Looks like the party is over....

[JamesPa]

47 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

Do please enlighten us who the serious politicians are? 

 

Yes, there are some, but the system doesnt reward those. The ones that rise to the top are, manifestly, not the ones we need at the top.

 

I did write a long reply with names and reasons, but then thought, whats the point?  So I have removed most of my reply.  Instead I will just say

 

Politics is a dirty game so anyone who does rise to the top has to have a ruthless streak somewhere.  Sometimes we get well meaning people with a ruthless streak, sometimes we get people who are just ruthless.  

 

If you think they are all rubbish (whether or not you agree with their politics), then I would question what you expect from members of the human race.  Personally, unless you are in it for yourself, being prime minister feels like a shit job to me, crap pay*, long hours, zero job security, never ending hassle, you can only get there by a long climb up a very greasy pole and of course guaranteed to fail ("all political careers ultimately end in failure").  Its frankly astounding that anyone stands for any reason other than their own self interest!

 

We cant complain about who we get, we are responsible for it by creating the conditions which attract the people it attracts, and being so fickle in our voting and latterly impatient and unrealistic.  Angela Merkel is not a great orator, and seems to have a fairly dull outward personality, yet the Germans trusted her for 16 years.  Can you seriously imagine that happening in the UK?  Im not sure I can even imagine someone like her being elected in the UK.

 

 

 

* by comparison with what anyone of the calibre to be PM could earn in the private sector

Edited 13 hours ago by JamesPa

[Gus Potter]

Interesting thread. 

 

When I was a young lad I worked at Torness, nuclear. When I went to uni at 40 my degree project submission was on nuclear and compared that with other energy sources. I got an understanding on how the western system is skewed, basically by politics and realised that is a price you pay for democracy. Cf how they work in China, no democracy, their energy policy is driven by engineers with a remit to make as much money as they can for the system, the populase come last. 

 

Later I did some design for the decomissioning at Bradwell and I revisited what I had learnt. 

 

In summary, UK policy has been driven by totally the wrong people for decades. As someone said earlier, if your vote actually mattered they would take it away from you. 

 

Reform UK at the moment. They seem to be the only party that are going to get professionals into sort out out energy market and policy, we have tried everthing else and it has failed. 

 

We need to take radical steps to safeguard our energy security not least. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dillsue]

36 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

Thats TEN times further away.

 

My last place there was one about 350m away. That wasnt much of an issue.

 

 

46 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

Hmmm, but close to home that.

 

The scam outfit currently seeking planning for a pylon route near me did, on the first round, plan to put a pylon in my garden, 100ft from the back of my house. Plan 2 put it 50ft in front of my house. Fortunately its now gone elsewhere.

 

Theres a few on here suggesting that is all ok in the greater interests of the country. Try being one of those affected. And get a one of £1500 for the pleasure.

 

A close escape so far, but it aint over yet.

 

I took it that the pylon TEN times closer had now gone

[JamesPa]

5 minutes ago, Gus Potter said:

Reform UK at the moment. They seem to be the only party that are going to get professionals into sort out out energy market and policy, we have tried everthing else and it has failed. 

Reference please - thats not a policy I had seen.

[Roger440]

2 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

 

Politics is a dirty game so anyone who does rise to the top has to have a ruthless streak somewhere.  Sometimes we get well meaning people with a ruthless streak, sometimes we get people who are just ruthless.  

 

Before proceeding to names I would comment that there is a big difference between being serious and agreeing with the politics.  I can still respect politicians whose politics I detest.  I would also comment that there is a big difference between getting on with the job and presenting it well.  Some are good at the second but not the first, I wouldn't describe these as serious.  Some are good at the first but not the second, much better, those are serious.  A very select few (also serious) are good at both.  

 

 

Lets start with three who clearly weren't serious namely Cameron, Johnson and Sunak.  All lazy public schoolboys (Sunak a little less lazy) in it solely for themselves IMHO.   

 

The following were/are serious IMHO (which does not mean I agree with their politics, but that's democracy):

 

Thatcher - Clearly serious, had direction and sorted out many of the ills of the time.   Made (IMHO) a big, ideologically driven, strategic error by over-privatizing and de-industrialising.  

