UK General Election 2024

UKBouldering.com

Help Support UKBouldering.com:

Sean, your use of the term "populism" seems to me to basically amount to meaning "whatever Sean dislikes".

The most useful definition of the term that I've come across is meaning divisive politics -where an enemy group is "othered" so as to rally supporters of the populist as defenders of the "proper sort" of people.

-The Green Party of E&W can be accused of many things but that isn't one of them. They are the most pro-immigrant party in the UK etc. Of course that doesn't mean everyone voting for them feels like that.
 
seankenny said:
Duma said:
I have a hard time believing that 6% of 2019 green voters switched to reform

It doesn’t make sense if the Greens are coded “decent” in your mind, but if they’re coded “batty and unworkable” then it’s much easier to accept. Both parties are fundamentally populist ones and it’s easier to switch between two varieties of populism than to make the leap from boring mainstream parties to the fringe. The Greens’ deputy leader is a former hypnotist who once hypnotised a Sun reporter in order to enlarge her breasts. That’s such a Reform Party bio!

There’s always been a strong right wing element to environmentalism, eg fears over population growth easily shading into fears over too many of the wrong sort of people, or anti-vax types. If you love the countryside and are scared it’s going to get built over with ugly houses then it’s a very short leap to being anti-immigration.

N=1 and all that, but someone I know hosts a local green party monthly meeting in their café. They were saying about how much of the local groups focus was on not building new homes in the fields near their houses (development is planned on basically all the local council owned fields), and why don't we focus on regenerating somewhere much less affluent 5-10 miles away.

A lot of what he has said revolved around doing what will make things better for them rather than think about what's actually needed.

EDIT - that's not to say that greens are bad or anything, just how local activists can be hugely driven by what affects them personally.
 
stone said:
Will Hunt said:
Maybe this should go in a general politics thread, but can anyone explain whether and why Labour's policy on lowering energy bills works? My understanding of the policy is that by starting a publicly owned energy company and investing lots in renewables you lower bills. Perhaps I've misunderstood or missed something in the detail, but if energy prices are pegged to the most expensive form of production (oil/gas/nuclear I guess?) then we'd only see bills reduce when all our energy needs are met with cheaper production methods? Even then, if energy is traded internationally then you'd still find your prices pegged to the more expensive fossil fuel production. So it's great to invest more in renewables, and since those are more profitable you can take those profits and do more good stuff with it, but how does it lower energy bills?
Thanks for prompting me to Google this as I'm also interested. This looks a good link https://www.rabobank.com/knowledge/d011318792-the-basics-of-electricity-price-formation
I think the gist is that only some of the price comes from dispatch-able electricity bought on the spot market. Much of the price is bought further ahead at a price that does get reduced by a wodge coming from low cost production.
stone said:
Will Hunt said:
Maybe this should go in a general politics thread, but can anyone explain whether and why Labour's policy on lowering energy bills works? My understanding of the policy is that by starting a publicly owned energy company and investing lots in renewables you lower bills. Perhaps I've misunderstood or missed something in the detail, but if energy prices are pegged to the most expensive form of production (oil/gas/nuclear I guess?) then we'd only see bills reduce when all our energy needs are met with cheaper production methods? Even then, if energy is traded internationally then you'd still find your prices pegged to the more expensive fossil fuel production. So it's great to invest more in renewables, and since those are more profitable you can take those profits and do more good stuff with it, but how does it lower energy bills?
Thanks for prompting me to Google this as I'm also interested. This looks a good link https://www.rabobank.com/knowledge/d011318792-the-basics-of-electricity-price-formation
I think the gist is that only some of the price comes from dispatch-able electricity bought on the spot market. Much of the price is bought further ahead at a price that does get reduced by a wodge coming from low cost production.

Thanks for sharing. Maybe I'm being thick, but that suggests that my assumptions were broadly right about energy bought on the spot market (next-day and same-day markets) but it doesn't explain how the future market might be different. It suggests as well that decoupling electricity price from gas price would require market reform, which presumably would require us to have the same approach as whatever the EU come up with.
 
