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:
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?
Click to expand...
That's Tory MPs for you. They know very little about what's actually happening in industry.

I know about energy and sustainability policy because I work in that industry and we publish summaries of all the new legislation and consultations on a weekly basis. Unfortunately it's only available to others working in the industry at the moment, and isn't really made for general consumption by the public - mainly because it's quite technical and pretty boring at boot.
 
Dobba said:
Would you then call that grant 'an energy generation company'?

If not, why on earth is this investment fund one?
Click to expand...

No of course I wouldn’t. But our economy is fecked and an £8bn company (and yes it is a company) that invests in a green future that generates, sells and decarbonises energy in this country… is good for us all. It’s doing a huge number of things.

You’re wrong mate.
 
Did anyone do an analysis of Reform's outlandish claims of how they're finding money under the mattress or did everyone just ignore them?

Having read Labour's numerous versions of their missions , the GB Energy still doesn't make sense but perhaps will be more clear in the manifesto tomorrow.

The Tories are dead ducks; What exciting times.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
No of course I wouldn’t. But our economy is fecked and an £8bn company (and yes it is a company) that invests in a green future that generates, sells and decarbonises energy in this country… is good for us all. It’s doing a huge number of things.

You’re wrong mate.
Click to expand...
:lol:

Just laughable.

You wouldn't call grants giving private companies money to build things an energy company, except this one. Nobody in Labour has ever called it an energy company, as long as you ignore the leader, the energy secretary, the leader of the Scottish branch of the party and 99% of the party's literature on the subject. Again, it's no wonder he keeps spouting the lie.
 
Last edited:
Just for the record.

Any party that puts its leader before the brand itself is a danger to you. Because its not a party, its a personal crusade.

The last one was swinson. This time its starmer. He'll win anyway. But he will not be good for the country.

I don't think we have a good option really. To paraphrase 1997, things can only get crappier.
 
Dobba said:
:lol:

Just laughable.

You wouldn't call grants giving private companies money to build things an energy company, except this one. Nobody in Labour has ever called it an energy company, as long as you ignore the leader, the energy secretary, the leader of the Scottish branch of the party and 99% of the party's literature on the subject. Again, it's no wonder he keeps spouting the lie.
Click to expand...

That's basically what it is, a repackaging of the grants/subsidy model. On their website they even talk about the likes of Sizewell C so I expect previously commited government funding will be in their figures sadly.

The government taking a stake when it funds private enterprise is better than notbing but it's nothing new.

This is such a disappointing regression from their promise of pumping in 28 billion to kickstart net zero.
 
Nogbadthebad said:
Just for the record.

Any party that puts its leader before the brand itself is a danger to you. Because its not a party, its a personal crusade.

The last one was swinson. This time its starmer. He'll win anyway. But he will not be good for the country.

I don't think we have a good option really. To paraphrase 1997, things can only get crappier.
Click to expand...
Dear god Swinson was a horror show. What’s happened to her?
 
Nogbadthebad said:
Just for the record.

Any party that puts its leader before the brand itself is a danger to you. Because its not a party, its a personal crusade.

The last one was swinson. This time its starmer. He'll win anyway. But he will not be good for the country.

I don't think we have a good option really. To paraphrase 1997, things can only get crappier.
Click to expand...
The last one was not Swindon.

Rishi Sunak was literally made prime minster he wasn't demographically voted in, after a couple of weeks of a shit show from Truss.

This was all after Boris Johnson who had one the most corrupt tenures and cabinets of all times and till this day you still see his cronies trying to wheel him out despite all his bullshit. That is literally putting a leader before the brand of a party.


I don't know what brand you think labour is but if you want a far left party vote green. Labour was never that left of a party except under Corbyn, and it's telling they only get in power under Blair and now starmer.
 
SalfordRed18 said:
The last one was not Swindon.

Rishi Sunak was literally made prime minster he wasn't demographically voted in, after a couple of weeks of a shit show from Truss.

This was all after Boris Johnson who had one the most corrupt tenures and cabinets of all times and till this day you still see his cronies trying to wheel him out despite all his bullshit. That is literally putting a leader before the brand of a party.


I don't know what brand you think labour is but if you want a far left party vote green. Labour was never that left of a party except under Corbyn, and it's telling they only get in power under Blair and now starmer.
Click to expand...
I mean if you think British political history starts in 1997 then sure.
 
Dobba said:
Good news, according to the manifesto GB Energy is now a 'publicly owned clean power company'
Click to expand...

https://labour.org.uk/change/make-britain-a-clean-energy-superpower/

To drive forward investment in clean, home-grown energy production, Labour will create a new publicly-owned company, Great British Energy. It will be owned by the British people and deliver power back to the British people.

Great British Energy will partner with industry and trade unions to deliver clean power by co-investing in leading technologies; will help support capital-intensive projects; and will deploy local energy production to benefit communities across the country. To support this, Labour will capitalise Great British Energy with £8.3 billion, over the next parliament.

The company will create jobs and build supply chains in every corner of the UK. Scotland will be the powerhouse of our clean energy mission, with Great British Energy headquartered there.
Click to expand...
 
'It will be owned by the British people and deliver power back to the British people.'

And I'm being told he doesn't know exactly what he's doing by calling this a publicly owned energy/power company when it isn't one. :lol:
 
SalfordRed18 said:
The last one was not Swindon.

