General Election 2024

Who got your vote?

  • Labour

    Votes: 147 54.2%

  • Conservative

    Votes: 5 1.8%

  • Lib Dem

    Votes: 25 9.2%

  • Green

    Votes: 48 17.7%

  • Reform

    Votes: 11 4.1%

  • SNP

    Votes: 5 1.8%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Independent

    Votes: 8 3.0%

  • UK resident but not voting

    Votes: 18 6.6%

  • Spoiled my ballot

    Votes: 3 1.1%
  • Total voters
    271
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Matt Varnish said:
Starmers father was a tool maker, back then he would have been one of the best paid in the factory, time served apprentice, probably on double the money someone on the shop floor was paid.
Click to expand...
I used to play footy with a couple of guys who were toolmakers for Honda in Swindon before it closed down.
They were pretty well paid at least in comparison to everyone else. It’s a skilled job for sure.
 
Really shouldn’t have invited anyone from the NHS, they rightfully hate this wanker.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
I’m really not mate. I work for a company that works close with central government to deliver green renewable solutions. Multi Billion pound projects. I’d be surprised if you have more insight into what GB Energy is than I do. But fair go if you do.

There’s very little money available on Day 1. The relative pittance allocated to GB Energy will return more than it invests. It will (unfortunately) generate more money for Energy CO’s than the existing model.

But, crucially, it will ensure that those profits will do GOOD for the planet, Job market, economy and change the balance.

It’s nothing like what I want. I think in this climate he could go further, faster. But you seem so blinkered in your desire to hate that you view things through the prism of 2019 or sooner. It’s madness and not dealing with reality.

Remember. At no point ever has anyone from Labour said GB Energy is an energyco. They’ve not lied. Even that is a fecking leap forward.
Click to expand...

Sounds positive instead of the constant negativity.
 
hp88 said:
This stamp duty waving is bullshit, yeah it’s helpful but it needs to be capped way below £400K.
Click to expand...

There could be some really good taxation and politics around stamp duty. Not quick ‘grab it while you can’ short term shite. But long term change; a ten year tiered system that incentivised people aged 20-30 investing £XXk into a government savings bond that guaranteed zero stamp duty until they turned 30-40.

Unavailable for buy to let or second homes. But guaranteed huge savings for young people that invested in their future. If they cash out that money, they get their investment and interest back, but lose the stamp duty privilege.

Massively imperfect and worthy of big tweaks. But this roll of the dice tax offer bollocks should be outlawed and cross-party approved.
 
Buster15 said:
Sounds positive instead of the constant negativity.
Click to expand...

Oh mate it’s nothing like what anyone wants. I think It’s shit. But this binary approach from us on the left is insane.

In no world can any government nationalise energy in this country.

Tearing apart any inroads into a better energy policy is childish. This country is so wedded to the Private energy sector that to attempt to undo it would bankrupt us. That’s reality.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Oh mate it’s nothing like what anyone wants. I think It’s shit. But this binary approach from us on the left is insane.

In no world can any government nationalise energy in this country.

Tearing apart any inroads into a better energy policy is childish. This country is so wedded to the Private energy sector that to attempt to undo it would bankrupt us. That’s reality.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is.
 
Dobba said:
The best bit of positivity is the lie that 'at no point ever has anyone from Labour said GB Energy is an energyco', whilst watching a debate in which the leader of the party literally just did so.
Click to expand...

Mate, he didn’t. I don’t know if you’re getting caught up on nomenclature or whether I’m giving Starmer too much rope.

Within the sector, Energy Company, EnergyCo and Energy Co Operative are often used interchangeably. Unhelpfully. Not by subject matter experts, but certainly by commentators.

Using EnergyCo as a title with regards to an entity that supports Energy CoOperatives that invest, say £1bn, to existing Energy generating companies in order to fund a £10bn carbon positive project, while ALSO paying greater levies on their Carbon intensive activities… is a holistic good.

