Looks like the party is over....

[JamesPa]

11 hours ago, -rick- said:

One part of government not co-ordinating with another (planning). So the upgrades were planned then got slammed into planning issues. Supposedly a lot of new build and 

It's not that they don't coordinate.

 

Like it or not what we see is the penalty of living on a crowded island with a democracy.  Everyone has their say and infrastructure projects are bound to disadvantage someone.  So they always get slowed down by planning issues because of a small group who don't want it in their back yard, augmented by a larger group that have ideological objections or choose to ignore reality.

 

Additionally most planning decisions are made by local not national government and they may not have the same priorities.  Again a feature of democracy in a crowded island.

 

If you can think of a solution that is likely to be politically acceptable, practical and affordable then I am sure there are people who would be interested!

Edited 6 hours ago by JamesPa

[JamesPa]

On 29/11/2025 at 11:56, SimonD said:

 

I still cannot fathom why our electricity prices are the way they are and how this can in any way be justified other than in terms of profits for energy companies and their shareholders. 

Earlier in this thread (I think it was this thread) somebody posted french electric and gas prices.  To my surprise electricity is about the same as ours but gas is double.  So in a sense the question to ask may be 'why is gas so cheap'?  Germany has about the same domestic electricity prices as us also.

 

 

[JamesPa]

On 29/11/2025 at 10:40, ProDave said:

It's a failure of all governments over my lifetime.  The basic problem is we have 5 year parliaments, so nobody, ever, pledges to do something over a long period.  It is all about what we will do for the next 5 years that will be popular enough to get us a win next time.

I largely agree but what's the solution.  The media have adopted a totally divisive attitude and some politicians actively encourage division.  This means that party cooperation has become an anathema.  Any longer than 5 years feels too long, particularly if we get a bunch of nutters or lazy sods who do very little, both of which can happen.  Perhaps PR would force cooperation?  Alternatively we could perhaps elect one third of the parliament every 3 years (for example) but that could lead to even more short term ism.

 

In my personal opinion the public are to blame, egged on by the media (you can put it the other way round if you wish!).  The expectation has become that a new government will fix everything immediately and if they don't they become hated.  Yet that's impossible, some things aren't fixable and nothing is fixable immediately.  We de industrialised starting in the 80s and the process has been more or less continuous since, albeit with the occasional interlude following a change in government.  That's the best part of 40 years of strategic mismanagement which isn't going to be fixed overnight.

 

WE have to grow up if we want better government.  Sadly I fear we are regressing!

Edited 5 hours ago by JamesPa

[ProDave]

27 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

In my personal opinion the public are to blame, egged on by the media (you can put it the other way round if you wish!).  The expectation has become that a new government will fix everything immediately and if they don't they become hated.  Yet that's impossible, some things aren't fixable and nothing is fixable immediately.  We de industrialised starting in the 80s and the process has been more or less continuous since, albeit with the occasional interlude following a change in government.  That's the best part of 40 years of strategic mismanagement which isn't going to be fixed overnight.

As you rightly say, things have slowly been going the wrong way for over 40 years.  So people of my age (the relatives in that recent conversation) all see we have had 40 years of the 2 main parties often in power for long periods, and neither seems to have had much foresight to plan for the long term.

 

So what are we supposed to do.  Keep on voting for one of the same two yet again?  That is your classic case of choosing the same thing but expecting a different outcome.  Or we carry on what some have been doing, just choose the least bad option?  Or as more and more are thinking the "none of those two" option, whatever that option is, it surely can't be any worse.

 

Nobody expects things to get better quickly after such a long period of going downhill, but we would at least hope for some signs that they have started to turn a corner.

 

For much of my working life I have made individual choices doing what is best for me and my family, with only a few exceptions, most of that has been in spite of government policies, not as a result of.

[Crofter]

10 minutes ago, ProDave said:

As you rightly say, things have slowly been going the wrong way for over 40 years.  So people of my age (the relatives in that recent conversation) all see we have had 40 years of the 2 main parties often in power for long periods, and neither seems to have had much foresight to plan for the long term.

 

So what are we supposed to do.  Keep on voting for one of the same two yet again?  That is your classic case of choosing the same thing but expecting a different outcome.  Or we carry on what some have been doing, just choose the least bad option?  Or as more and more are thinking the "none of those two" option, whatever that option is, it surely can't be any worse.

 

Nobody expects things to get better quickly after such a long period of going downhill, but we would at least hope for some signs that they have started to turn a corner.

 

For much of my working life I have made individual choices doing what is best for me and my family, with only a few exceptions, most of that has been in spite of government policies, not as a result of.

If you could pick a time when you think Britain was well run, which point would you pick?

 

I was born under the Thatcher government so have only experienced the period of decline and poor leadership that you identify. Nevertheless, I would grudgingly admit that Blair/Brown brought us some improvements. Sadly it came as a package along with a disastrous illegal war. Although the other lot were even more supportive of that so it's not as though we'd have avoided it had we voted Tory instead.