 

Blair - as people have commented above the war was a big mistake but much else of what he did was well thought through and moderate

 

May - well meaning and worked hard, shafted by having to deal with a Brexit where those who supported it didn't actually agree on what it meant

 

Starmer - doing one hell of a lot simultaneously, much of it good and almost all well intentioned.  Rubbish at presenting it.  Relatively light on ideology (so we cant define 'Starmerism' - but is that actually a bad thing?).  Likely to be shafted by the public's impatience for Governments to do the largely impossible, the preference for personality over delivery, and a hostile media.

 

Note that, in the second list I have provided 2 tory and 2 labour prime ministers. sort of for balance, but also because these do stand out a bit.

 

If you think they are all rubbish (whether or not you agree with their politics), then I would question what you expect from members of the human race.  Personally, unless you are in it for yourself, being prime minister feels like a shit job to me, crap pay*, long hours, zero job security, never ending hassle, you can only get there by a long climb up a very greasy pole and of course guaranteed to fail ("all political careers ultimately end in failure").  Its frankly astounding that anyone stands for any reason other than their own self interest!

 

We cant complain about who we get, we are responsible for it by creating the conditions which attract the people it attracts, and being so fickle in our voting and latterly impatient and unrealistic.  Angela Merkel is not a great orator, and seems to have a fairly dull outward personality, yet the Germans trusted her for 16 years.  Can you seriously imagine that happening in the UK?  Im not sure I can even imagine someone like her being elected in the UK.

 

 

 

* by comparison with what anyone of the calibre to be PM could earn in the private sector

 

I was thinking about current politicians, not those of the past.

 

Bit worrying that you include Starmer though. A big part of the problem. In it, only for what he can get out of it. 

 

Id probably go beyond that to say, the big problem now is that the very idea of government has been hijacked by corparate interests. Starmer being a great example.

 

Probably running off topic now...............

[Roger440]

7 minutes ago, Dillsue said:

 

I took it that the pylon TEN times closer had now gone

 

It has. For now. Another route is now the prefered option. But yet to make it through planning. Though, as minsters who claim to object to it, sit on the board, i would imagine it will glide through. Result for me if so, not so much for the poor buggers who do get a pylon plonked in their garden.

 

But perfectly possible for it to make a return, depending how things go. 

 

Lets be honest, its already virtually unsellable until such time as the pylons route is aproved AND built, as theres always the risk of the proposal coming back. If i actually needed to sell it now, im screwed.

[JamesPa]

15 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 Starmer though. A big part of the problem. In it, only for what he can get out of it. 

 

Cant see that.  He could have had a great career in the legal profession, why bother with the sh1t of politics?  I cant really see what he is getting out of it either!   Maybe a bit from the lecture circuit (not a vast amount as he is hardly the most engaging speaker) but thats about it so far as I can see.

 

15 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

Id probably go beyond that to say, the big problem now is that the very idea of government has been hijacked by corparate interests

I think it is fair to say that Government is perhaps too influenced by corporate interests.  Thats difficult to resist when corporates are where all the money (to get things done) and most of the skill is.  IMHO we need a much stronger civil service, they need to be the very best in the field that they are responsible for so they can run rings around the corporates not the other way round. 

 

We do have a few such people (Whitty for example) but we aren't likely to get many more if we, the public, start demonising them all the time which now seems to be the declared policy of some of our political parties, presumably because they prefer to ignore facts.

 

 And if we want to get things done without being influenced by the corporates, we need higher taxes so the Government has the financial heft to call the shots.  Like it or not Government is  currently heavily reliant on corporate investment to get things done, which inevitably gives them significant clout.

 

However as you say this is now way off topic!

Edited 12 hours ago by JamesPa

[Roger440]

1 minute ago, JamesPa said:

Cant see that.  He could have had a great career in the legal profession, why bother with the sh1t of politics?  I cant really see what he is getting out of it either!

 

I think it is fair to say that Government is perhaps too influenced by corporate interests.  Thats difficult to resist when corporates are where all the money and most of the skill is.  IMHO we need a much stronger civil service, they need to be the very best in the field that they are responsible for so they can run rings around the corporates not the other way round. 