I’m really not defending a pretty milquetoast offering. But I’m also not pretending it’s bad. Maybe you hear it different. Maybe you genuinely know more about this than me. But I just don’t see how you can read it as lies. Or negative.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
It will (unfortunately) generate more money for Energy CO’s than the existing model.

But, crucially, it will ensure that those profits will do GOOD for the planet, Job market, economy and change the balance.

Remember. At no point ever has anyone from Labour said GB Energy is an energyco. They’ve not lied. Even that is a fecking leap forward.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand the pros or cons of GB Energy, but I think Anas Sarwar said just last week that GB Energy would mean “having our own energy generation company, head quartered here in Scotland” but maybe that’s just terminology
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
I don’t understand the pros or cons of GB Energy, but I think Anas Sarwar said just last week that GB Energy would mean “having our own energy generation company, head quartered here in Scotland” but maybe that’s just terminology
Click to expand...

The area that I’ll accept ‘dishonesty’ is the fact they don’t attach a timeframe to ‘Lower your bills’.

It’s plan, will. Its timeline, will be decades long.

It’s still a social good. But if people are feeling it’s being misrepresented then there’s validity there I guess.
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
I don’t understand the pros or cons of GB Energy, but I think Anas Sarwar said just last week that GB Energy would mean “having our own energy generation company, head quartered here in Scotland” but maybe that’s just terminology
Click to expand...
No you're misremembering. As we've heard 'at no point ever has anyone from Labour said GB Energy is an energyco'.

Not the leader literally in this debate you just finished watching.


Not the would be energy secretary (don't worry, you don't need all 30 seconds, he does it within two):


Nor Anas Sarwar


And especially not the party as a whole.

 
Dobba said:
No you're misremembering. As we've heard 'at no point ever has anyone from Labour said GB Energy is an energyco'.

Not the leader literally in this debate you just finished watching.


Not the would be energy secretary (don't worry, you don't need all 30 seconds, he does it within two):


Nor Anas Sarwar


And especially not the party as a whole.

Click to expand...


Yeah you’re confused.

It IS an energy company. It’s not a direct energy generating company.

You’ve just misunderstood. Marks & Spencers is an energy company as you can purchase power through them. A solar installation company is an energy company is an energy company as it installs technology that captures power. A heat pump installation firm is an energy company.

Read my follow up post. I don’t blame you for being wrong. I even support your view that how it’s being presented suggests that it’s going to generate energy. But only to the point that people don’t understand. I don’t think it’s the party being opaque or obtuse.

It’s difficult phrasing as GB Energy will do a litany of things. If it puts £500m into a £5bn localised energy generating co-op it IS an energy generating company. But only as a facilitator.

The biggest part of the scheme is windfall taxing and public-private investment, and managed ongoing earn outs from the CAPEX holders.

It’s finally some positive gearing in our energy sector. Carry on hating it if you like. But you’re not being lied to. You’re just not reading enough.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Yeah you’re confused.

It IS an energy company. It’s not a direct energy generating company.

You’ve just misunderstood. Marks & Spencers is an energy company as you can purchase power through them. A solar installation company is an energy company is an energy company as it installs technology that captures power. A heat pump installation firm is an energy company.

Read my follow up post. I don’t blame you for being wrong. I even support your view that how it’s being presented suggests that it’s going to generate energy. But only to the point that people don’t understand. I don’t think it’s the party being opaque or obtuse.

It’s difficult phrasing as GB Energy will do a litany of things. If it puts £500m into a £5bn localised energy generating co-op it IS an energy generating company. But only as a facilitator.

The biggest part of the scheme is windfall taxing and public-private investment, and managed ongoing earn outs from the CAPEX holders.

It’s finally some positive gearing in our energy sector. Carry on hating it if you like. But you’re not being lied to. You’re just not reading enough.
Click to expand...
It isn't difficult phrasing, it's a lie. It isn't a company, it won't generate energy and it won't sell it to any consumers. It's going to do literally zero of the things you listed as definitions of energy companies.

The one time Starmer has been remotely called out on it (on BBC Radio Scotland) even he admits it isn't an energy company but an investment vehicle. Even he isn't as committed to the lie as you apparently are.
 