[Beelbeebub]

12 hours ago, Michael_S said:

You might ask why we have put in place CFDs for the build out of wind that has no route to market?  Surely a self-inflicted wound?

 

I. Listened to an interview the other day with the outgoing CEO of national grid. 

 

I'm pretty sure he said they had a massive ramp up of projects to get the grid better suited to the new reality.

 

Something like the typical number of major projects per 5 year period being one or two and itvs now 17 at a cost of £60bn

 

He did say it would double the cost of the network to consumers (I can see the daily mail headline now!) 

 

He then clarified that the current cost is something like £25 year (so doubling to £50 a year) but they expected the work would lower the overall costs to consumers by £40.

[-rick-]

1 hour ago, JamesPa said:

Like it or not what we see is the penalty of living on a crowded island with a democracy.  Everyone has their say and infrastructure projects are bound to disadvantage someone.  So they always get slowed down by planning issues because of a small group who don't want it in their back yard, augmented by a larger group that have ideological objections or choose to ignore reality.

 

I see people say we are crowded alot. I don't think that really stands up. According to the quick check I just did we are the 51st most crowded country. Plenty of far more crowded countries (democracies) exist and don't have the same issues with planning, etc, that we do. Of course people should have their say, but individuals (or small campaigns) shouldn't be able to block things so easily.

 

1 hour ago, JamesPa said:

If you can think of a solution that is likely to be politically acceptable, practical and affordable then I am sure there are people who would be interested!

 

Wholesale re-evaluation of what parts of Britain we want to preserve with minimal changes and what parts we don't. We need to free up a lot of land/loosen a lot of restrictions at the same time if we are going to solve our issues. The south is so protected, you move from greenbelt, to area of outstanding beauty, to area of special scientific interest, etc, so virtually nowhere is available to build on without huge numbers of hoops to jump through and all these protections just devalue the point of protection. If everywhere is protected then nothing is really special.

 

It's obviously huge difficult to do and I doubt anyone has the political will to do it. The alternative to me seems like slow decline. Old people will die off and not be replaced so we will naturally over the next decades free up some land. But the economic and social consequences of doing it that way are dire.

[Beelbeebub]

Controversial opinion but I think the UK has always been and continues to be "well run". 

 

The doesn't mean it is perfect or that almighty cockups and scandals don't happen for too often. 

 

But we have centuries of a fairly professional civil service at many levels from local to national. 

 

What has changed (or maybe it hasn't) is that politicans seem less serious now. Once they would have sat down and had a 1h interview where they didn't doge questions and the difficulties of a given situation were explained. Now it's all on message soundbites and answering the question you wanted to be asked not the one you were asked. 

 

Remember, bashing the present and looking back to the past as a golden age has always been done. 

[JamesPa]

20 minutes ago, -rick- said:

It's obviously huge difficult to do and I doubt anyone has the political will to do it. The alternative to me seems like slow decline. Old people will die off and not be replaced so we will naturally over the next decades free up some land. But the economic and social consequences of doing it that way are dire

Existing old people will die off for sure, but the trend is that the population ages.  This means that an ever decreasing proportion of people working are supporting an ever increasing proportion of retired people.  The only way this can happen is either (a) services and benefits get worse or (b) tax as a proportion of GDP goes up.  

 

The alternative is to allow more immigration.  Plenty of young people from other countries are eager to come here to work, unfortunately (largely) the same people who are causing the problem object to this solution.

 

Of course there are charlatan politicians promising the impossible, but, if we are stupid enough to elect them, they cant and wont deliver because they cant defy gravity.  The British public and the British media need to grow up otherwise the problem will be solved only when the country goes bankrupt and thus a solution is imposed from outside.

 

We aren't alone in having this problem, much of Western Europe does  - just look at the fuss over pensions in France!

Edited 4 hours ago by JamesPa

[JamesPa]

9 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Controversial opinion but I think the UK has always been and continues to be "well run". 

 

The doesn't mean it is perfect or that almighty cockups and scandals don't happen for too often. 

 

But we have centuries of a fairly professional civil service at many levels from local to national. 

100% agree.  By and large it still is IMHO.  Its not perfect but then human beings arent perfect

 

9 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

What has changed (or maybe it hasn't) is that politicans seem less serious now. Once they would have sat down and had a 1h interview where they didn't doge questions and the difficulties of a given situation were explained. Now it's all on message soundbites and answering the question you wanted to be asked not the one you were asked. 

I would say some politicians.  Unfortunately the way the media reports means that all politicians have to play to the soundbites even if they do the right thing in the background (which I would say by and large some politicians, but by no means all, do.

 

9 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Remember, bashing the present and looking back to the past as a golden age has always been done. 

Quite so, it just seems to have intensified though and many people now seem to expect instant change and the impossible to happen.  Or maybe I'm just getting old.