 

We do have a few such people (Whitty for example) but we aren't likely to get many more if we, the public, start criticising them all the time which now seems to be the policy of some of our political parties.

 

I an genuinely surprised you cant see what he is getting out of it. Are you really that blind to how it works? Take a look at net worth of ex PM's before and post being PM. Even Angela Rayners net worth has gone up by a couple of million in a year!

 

Money, and lots of it. Far beyond anything possible by a good legal career. By the time he is done he will be worth tens of millions, if not more. Same as Rishi rocking up in politics whilst already incredibly wealthy beyond most peoples comprehension

 

If you think Whitty is a good example, there is no hope. Buckled at the first sign of pressure and then did whatever he was told to do/say. Principled, right up to the point it mattered.

 

Still, at least we agree on the corporate influence and a woeful civil service. However, as you yourself observe, little likelihood of resolution, if indeed its even possible at this stage of decline.

[Gus Potter]

23 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

Reference please - thats not a policy I had seen.

Perhaps read more widely. 

[JamesPa]

15 minutes ago, Gus Potter said:

Perhaps read more widely. 

I try to but just to be sure I just checked their current policy booklet and cant find what you say.  What I  can find in relation to energy is lots about scrapping Net zero, stuff about britain's 'vast' energy resources and some stuff about SMRs.

 

Since you are quoting the policy you could perhaps help me out by giving the reference

Edited 12 hours ago by JamesPa

[JamesPa]

34 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

If you think Whitty is a good example, there is no hope. Buckled at the first sign of pressure and then did whatever he was told to do/say. Principled, right up to the point it mattered.

Obviously you have never had a boss.  If you watched him Whitty made it pretty clear when he disagreed and also that his job was to point out the facts, not to make policy.  Utimately he had a boss and the boss calls the shots (or couldnt be bothered).  Would we have been better off if he had resigned, I dont think so!

 

34 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

By the time he is done he will be worth tens of millions, if not more

Cant really see that but that isnt really the point. 

 

What is the point is that we the public (along with the media) create the conditions in which our (human, not perfect) politicians are chosen and we the public have to choose from those which are produced as a result.  If we want 'better' politicians we need to start respecting them, giving them a realistic time to achieve anything, and looking underneath their personalities to their intents.  We also need to take the time to understand the issues they face and recognise that many, many of the problems we would like solved arent actually soluble.   In short we need to get serious about politics, get educated about it, and have real opinions not opinions modelled on what the media tells us.  For the avoidance of doubt by 'we' I mean at least a majority of the voting public, not anybody specific on this forum.

 

Until we do that any party which wants to get into power pretty much has to choose people who have the shallow talents that get them elected, not necessarily the talents we need to manage the country.  In short we collectively have ourselves to blame, we get who we elect.

Edited 12 hours ago by JamesPa

[Gus Potter]

17 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

I try to but just to be sure I just checked their current policy statement and cant find it.  What I  can find in relation to energy is lots about scrapping Net zero, stuff about britain's 'vast' energy resources and some stuff about SMRs.

 

Since you are quoting the policy you could perhaps help me out by giving the reference

I'm not sure if I want to engage with you as I get the feeling you are not technically minded. If you want to use abbreviations then use your abbreviation, put in brackets what that means so the rest of the folk on BH can understand and easily follow the discussion. 

 

Do that first, plain English is required at all times. 

 

To wet your apetite for discussion I'll make my case as an Engineer who has a Civic responsibility, you might find that interesting?

 

 

Edited 12 hours ago by Gus Potter

[JamesPa]

16 minutes ago, Gus Potter said:

I'm not sure if I want to engage with you as I get the feeling you are not technically minded. If you want to use abbreviations then use your abbreviation, put in brackets what that means so the rest of the folk on BH can understand and easily follow the discussion. 

 

Do that first, plain English is required at all times. 

 

 

 

Apologies for the TLA (three letter acronymn). 

 

SMR = Small Modular Reactor - a class of nuclear reactor.  I shan't explain that term any further because that's as far as the Reform policy booklet goes.  As far as I know they are widely known as SMRs, in fact I think I hear that abbreviation more than the full name.

 

Im am still interested in the reference to the policy but if you dont want to provide it then so be it.

