[ali k]

My impression was that in 2010 there were plans in place towards transitioning to very high energy conservation standards but those were scrapped.

We're talking about the situation/choices at the election now. Not 14 years ago. But you can blame the Tories for what's happened in those intervening years. Building Regs were most recently updated in 2021 including higher performance targets, and were due to be again in 2025 (Future Buildings Standard). But it's a huge step change to go from where we are now to Passivhaus across the board.

My impression is that even the small amount of Passivhaus social housing building that has happened has led to dramatic cost reductions due to 'learning-by-doing" such that now costs are comparable to standard builds https://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/competitions_and_campaigns/passivhaus-for-local-authorities/

Of course an organisation advocating for Passivhaus will say that, and it's right that costs have come down and will continue to fall as it scales up. But I can only speak from experience being involved in a number of Passivhaus projects right now. When the rubber hits the road it's not true to say that costs are comparable. And the number of people/companies experienced enough to deliver Passivhaus projects is tiny relative to the construction industry as a whole. That cannot change overnight. You haven't said what your target date is for this manifesto commitment...

It's all very well comparing it to building battleships and shifting your entire economy to a war/climate footing, but what happens to literally everything else that needs to be done and paid for in the meantime? Should we disband the army and NHS and retrain all the nurses and soldiers to work in the construction industry for the next decade? Obviously not.

An overrated source of funds.

I literally meant each and every person who buys a new-build property. Not a few billionaires footing the bill. Houses will become more expensive if Stone's wishlist came to pass. Who will pay for that when people rightly moan about the already high housing costs? Or is he saying it should be subsidised out of general taxation?

I'm guessing this news hasn't filtered south of the border? Scotland adopts passivhaus regs, starting 2025.

Hasn't the Scottish Govt just ditched its climate targets because they found them to be unrealistic? As I say, let's see what happens later this year if (a) that legislation is passed, and (b) what the "Scottish equivalent to the Passivhaus standard" turns out to be.

Anyway, I don't want this to turn into a thread with me railing against improving energy efficiency in the construction industry FFS. I wholeheartedly agree it's something that needs to be done. But if Stone is just going to throw together a utopian climate manifesto as a way of attacking Labour for not being radical enough then he needs to show his working.

[seankenny]

I’m sure the other items on your list could be equally dismantled or picked apart on further interrogation by someone with the knowledge and/or inclination (e.g. the right wing press).

Much of what Stone writes about economics is nonsense. It’s based on the careful reading of about three sources, when the subject is one of the most discussed academic or policy topics in existence. Behind much of what he writes is the implicit assumption that powers that be like to keep people down (which in my view is somewhat different from liking hierarchy, which many powerful people absolutely love) rather than the recognition that running even a simple economy is very difficult. This may sound high-handed rather than taking down each point, but frankly, I can’t be arsed.

It’s worth saying that the economic ideas of much of the right wing press is also complete nonsense, but superficially convincing too. The fact that we’ve tried them and they haven’t worked suggests that the superficial charm has perhaps worn off.

Worth reading Will Hutton’s views on Labour’s economic policy, or listening to the interview he did on the Prospect magazine podcast. He is slightly optimistic about Britain’s prospects *if* things are done right, and positive about Labour’s approach.

Full disclose: I’m a Labour Party member and donated the princely sum of three pounds to the campaign on day one. (Look at me eh.) So that’s my bias.

[andy popp]

This may sound high-handed rather than taking down each point, but frankly, I can’t be arsed.

Actually, if you're going to be so dismissive of someone then I think it is kind of incumbent upon you to lay out some kind of argument. You don't have to agree with him to recognise that Stone is not exactly advocating Fully Automated Luxury Communism or Millei style ancap libertarianism. Much of what he seems to be arguing for does in fact exist in some form in other countries.

[Davo]

This may sound high-handed rather than taking down each point, but frankly, I can’t be arsed.

Actually, if you're going to be so dismissive of someone then I think it is kind of incumbent upon you to lay out some kind of argument. You don't have to agree with him to recognise that Stone is not exactly advocating Fully Automated Luxury Communism or Millei style ancap libertarianism. Much of what he seems to be arguing for does in fact exist in some form in other countries.

Wholeheartedly agree with you here Andy.

Sean if you can’t be bothered arguing or replying in a reasonable and civilised manner then I would suggest not responding.