Edited 3 hours ago by JamesPa

[ProDave]

1 hour ago, Crofter said:

If you could pick a time when you think Britain was well run, which point would you pick?

 

I was born under the Thatcher government so have only experienced the period of decline and poor leadership that you identify. Nevertheless, I would grudgingly admit that Blair/Brown brought us some improvements. Sadly it came as a package along with a disastrous illegal war. Although the other lot were even more supportive of that so it's not as though we'd have avoided it had we voted Tory instead.

I started my apprenticeship the year Mrs T came to power.  I can remember the labour governments before that, and the winter of discontent, rolling power cuts, 3 day week etc.  so things were not good before then.  I know it is trendy now to blame her for everything, but she did do some things right, though a lot of things wrong.

 

It almost sticks in my throat to say it, but the early Blair years seemed good (apart from that war) but things went downhill when it was Blairs turn in the hot seat and has not really improved since.

 

My daughter has no interest in politics, never watches the news, doesn't read a paper.  She just gets on with it and takes whatever is thrown at her and lives her life doing the best for her, as I have said before she makes decisions for her usually not thanks to government policy but regardless of it.  I suspect a lot of younger people take that attitude, so it's no wonder the old stick in the mud folk are the ones that still vote and still complain.

[Crofter]

25 minutes ago, ProDave said:

I started my apprenticeship the year Mrs T came to power.  I can remember the labour governments before that, and the winter of discontent, rolling power cuts, 3 day week etc.  so things were not good before then.  I know it is trendy now to blame her for everything, but she did do some things right, though a lot of things wrong.

So how far back would you go to get to the 'good times'?

 

 

25 minutes ago, ProDave said:

 

It almost sticks in my throat to say it, but the early Blair years seemed good (apart from that war) but things went downhill when it was Blairs turn in the hot seat and has not really improved since.

I presume you mean Brown?

I wonder how differently things might have gone if he'd been able to see through his plan to get out of the 2008 crash. Cut VAT, encourage consumer spending, grow your way out. Instead we got the coalition who tried to cut their way out, and we've had stagnation of wages and living standards ever since. That's almost my entire post-student life.

I don't honestly know if Brown's economics would have worked any better. But other countries certainly bounced back faster.

 

25 minutes ago, ProDave said:

 

My daughter has no interest in politics, never watches the news, doesn't read a paper.  She just gets on with it and takes whatever is thrown at her and lives her life doing the best for her, as I have said before she makes decisions for her usually not thanks to government policy but regardless of it.  I suspect a lot of younger people take that attitude, so it's no wonder the old stick in the mud folk are the ones that still vote and still complain.

I returned to uni in 2012 as a mature student, and I was pretty appalled by how little interest the younger students had in pretty much any sort of world affairs. That's not to say they were following the Kardashians et al, but they just wanted to do their own thing. Nobody joined any sort of political organisations, went on rallies, etc. The idea that students are where new political movements are cultivated is no longer true. They don't actually want to change the world, probably because they don't believe that they can. It's very sad. These are supposed to be our brightest cohort who will move in to positions of influence in society.

 

[Bramco]

22 minutes ago, Crofter said:

I returned to uni in 2012 as a mature student, and I was pretty appalled by how little interest the younger students had in pretty much any sort of world affairs. That's not to say they were following the Kardashians et al, but they just wanted to do their own thing. Nobody joined any sort of political organisations, went on rallies, etc. The idea that students are where new political movements are cultivated is no longer true. They don't actually want to change the world, probably because they don't believe that they can. It's very sad. These are supposed to be our brightest cohort who will move in to positions of influence in society.

 

I went to uni in 1969, was involved in student politics, i.e. the student's union.

Apart from some big 'events/demos' I don't think students were particularly involved in Politics, the 'clubs' aligned to the major parties only had a few members.  Compare that with the numbers a while back marching for Gaza, climate change etc.

And don't forget, back then less than 10% went to university. Thanks to Blair, almost 50% go. And don't get me started about the lack of vocational training as a result.

[SteamyTea]

28 minutes ago, Crofter said:

returned to uni in 2012 as a mature student, and I was pretty appalled by how little interest the younger students had in pretty much any sort of world affairs.

 

1 minute ago, Bramco said:

went to uni in 1969, was involved in student politics, i.e. the student's union.

Apart from some big 'events/demos' I don't think students were particularly involved in Politics,

I was at university in 1981, not much in the way of politics, though on my course most students were basically right of centre.

Went again in 2005 and again, not much interest, though most students were left of centre.

I think the centre has moved to the right.

Prior to 1981 I did my apprenticeship, most people I worked with were very central in their politics.

 

I think there was a bigger gap between Labour and Tory during the 80s, but that was mainly because Thatcher and Kinnock were miles apart, and we all saw how well that helped the Labour party.

[Crofter]

Intersting. I was under the impression that students were much more politically active in the past. But maybe that's just a perception that I have and it doesn't reflect reality. Too many films set in the 60s with anti Vietnam war marches I suppose!