Rishi Sunak was literally made prime minster he wasn't demographically voted in, after a couple of weeks of a shit show from Truss.

This was all after Boris Johnson who had one the most corrupt tenures and cabinets of all times and till this day you still see his cronies trying to wheel him out despite all his bullshit. That is literally putting a leader before the brand of a party.


I don't know what brand you think labour is but if you want a far left party vote green. Labour was never that left of a party except under Corbyn, and it's telling they only get in power under Blair and now starmer.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand.

I'm talking about what the party is. For most, including sunak, its about their party as a collective.

For swinson it was about her.

This is the cover of the labour manifesto

https://x.com/PhilipProudfoot/status/1801202217656951016
 
Dobba said:
'It will be owned by the British people and deliver power back to the British people.'

And I'm being told he doesn't know exactly what he's doing by calling this a publicly owned energy/power company when it isn't one. :lol:
Click to expand...

Honestly pal, you’re like the Monty Python knight on that tiny hillock of yours. There’s a plain English description of what it is, in a manifesto. These are not flesh wounds no matter how much you shout it.
 
Dobba said:
:lol:

Just laughable.

You wouldn't call grants giving private companies money to build things an energy company, except this one. Nobody in Labour has ever called it an energy company, as long as you ignore the leader, the energy secretary, the leader of the Scottish branch of the party and 99% of the party's literature on the subject. Again, it's no wonder he keeps spouting the lie.
Click to expand...

What is laughable here is that you seem to have a passion about this specific subject, but only epidermic understanding about the international energy sector. Honestly, you are embarrassing yourself.
 
Dobba said:
Is giving money to private companies an investment fund or a publicly owned energy/power company?
Click to expand...

Oh, is that all they’re doing?

Honestly, there’s more good faith in Rishi shouting “£2k tax rise” than there is in your weird cry-wank obtuseness with regards to this.

Just stop.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Oh, is that all they’re doing?

Honestly, there’s more good faith in Rishi shouting “£2k tax rise” than there is in your weird cry-wank obtuseness with regards to this.

Just stop.
Click to expand...

To be fair none of you can explain what it is they're doing and seemingly neither can they. Just personal jibes back and forth now.

I've read through their literature on this and there's nothing there that isn't typical central government or local government policy.

Warm Homes scheme is the most expensive policy and whilst great it's just what government were doing twenty years ago. Private/Government energy projects with a government stake isn't new.

Can you point me towards anything of real substance?
 
Smores said:
To be fair none of you can explain what it is they're doing and seemingly neither can they. Just personal jibes back and forth now.

I've read through their literature on this and there's nothing there that isn't typical central government or local government policy.

Warm Homes scheme is the most expensive policy and whilst great it's just what government were doing twenty years ago. Private/Government energy projects with a government stake isn't new.

Can you point me towards anything of real substance?
Click to expand...

It’s going to be an actual publicly owned company for starters. Not just a grant funding mechanism sat inside BEIS.

A Fully siloed ‘Company’ (parenthesis in service to the Knight) that has a strategic vision, a staff that work towards that. Without all the painful board meetings and reports and ministerial approval we currently go through.

I’m not selling it as some revolutionary idea. Load of countries do exactly the same thing. You pair that mechanism with additional legislation and just get shit done faster, with better outcomes for people.

What existing mechanisms do not do is invest in things that make perfect sense for society/consumers but not to energy companies. It’s why our solar, insulation, heat network, and other schemes never realised their potential. Internally there are big ideas that don’t go anywhere. It’s that they have such narrow funding frameworks that sees them only ever exist in narrow lanes. I’ve seen it time and time again.

All of the mood music is pretty damn positive and is so right headed. Briefing papers will be out in several months with examples and all of this bed shitting about GB Energy ‘Not being an energy generating company’ will look as daft as they are.

The idea that our Government could just create something like that is insane. Ditto the idea that we could renationalise energy right now. There’s nothing like the money available.

It’s really nutty for anyone to suggest this is a bait and switch in any way, shape or form.
 
GP8zZ0nXQAEVbmg

GP8zZ0PWAAEDIHB
 
I actually think it's a decent idea, but here's Kier Starmer saying the exact words "It would be an investment vehicle not an energy company" back on the 31st May:



What I'd like to see it do is invest in more small scale projects that might otherwise struggle to secure funding (Settle Hydro springs to mind as a reasonably successful one). According to the manifesto there will be some of that but what's less clear is if it's allowed to acquire shares in the companies in which it invests (if it truly was a company it could). Hopefully it can; then in future years, once it's developed some sort of reputation, it can start developing controlling interests and so forth. There's definitely potential for it to go in a generally positive direction.

Then again, quangos are ripe for corruption aren't they? There's been plenty of bodies created to ostensibly oversee the interests of the public that have been bent over time to serve the interests of the powerful. You just need to be a buddy of the (appointed?) GBE board rather than of a specific minister etc.

In the end all this stuff relies on trust and, well, there's pitifully little of it to go about.
 
Last edited:
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...

This is such an odd hill to die on. Whether or not GB Energy is a good policy or a good idea (I don't know enough about energy markets, how it works or how it will incentivise good returns from the projects it chooses), it's obviously an energy company.

An investment vehicle is a company. It's an incorporated organisation (that will be publicly funded), that will be used to invest billions of pounds into clean energy. I don't see any reason why you wouldn't call that an energy company.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.