On the other hand I personally would welcome reading your thoughts about what would be best for the economy. I’m not being sarcastic here, I actually enjoy reading this kind of stuff and would like to know what opinions your research, education and work has brought you to.

Cheers Dave

[seankenny]

I’m at least in part dismissive of him having a very limited range of sources; a position I’d expect a history professor to heartily endorse.

The point with populists (and Stone is a left wing populist with, in my view, an authoritarian streak) is that they “flood the zone with shit”. Refuting every crazy claim becomes a huge task. My basic view would be that his viewpoint, which is common amongst the far left, doesn’t really have much time for trade offs, or unintended consequences, or even budget constraints.

Take his idea of free public transport. Firstly, is the problem with public transport use in most British cities a demand issue? No, it’s not, it’s a supply issue, so making it free doesn’t help. And the reality of free public transport is virtually every poster on UKB paying for me to waltz around London for free. Lovely for me, politically unsustainable. See? A paragraph to refute one sentence of nonsense. That’s how populism works, there gets a point where saying “X is not a serious actor, ignoring them is more productive” becomes a far more viable strategy. I’m sure if we were taking about covid denialism you’d be nodding along in agreement.

As for things already existing in different countries. Well, many things exist in many countries and they don’t work, or do work but in a very different context to the U.K.

[ToxicBilberry]

I’m at least in part dismissive of him having a very limited range of sources; a position I’d expect a history professor to heartily endorse.

The point with populists (and Stone is a left wing populist with, in my view, an authoritarian streak) is that they “flood the zone with shit”. Refuting every crazy claim becomes a huge task. My basic view would be that his viewpoint, which is common amongst the far left, doesn’t really have much time for trade offs, or unintended consequences, or even budget constraints.

Take his idea of free public transport. Firstly, is the problem with public transport use in most British cities a demand issue? No, it’s not, it’s a supply issue, so making it free doesn’t help. And the reality of free public transport is virtually every poster on UKB paying for me to waltz around London for free. Lovely for me, politically unsustainable. See? A paragraph to refute one sentence of nonsense. That’s how populism works, there gets a point where saying “X is not a serious actor, ignoring them is more productive” becomes a far more viable strategy. I’m sure if we were taking about covid denialism you’d be nodding along in agreement.

As for things already existing in different countries. Well, many things exist in many countries and they don’t work, or do work but in a very different context to the U.K.

"Go straight to Gulag"

[Davo]

I’m at least in part dismissive of him having a very limited range of sources; a position I’d expect a history professor to heartily endorse.

The point with populists (and Stone is a left wing populist with, in my view, an authoritarian streak) is that they “flood the zone with shit”. Refuting every crazy claim becomes a huge task. My basic view would be that his viewpoint, which is common amongst the far left, doesn’t really have much time for trade offs, or unintended consequences, or even budget constraints.

Take his idea of free public transport. Firstly, is the problem with public transport use in most British cities a demand issue? No, it’s not, it’s a supply issue, so making it free doesn’t help. And the reality of free public transport is virtually every poster on UKB paying for me to waltz around London for free. Lovely for me, politically unsustainable. See? A paragraph to refute one sentence of nonsense. That’s how populism works, there gets a point where saying “X is not a serious actor, ignoring them is more productive” becomes a far more viable strategy. I’m sure if we were taking about covid denialism you’d be nodding along in agreement.

As for things already existing in different countries. Well, many things exist in many countries and they don’t work, or do work but in a very different context to the U.K.

I guess that is at least an attempt at justifying why you are dismissive, I’ll give you that. I would also say that it is easy to criticise and say why ideas are crap and they won’t work and it is much harder to put forward stuff that you think might work.


Also I know Stone personally and the idea that he is a populist of any description is quite the notion!! As to him being authoritarian that made me spit out my coffee laughing!!

Anyway, would you mind taking the time to describe some key policies that you think would help the UK?


Cheers Dave

[seankenny]

I used to climb with Stone a bit, many years ago, so I understand why you sprayed your coffee. But I also read what he writes and take it seriously, and, it falls squarely into a type of left wing populism that has an authoritarian edge. Eg private schools. Lots on the futher left than me would probably ban them if they could, whereas I’d just tax them (quite a lot).