James Malloch said:
seankenny said:
Duma said:
I have a hard time believing that 6% of 2019 green voters switched to reform

It doesn’t make sense if the Greens are coded “decent” in your mind, but if they’re coded “batty and unworkable” then it’s much easier to accept. Both parties are fundamentally populist ones and it’s easier to switch between two varieties of populism than to make the leap from boring mainstream parties to the fringe. The Greens’ deputy leader is a former hypnotist who once hypnotised a Sun reporter in order to enlarge her breasts. That’s such a Reform Party bio!

There’s always been a strong right wing element to environmentalism, eg fears over population growth easily shading into fears over too many of the wrong sort of people, or anti-vax types. If you love the countryside and are scared it’s going to get built over with ugly houses then it’s a very short leap to being anti-immigration.

N=1 and all that, but someone I know hosts a local green party monthly meeting in their café. They were saying about how much of the local groups focus was on not building new homes in the fields near their houses (development is planned on basically all the local council owned fields), and why don't we focus on regenerating somewhere much less affluent 5-10 miles away.

A lot of what he has said revolved around doing what will make things better for them rather than think about what's actually needed.

EDIT - that's not to say that greens are bad or anything, just how local activists can be hugely driven by what affects them personally.

♂️ Adding the badge “Green” and “it’s about preserving the environment (mine)” to your NYMBY-ism is probably a great comfort blanket. Many people need that, rather than face their own essential selfishness.

Plus, surely those vote shifts are assumed and they have no idea if people switched, individually, or if people who didn’t vote in 2019 and did so this time (giving a different outcome) and people who did, then, didn’t now, etc?
All they know (in the case of the 6% Green shift) is that fewer people turned out to vote Green. How would they know if those people voted previously, let alone who they voted for?
 
Will Hunt said:
Thanks for sharing. Maybe I'm being thick, but that suggests that my assumptions were broadly right about energy bought on the spot market (next-day and same-day markets) but it doesn't explain how the future market might be different. It suggests as well that decoupling electricity price from gas price would require market reform, which presumably would require us to have the same approach as whatever the EU come up with.
I suppose windfarms sell some of their electricity to people who fulfil future contracts. On days with a very high spot price, windfarms typically consequently get less for the supplied electricity than the spot price on that day. The spot price also gets brought down if the bidding for electricity is less frenetic because wind power is meeting some of the demand.
 
On the train, on my phone, so not going to go into too much detail but...

The majority of new wind energy is basically fixed price, either via a "strike price" via the contracts for difference mechanism, or via a corporate power purchase agreement.

So, while the spot price of the electricity is somewhat variable, the actual rate paid to the producer isn't. Most of the variability comes from balancing costs (ramping up and down gas powered stations, interconnectors, pumped hydro, battery etc.) or paying constraint payments when the wind power can't be used.

When these projects are consented, there are some fixed costs and some variable. The developer has to commit to this fixed prices while some of these costs can go up and down (hint, they don't come down that much). Thst said, the CfD mechanism has brought simply huge reductions in the last 20 years, from over £150/mwh to as low as £37/mhw iirc. However, it's now widely agreed that because of higher cost of capital, steel costs, inflation etc. These low prices are not achievable, and that the projects aren't viable. (hence why no bids last year in AR5 and an increase in the target strike prices for AR6)

Now. Labour. Great British Power. Not sure what their exact plan is, the details haven't been spelled out yet. My thoughts will be lower cost capital, and maybe some level government backed insurance. Both of those are quite significant line items in the overall cost build up of these major offshore wind projects, and the only aspects I can see where a dent could be made. Basically, instead of pension funds and other major private investors making their returns on investment, it'll be you and me via gov issued money. The insurance is a guess.

The challange for the gov will be the same as for everyone else - the "experienced" development teams are already stretched, with anyone showing a hint of past experience and nouse in very high demand. So they're at a disadvantage, meaning there's always the chance of poor investment choices.

The devil will, as always, be in the detail.

So far they're making some good, high profile hires so it's a promising start. I'd say, watch this space.
 
https://www.sustainableviews.com/how-great-british-energy-can-deliver-vital-less-profitable-clean-energy-infrastructure-f827fe6c/

Some interesting other perspectives on how GB Energy might work and what it might invest in.