Dobba said:
It isn't difficult phrasing, it's a lie. It isn't a company, it won't generate energy and it won't sell it to any consumers. It's going to do literally zero of the things you listed as definitions of energy companies.

The one time Starmer has been remotely called out on it (on BBC Radio Scotland) even he admits it isn't an energy company but an investment vehicle. Even he isn't as committed to the lie as you apparently are.
Click to expand...

Mate. I promise you that you’re picking the wrong hill.

Let’s leave aside our different ideas of what ‘generating energy’ is. Admittedly I’ll give more rope here as I’m in the sector. I’d happily see a Green Home Grant for Solar panels be branded ‘energy generation’. Fair go if you don’t.

If GB Energy gave a £50m grant to Vanderfall to install a £500m local energy network in rural Cornwall to reduce a community reliance on off grid power (thousands of these communities still exist) at the same time they threaten further windfall taxes for not doing so… at the same time they allow capped earn outs of future profits there - through consumer price guarantees… that’s a good thing to do. A good thing for those people. A good social good. And it manages decarbonisation hand in hand with the most powerful sector in the country. I’ll call that energy generation.

You and I have different lines. All good.

But have you got real examples where senior Labour figures are suggesting that GB Energy is a new entity that will generate and directly sell to consumers? I’ve not. Happy to be proven wrong. It would be idiotic for them to have done so.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Mate. I promise you that you’re picking the wrong hill.

Let’s leave aside our different ideas of what ‘generating energy’ is. Admittedly I’ll give more rope here as I’m in the sector. I’d happily see a Green Home Grant for Solar panels be branded ‘energy generation’. Fair go if you don’t.

If GB Energy gave a £50m grant to Vanderfall to install a £500m local energy network in rural Cornwall to reduce a community reliance on off grid power (thousands of these communities still exist) at the same time they threaten further windfall taxes for not doing so… at the same time they allow capped earn outs of future profits there - through consumer price guarantees… that’s a good thing to do. A good thing for those people. A good social good. And it manages decarbonisation hand in hand with the most powerful sector in the country. I’ll call that energy generation.

You and I have different lines. All good.

But have you got real examples where senior Labour figures are suggesting that GB Energy is a new entity that will generate and directly sell to consumers? I’ve not. Happy to be proven wrong. It would be idiotic for them to have done so.
Click to expand...
Would you then call that grant 'an energy generation company'?

If not, why on earth is this investment fund one?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Will there be a programme where the journalists will give the politicans a more difficult time? They both just waffled on about nothing with no real answers.

By some responses on here, people seemed to think Rigby did. ????
Click to expand...

Nick Robinson didn’t pull any punches on Panorama in my opinion.
 
Initially I was frustrated with Rigby but I think she did it OK looking back (in terms of how she treated both). She wanted to challenge Starmer and not let him say fluffy answers which he has become a pro at, but with Sunak she knew he'd dig his own grave and then fill it, and where relevant she'd help him fill it too

But I overall don't think she took the show the way it was meant to at times. She wanted to be like a chat show host looking for audience laughter or reaction, that took away from her part of the show. The audience bit was better
 
Dobba said:
It isn't difficult phrasing, it's a lie. It isn't a company, it won't generate energy and it won't sell it to any consumers. It's going to do literally zero of the things you listed as definitions of energy companies.

The one time Starmer has been remotely called out on it (on BBC Radio Scotland) even he admits it isn't an energy company but an investment vehicle. Even he isn't as committed to the lie as you apparently are.
Click to expand...

But it is a company? It's an energy company designed to promote investment in the energy sector. The Labour Party haven't said they are creating another eon or edf but it is still a company, so hardly misleading.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
I’m really not mate. I work for a company that works close with central government to deliver green renewable solutions. Multi Billion pound projects. I’d be surprised if you have more insight into what GB Energy is than I do. But fair go if you do.

There’s very little money available on Day 1. The relative pittance allocated to GB Energy will return more than it invests. It will (unfortunately) generate more money for Energy CO’s than the existing model.