I’m a super normie left liberal type who goes for improved growth through increased investment and building with a strong bias towards carbon reduction (the exact technical details of which I leave to others as I’m not an engineer). I’m happy with a degree of borrowing for that investment, but I am concerned that Britain’s capacity to absorb extra spending without causing a damaging and unpopular bout of inflation is somewhat limited. How limited? I don’t know. But limited enough that a less restrained approach to public spending as per the previous iteration of Labour strikes me as very risky. Trying to turn Labour into the natural party of government is a fundamentally very fine aim, and there may be no better time to do that than the present. Don’t want to mess that up.

[Oldmanmatt]

I’m at least in part dismissive of him having a very limited range of sources; a position I’d expect a history professor to heartily endorse.

The point with populists (and Stone is a left wing populist with, in my view, an authoritarian streak) is that they “flood the zone with shit”. Refuting every crazy claim becomes a huge task. My basic view would be that his viewpoint, which is common amongst the far left, doesn’t really have much time for trade offs, or unintended consequences, or even budget constraints.

Take his idea of free public transport. Firstly, is the problem with public transport use in most British cities a demand issue? No, it’s not, it’s a supply issue, so making it free doesn’t help. And the reality of free public transport is virtually every poster on UKB paying for me to waltz around London for free. Lovely for me, politically unsustainable. See? A paragraph to refute one sentence of nonsense. That’s how populism works, there gets a point where saying “X is not a serious actor, ignoring them is more productive” becomes a far more viable strategy. I’m sure if we were taking about covid denialism you’d be nodding along in agreement.

As for things already existing in different countries. Well, many things exist in many countries and they don’t work, or do work but in a very different context to the U.K.

Population for one.

I like the Scandinavian models, but they have lower populations.
They also have their own social issues:
https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/11/13/sweden-is-suffering-a-grim-wave-of-gang-violence
And there are only 10M people in Sweden, so comparable to London alone.

Britain is quite unique, diverse and crowded.

I can’t imagine there are any silver bullets and a pragmatic approach to what is a very precarious and rapidly changing economic reality is essential.

I am sure, Sean, you have opinions on what might be a prudent course or what sort of policies may bear fruit; I’d like to hear your thoughts.

[Davo]

Hi Sean

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Your ideas all seem good to me. I will be voting for Labour anyway and just want a government that at least tries to make things a bit better for most people. I don’t particularly want crazy radicalism but I would like investment in the uk etc

If you are happy to describe more of your ideas I would be keen to read them.

Dave

[stone]

I'm sincere in thinking we need free public transport. I was very impressed with how that works in Yosemite NP USA of all places. It's car-culture central in California, but in Yosemite people leave their cars and use the free busses. Because they are used by everyone, they are full and very frequent, so you never need to wait. Think of how much car traffic there is through eg the Peak District. If that was on busses, we could have busses with the frequency of London tube trains, so no waiting really, so they would be convenient.

It is extremely hard to convert all cars in the world to electric. Mining the raw materials is desperately hard. Just look at how hard it is proving to open the lithium mine in Serbia as an example (among many). Probably all battery manufacturing capacity is needed for builders vans etc. Decarbonising transport in time depends on a switch from cars to public transport, cycles and less transport.

Railways are already only 50% funded by fares and yet are too expensive for all but the most well off. Seems to me that is less fair than having them completely free for all along with busses. It will be hard to ramp up capacity enough. But all decarbonising options are very hard/unfeasible.

It is a mistake to think of this from a "decarbonise by 2050" perspective. What really matters is how much carbon gets emitted in total before decarbonisation is achieved. Getting people switching out of cars immediately is so much better than a solution some time in the future after a load of CO2 has been emitted.

Regarding being authoritarian, I'm actually arguing for something that I hope would lead people to voluntarily not bother buying a car because they now have a good alternative. That would free up all the resources currently devoted to making all of those cars etc. I see that as much better than eg what was attempted in France, taxing car travel without providing an alternative. That provoked the Yellow Vest stuff.

Regarding inflation etc -yes I do think it is worth having a labour shortage that means hand-car-washes and perhaps even Deliveroo etc become a thing of the past. The Attlee government in the 1950s did dramatic stuff starting from extremely difficult circumstances. They resorted to rationing (eg not allowing second cars etc). I don't think it would need to be as difficult as that.