TL:DR - they may deliberately chose to develop less profitable but more strategically beneficial wind sites, and they can stay out of the CfD mechanism, and just agree Power Purchase Agreements with energy offtakers (i.e. the public) at rates that are less profitable (aka cheaper).
 
I was struck by this
Labour’s 20-point gap between Remain and Leave voters is down substantially on the 36-point gap from 2019.
https://www.focaldata.com/blog/how-britain-voted-2024
So the GE2019 degenerated into a re-run of the EU referendum but with a constituency FPTP voting system. :(
 
How are you interpreting that data? To me it looks like more people who voted leave voted for Labour this time, with them losing remain voters to Libs and Greens who had stronger pro Europe messages. This would seem to fit in with the genera polling around peoples opinions on the success of Brexit
 
stone said:
So the GE2019 degenerated into a re-run of the EU referendum but with a constituency FPTP voting system. :(

This surely isn't news is it?

There was a party literally called "The Brexit Party" running in all non-Conservative held seats and the Conservative's primary slogan was "Get Brexit Done"!
 
teestub said:
How are you interpreting that data? To me it looks like more people who voted leave voted for Labour this time, with them losing remain voters to Libs and Greens who had stronger pro Europe messages. This would seem to fit in with the genera polling around peoples opinions on the success of Brexit
I agree with you about Labour/Leave voters returning to Labour in 2024 after voting Labour in 2017/2015 but then Tory/Brexit-Party in 2019.

However:-
The LibDems got 3,519,163 votes in 2024
The LibDems got 3,696,419 votes in 2019

The huge gain in LibDem seats despite the fall in votes was because in 2024 they got votes in Tory/LibDem marginals that in 2019 voted Conservative (despite Brexit and despite often being Remain majority seats) so as to keep Corbyn out.

There were similar numbers of voters switching LibDem 2019 to Labour 2024 and vice versa.

Sheffield Hallam is an example of a very strong Remain, LibDem-Labour marginal. In 2024 Labour increased compared to the LibDems in Sheffield Hallam.

This interactive data map shows Remain/Leave, voting, opinions and demographics https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/datamap.html
 
stone said:
The huge gain in LibDem seats despite the fall in votes was because in 2024 they got votes in Tory/LibDem marginals that in 2019 voted Conservative (despite Brexit and despite often being Remain majority seats) so as to keep Corbyn out.

Which graph shows they voted Con only because they didn’t like your mate Jeremy? It seems the Libs ran an amazing targeted campaign this time particularly in SW and Scotland and made their vote share count.
 
It was the chart and paragraph "the Conservative Blue Wall Fractured" in https://www.focaldata.com/blog/how-britain-voted-2024
66899086e558e9149a8ff990_Blue%20Wall.png
 
https://x.com/JasonGroves1/status/1813454336195702893

The first example, no doubt of many, of a new Green MP opposing infrastructure...for green energy. Laughable.
 
Erm.. undergrounding cables is always an option.. just usually more expensive than slapping gert big unsightly pylons across the landscape. We have the tech and the wherewithal.. just not the motivation as yet.
 
I knew someone would point that out when I posted it! He was talking to the Today programme I think, if thats better. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00213vc .... from 56.50 onwards.

Re undergrounding, that really is quite a lot more expensive isnt it? Before we get onto the additional difficulties of fault finding, repairing etc. There are probably certain sections that could be undergrounded but surely not a reasonable use of costs to do the whole thing underground.
 
Burying obviously improves resilience, which will only become more important with climate change. We have several friends in Texas who recently experienced hours or days of power outage during very hot temperatures following Storm Beryl. Many friends in PA (where temps and humidity have been in the 90s for a week or more) are currently without power following a big thunderstorm last night. The vast majority of low and medium voltage power lines are buried here in Denmark - in fact, I think it is now a requirement that all new cables be buried. Ditto Netherlands and Germany.
 
From what I gather I think the voltage is the issue? For low to medium, its pretty achievable, for high voltage, much less so. I'm not an electrical engineer though.

This has been an enjoyable way to waste half an hour so far this morning! This was an interesting read. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/undergrounding-electrical-transmission-cables/
 


Write your reply...

Latest posts

Back
Top