UN/WEF Gofer. And several years ago the UN announced that they are transforming world economies from Demand management to Supply management. Sucker is obviously intent on implementing the policies of the masters he has sworn allegiance to.
The sick part is that they are using our money to pay these creatures to destroy our lives.
Just as they used our own houses to act as prison cells during the ‘lockdown’ years. It’s so much cheaper to make the inmates pay for their own incarceration and enslavement.
“The sick part is that they are using our money to pay these creatures to destroy our lives.”
Indeed. The “help communities profit” will be done with their OWN tax money.
The Starmer schtick tells us two things:
1. The people he is speaking to aren’t very intelligent,
2. The press fails to analyze and report on what he says. They simply, uncritically publish his press releases.
Such comments should bar the Labour Party from future office, but I align myself with a fellow commentator and say this will make little difference
Bring it on, mate, but wrap up warmly. Better still, wrap up altogether,
Prof Dieter Helm’s detailed views:
https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/labours-28-billion/
Not sure there’s much difference between Sunak and Starmer, both WEF dwarfs and will have follow their cult irrespective of the harm caused.
If there was an asylum, it would be overflowing. The country is full of lunatics in positions of influence or power. How do we get rid of all these nutters and bring back a bit of sanity?
We need a Cromwell. Elections aren’t going to solve this. Parliament must be dissolved and dismissed by the people, for the people:
“It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place,
which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.
Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.
Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?
Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?
Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.
Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God’s help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.
I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.
Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.
In the name of God, go!”
Thanks for that, Jaime!
The rear end of the Laburrr pantomime elephant finally vacillates towards a position.
The ONLY clean power generation are Hydro and Nuclear ( other issues not withstanding) The eye wateringly expensive and practically worthless wind and joke solar CANNOT supply baseload and worse perversely requite significant hydrocarbon involvement in their manufacture. Neither also fit any rational definition or understanding of what people think green or recyclability mean.
This is once again a clear example of spineless chameleon politics. Starmer is Olympic standard) caring more about what noisy weird people say (and of course don’t forget the Laburrr donors cashing in on all those lovely tax payer funded subsidies), than the General Public.
Notice the deliberate weasel words about not stopping oil but just not issuing new licences. And what about renewing existing licences? They are choking the life out of the industry then when it dies will say “we did not do that, the oil companies decided to do it themselves. Notice NOTHING about not importing oil and gas from some of the worlds hell holes where we will enhance the enrichment of despots to increase production of far dirtier oil and gas in more environmentally harmful ways. Oh how easy life can be amongst the decision makers where asininity is a virtue.
Notice how the “impartial BBC” make sure we know what their to what the screechy arts graduate mates say but never any word from anyone who is well qualified to speak on the other side. This is a stitch up.
WHERE has been the real science based debate regarding the benefit to the planet of this unilateral ban? We all know the only science on display is political science.
What would be more credible would be if the weasel in chief Starmer were to offer a referendum “if” Laburrr get into power but the fact they do not seek a mandate is very telling namely they fear a majority will say no! So much for that word “democracy” they repeat ad nauseum.
As for “publicly owned energy companies”. I think even Blind Freddie can see the problem with that. Please will someone point to ANY publicly owned venture which turned a profit? Just more jobs for even more jobsworth worthless civil servants to turn a loss.
Ok, rant over!
Pardonme
Have to agree and certainly the point of Nationalised Industries not making profits is a good one.
But it needs a little further examination.
As a Chartered Engineer, I joined the National Coal Board in 1976, to help get control of dangerous spoil heaps after Aberfan (a decade earlier!), and also to assist in implementing the then universally agreed “Plan for Coal”, drafted in the aftermath of the 1973 Yom Kippur war, seeking again to destroy Israel and the quadrupled price of oil, nearly destroying the UK economy.
It isn’t entirely clear what “profit” meant then. Obviously we then had the 1984/5 miners strike, the full opening of the Selby coalfield and the much delayed closure of a lot of old mines that should perhaps have closed at Nationalisation, but we were then desperate to keep the lights on.
I suggest that, again, ‘profit’ wasn’t the be all and end all. Very likely a big, competent, private coal industry would have done better, if the politics and the labour relations then had any sensible basis.
After privatisation in 1995 (and ignoring some very relevant issues surrounding that), the remains of the Coal Industry went belly up in 2006. At that date, coal import facilities enabled the thermal power stations (themselves privatised) to carry on. Until converted to US woodchip or blown up.
Still not sure how “profit” shows itself. Even now. Are BigWind and BigSolar profitable? Certainly profitable for some, including the brown envelope recipients.
But how does this benefit everyone else?
Coal generated power at around £35 per MWhr. Now we import at up to £10,000 per MWhr. Profitable? For whom?
Do not take this as an excuse to vote Tory. They are just as bad. If you vote for any of the old parties that are pushing this insanity, you will never stop it.
Yes, liebour is likely get in, but what really matters is that after Labour, we get an entirely new party that doesn’t accept any of the Net Zero insanity.
« Labour will end new North Sea oil and gas exploration, but help » . . . the Royal Air Force fit a propellor and a big rubber band to their fleet of Eurofighter Typhoon and Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning jets when they run out of aviation fuel.
The God of Hubris has a sense of humour: according to Guido, Starmer’s hydrogen-powered battle bus just broke down on the way to Edinburgh and had to be replaced by a diesel bus. 🤣
Lot of TV debate on this and related issues all based on total and utter ignorance of the subject. Saddest news is that approval for Rosebank is now deadlocked and BOTH opposing party spokespeople have been ducking and diving to avoid confronting the question of Rosebank going ahead or being cancelled. Meanwhile more nonsense about stopping further Notrth Sea licences. Kier Starmer only has say over the UK sector and that, apart from Rosebank – the deepest, most difficult and expensive prospect ever – is exhausted. There will be npo more applications for licences for him to refuse!
Like so many politicians Starmer has no ability to reason scientifically. His policy on limiting the use of north sea resources is nonsense. Atmospheric carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is just 0.04 % whereas water vapour and clouds are more than 90% of greenhouse gases. There is no climate crisis. We need to use our fossil fuels with cleaned up emissions while we develop a range of viable energy sources including nuclear. The world is being deprived of cheap energy while countries like China, India and Russia are laughing at our totally unnecessary self destruction,