[Will Hunt]

A free public transport network that connects even rural communities with the frequency of London tubes (i.e. every couple of minutes). And all we need to do this is political will? I don't even know where to begin. How many hundreds of thousands of additional bus drivers will you need to employ? Will factories be requisitioned by the government to only make buses for the next 50 years?

[teestub]

The ‘free’ Yosemite buses cover a grand total of about 5 miles and it costs $20/day to enter the park.

[seankenny]

Think of how much car traffic there is through eg the Peak District. If that was on busses, we could have busses with the frequency of London tube trains, so no waiting really, so they would be convenient.

Not even London buses run with the frequency of London tube trains!

As for Yosemite, have you been there on a Saturday lately? It’s an absolute fucking car culture shit show that makes going to the Peak District look like skiing across Antarctica. It took me as long to drive from Mariposa to the main village as it does to drive from west London to Matlock.

[stone]

It's a shame to hear Yosemite is now gridlocked with cars. It's 30years since I was there. I'm interested in how and why it seemed to work so well then and since has flopped.

Regarding feasibility, how about this for a wacky ridiculous squandering of the world's resources :- everyone has a private vehicle of all sorts of shapes and sizes, as big as they want, gets a free-at-the-point-of-use highway to drive it more-or-less anywhere. Most of those vehicles spend >95% of the time sitting idle by the side of the road. We then intend to transition all of those to being electric despite no one being willing to have a lithium mine built anywhere near where they live.

I'm interested in the car count along main roads through eg the Peak District. Considering how quickly queues form at traffic lights, my impression is that if that transferred onto busses, it would equate to very frequent busses.

Anyway, I was only saying that was what I wished the UK wanted to vote for. In terms of what I'd actually want Labour to now have as their manifesto, something like the 2017 manifesto would be great. Starmer did say that should be seen as Labour's "foundational document" when he was seeking election as Labour Leader in 2020. I'm presuming Sean, you voted for him as Labour leader then. When you heard him say that then, did you wince and hold your nose or did you think that was fine? My impression is that Andrew Fisher etc who wrote that 2017 manifesto say that there is even more need now for those sort of policies than there was back then.

[ToxicBilberry]

I'm sincere in thinking we need free public transport. I was very impressed with how that works in Yosemite NP USA of all places. It's car-culture central in California, but in Yosemite people leave their cars and use the free busses. Because they are used by everyone, they are full and very frequent, so you never need to wait. Think of how much car traffic there is through eg the Peak District. If that was on busses, we could have busses with the frequency of London tube trains, so no waiting really, so they would be convenient.

It is extremely hard to convert all cars in the world to electric. Mining the raw materials is desperately hard. Just look at how hard it is proving to open the lithium mine in Serbia as an example (among many). Probably all battery manufacturing capacity is needed for builders vans etc. Decarbonising transport in time depends on a switch from cars to public transport, cycles and less transport.

Railways are already only 50% funded by fares and yet are too expensive for all but the most well off. Seems to me that is less fair than having them completely free for all along with busses. It will be hard to ramp up capacity enough. But all decarbonising options are very hard/unfeasible.

It is a mistake to think of this from a "decarbonise by 2050" perspective. What really matters is how much carbon gets emitted in total before decarbonisation is achieved. Getting people switching out of cars immediately is so much better than a solution some time in the future after a load of CO2 has been emitted.

Regarding being authoritarian, I'm actually arguing for something that I hope would lead people to voluntarily not bother buying a car because they now have a good alternative. That would free up all the resources currently devoted to making all of those cars etc. I see that as much better than eg what was attempted in France, taxing car travel without providing an alternative. That provoked the Yellow Vest stuff.

Regarding inflation etc -yes I do think it is worth having a labour shortage that means hand-car-washes and perhaps even Deliveroo etc become a thing of the past. The Attlee government in the 1950s did dramatic stuff starting from extremely difficult circumstances. They resorted to rationing (eg not allowing second cars etc). I don't think it would need to be as difficult as that.

Hi Stone, I'm still not sure how the current Labour government (in all but name) appeals to the bottom 70% of native brits? I'm also not sure what you'd do with all the young men that would find themselves out of work due to the crackdown on Deliveroo and hand car washes? I agree that people should get off their arses and cook / wash their own cars and that we could even re-industrialise the UK and use the Deliveroo / Amazon, bottom 70% to work in industry, from each according to his ability etc... Is this the plan and if so how do we avoid the problems of the past? 