But, crucially, it will ensure that those profits will do GOOD for the planet, Job market, economy and change the balance.

It’s nothing like what I want. I think in this climate he could go further, faster. But you seem so blinkered in your desire to hate that you view things through the prism of 2019 or sooner. It’s madness and not dealing with reality.

Remember. At no point ever has anyone from Labour said GB Energy is an energyco. They’ve not lied. Even that is a fecking leap forward.
Click to expand...
What I don't get is, if all these parties are so keen on "Nett Zero" and green enery, why aren't they rushing a bill through parliament to force devlopers into making new homes more green.
Solar panels on all roofs.
Increase the insualtion gap in cavity walls
Soak aways for surface water
Heat pumps for air conditioning.
Energy efficient lighting in the streets
etc

Surely those steps would reduce our carbon footprint

I wanted solar panels on the roof of the building I rent, but my landlord is still in the dark ages about it, he reckons the inverters and other kit would need to be housed in it's own small building. He was last approached about it 15rs ago, he has literally acres of roof space that could be used.
 
Matt Varnish said:
What I don't get is, if all these parties are so keen on "Nett Zero" and green enery, why aren't they rushing a bill through parliament to force devlopers into making new homes more green.
Solar panels on all roofs.
Increase the insualtion gap in cavity walls
Soak aways for surface water
Heat pumps for air conditioning.
Energy efficient lighting in the streets
etc

Surely those steps would reduce our carbon footprint

I wanted solar panels on the roof of the building I rent, but my landlord is still in the dark ages about it, he reckons the inverters and other kit would need to be housed in it's own small building. He was last approached about it 15rs ago, he has literally acres of roof space that could be used.
Click to expand...

This is all addressed and discussed in The Future Homes Standard which was scheduled for 2025, unsure if this changes now we’re having a new government.

The only challenge is that this is purely for new builds and not refurbishments, and with the home building ambition slow at best, non-existent at worst, then the impact won’t be felt for a number of years yet.

The reality will most likely be a number of subsidy based projects on refurbishments from government, most likely heat pumps and solar, that will available to the public.
 
Matt Varnish said:
What I don't get is, if all these parties are so keen on "Nett Zero" and green enery, why aren't they rushing a bill through parliament to force devlopers into making new homes more green.
Solar panels on all roofs.
Increase the insualtion gap in cavity walls
Soak aways for surface water
Heat pumps for air conditioning.
Energy efficient lighting in the streets
etc

Surely those steps would reduce our carbon footprint

I wanted solar panels on the roof of the building I rent, but my landlord is still in the dark ages about it, he reckons the inverters and other kit would need to be housed in it's own small building. He was last approached about it 15rs ago, he has literally acres of roof space that could be used.
Click to expand...
There's reams of new legislation in motion, with new stuff every week. It's just that it's not really reported on to the general public. Also, it's a slow process.
 
F-Red said:
This is all addressed and discussed in The Future Homes Standard which was scheduled for 2025, unsure if this changes now we’re having a new government.

The only challenge is that this is purely for new builds and not refurbishments, and with the home building ambition slow at best, non-existent at worst, then the impact won’t be felt for a number of years yet.

The reality will most likely be a number of subsidy based projects on refurbishments from government, most likely heat pumps and solar, that will available to the public.
Click to expand...
When was this produced, I attended a meeting about becoming a councilor only 2 yrs ago, and asked the people from our local council about these very things, I was told there was no legislation in the pipeline to force developers into providing this for new build, and not even a hint of grants for doing it for refurbishmment properties.
I've since attended many planning meetings, and it's not even mentioned on private build planning applications, it just appears that no-one, not even architects are proposing any green energy commitments.
 
decorativeed said:
There's reams of new legislation in motion, with new stuff every week. It's just that it's not really reported on to the general public. Also, it's a slow process.
Click to expand...
All I can say to that is, someone must be keeping it a secret then, because I asked our local MP (tory) aboout it only a few months ago, he told me he would find out and let me know, I've not heard a whisper, not even a hint of a green paper about it, do you have a link to any of the proposals?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.