[Will Hunt]

I'm also not sure what you'd do with all the young men that would find themselves out of work due to the crackdown on Deliveroo and hand car washes?

Keep up, they're going to be conscripted into driving buses. A nation of bus drivers.

[stone]

I didn't mean car-washers etc should be made unemployed. On the contrary, people on here were complaining that doing something such as the 2017 Labour manifesto would create an overly-tight labour market and so inflation. I was simply meaning if good jobs in eg retrofitting buildings to increase energy conservation, the NHS, driving busses, whatever, enticed workers away from hand-car-washing jobs, then so be it.

[abarro81]

If the bus to the tor were free and regular I'd still drive - always gonna be faster (essential for a morning session and getting back to work for the afternoon), can take lots of gear/pads etc. I bet lots of others are the same..

[Wellsy]

I think we could substantially improve public transport in this country. More things like TFL in other cities, rail services nationalisation etc would be good. I don't think we could make it free but we probably could make it cheaper and better, and better for the environment.

I don't think anyone here would disagree with that (even if you would never use it, it would benefit you for it to be better and for others to use it), and I think a Labour government is best placed to deliver those improvements. I'm not sure that public transport has ever been something the National Cons have really cared about.

[ToxicBilberry]

I didn't mean car-washers etc should be made unemployed. On the contrary, people on here were complaining that doing something such as the 2017 Labour manifesto would create an overly-tight labour market and so inflation. I was simply meaning if good jobs in eg retrofitting buildings to increase energy conservation, the NHS, driving busses, whatever, enticed workers away from hand-car-washing jobs, then so be it.

Ah I get you, thanks 😊. I think it’s a great idea. My concern is the governments, left and right, reciprocal power and wealth relationship with corporations wouldn’t allow any such policy to happen. What ‘might’ happen is that if the bottom 70% continue to perceive themselves as an alienated and disliked group with no message of hope from politicians, this will pave the way for extremism - left or right - to form a new elite and mobilise the low masses against the middle. At that point decarbonising and retrofitting council houses will be the last thing on people’s minds

[Oldmanmatt]

I didn't mean car-washers etc should be made unemployed. On the contrary, people on here were complaining that doing something such as the 2017 Labour manifesto would create an overly-tight labour market and so inflation. I was simply meaning if good jobs in eg retrofitting buildings to increase energy conservation, the NHS, driving busses, whatever, enticed workers away from hand-car-washing jobs, then so be it.

Ah I get you, thanks 😊. I think it’s a great idea. My concern is the governments, left and right, reciprocal power and wealth relationship with corporations wouldn’t allow any such policy to happen. What ‘might’ happen is that if the bottom 70% continue to perceive themselves as an alienated and disliked group with no message of hope from politicians, this will pave the way for extremism - left or right - to form a new elite and mobilise the low masses against the middle. At that point decarbonising and retrofitting council houses will be the last thing on people’s minds

Boffo the clown:
Keep up! That happened twenty years ago, we’re all doing the dystopian two step these days. Meet the new elite, same as the old elite but whiter teeth.

Boffo exit, stage left.

Narrator:
Meanwhile, in the real world…

[ToxicBilberry]

You’d have to translate your response into a cogent argument as to why you think elite theory is nonsense. Otherwise it reads like an ad hominem attempt to humiliate.

[lukeyboy]

The free public transport point is interesting, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. I'd recommend giving Freakonomics Ep 513 a listen as they covered this in detail. It's been seriously considered by some US cities.

One of the main purported benefits is enhanced social mobility and economic opportunity - the jobs are often not close to where the poorest people live, who also don't have personal transport. The time and cost of public transport can make a lot of jobs unviable.

Then there's the massive improvements in efficiency by public transport being widespread and well used, as well as fewer vehicles on the road, environmental benefits etc.

I can't see how it would be done in a rural setting, and there's definitely flaws - but it also has its merits.

[SA Chris]

It's already in place in Tallinn in Estonia and Luxembourg. I know they are special cases from a POV of infrastructure already in place and population densities, but shows it is possible, if not always viable.

As Wellsy said earlier, in general it can do with a lot of improvement across the country if not free, then at least cheap and reliable.

An don't get me started on LEZs.