 

Re 'To wet your appetite for discussion I'll make my case as an Engineer who has a Civic responsibility, you might find that interesting?' please feel free, it might well be interesting!  

 

 

Edited 12 hours ago by JamesPa

[Roger440]

17 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

Obviously you have never had a boss.  If you watched him Whitty made it pretty clear when he disagreed and also that his job was to point out the facts, not to make policy.  Utimately he had a boss and the boss calls the shots (or couldnt be bothered).  Would we have been better off if he had resigned, I dont think so!

 

Cant really see that but that isnt really the point. 

 

What is the point is that we the public (along with the media) create the conditions in which our (human, not perfect) politicians are chosen and we the public have to choose from those which are produced as a result.  If we want 'better' politicians we need to start respecting them, giving them a realistic time to achieve anything, and looking underneath their personalities to their intents.  We also need to take the time to understand the issues they face and recognise that many, many of the problems we would like solved arent actually soluble.   In short we need to get serious about politics, get educated about it, and have real opinions not opinions modelled on what the media tells us.  For the avoidance of doubt by 'we' I mean at least a majority of the voting public, not anybody specific on this forum.

 

Until we do that any party which wants to get into power pretty much has to choose people who have the shallow talents that get them elected, not necessarily the talents we need to manage the country.  In short we collectively have ourselves to blame, we get who we elect.

 

Looks like things will stay as they are then...................... Or get worse.

[JamesPa]

1 minute ago, Roger440 said:

 

Looks like things will stay as they are then...................... Or get worse.

Unfortunately we probably agree on that also! 

 

The British public are, in many ways, their own worst enemies IMHO.  Much of the media, and some politicians, know that and exploit it for their own ends.  

Edited 12 hours ago by JamesPa

[Gus Potter]

There you go, how easy was that!

 

Ok to kick this off what is your opinion on nett zero?  

 

Here is roughly what I think in broad scoool terms, call it that for now.

 

1/ The world is an unfavourable place. We are actually lucky in the UK that we have not had a war that has really threatened out soil since 1945. 

 

I'm an SE but was trained primarily as Civil Engineer, we have a duty to the public to secure our infra structure for the next at least 50 years and dams above cities for 100- 200 years. 

 

2/ Nett zero in the UK serves to destabalise our economy and reduces our ability to innovate. 

 

3/ You have got yourself into a funk because I mentioned Reform! 

 

 

[JamesPa]

20 minutes ago, Gus Potter said:

There you go, how easy was that!

 

Ok to kick this off what is your opinion on nett zero?  

 

Here is roughly what I think in broad scoool terms, call it that for now.

 

1/ The world is an unfavourable place. We are actually lucky in the UK that we have not had a war that has really threatened out soil since 1945. 

 

I'm an SE but was trained primarily as Civil Engineer, we have a duty to the public to secure our infra structure for the next at least 50 years and dams above cities for 100- 200 years. 

 

2/ Nett zero in the UK serves to destabalise our economy and reduces our ability to innovate. 

 

3/ You have got yourself into a funk because I mentioned Reform! 

 

 

1) I agree with

 

2) I cant see how moving as rapidly as reasonably possible away from being almost completely dependent on a finite resource controlled by a small number of largely despot nations is anything other than common sense.   Neither can I see that leaving the relatively tiny amount of that resource that we do control in the ground for as long as we can, so we can use it if we get desperate and/or for applications where there is no alternative, is anything other than common sense.   

 

Obviously there is room for discussion over the speed of the this transition, but not to make it with a fair degree of urgency, now we have the technology, is grossly irresponsible for our economic security in the unstable world that you quite rightly identify we live in.

 

That has to be combined with defensive measures such as those to which you refer.  There is a difficult discussion to be had about where to defend and where to abandon.  We cant ultimately stop nature so any investment in defences has a limited lifetime unless the world collectively reduces climate change, and we will need to take this into account.

 

To have any motivation to take the defensive steps you first have to accept the climate science which, it seems, some are trying to avoid doing.  That case has to be fought until any influence from the deniers disappears and we can thus focus on what we are going to do rather than discussing whether we need to do anything defensive.  

 

3)  All I did was ask for a reference to back up your claim about their policy, without expressing an opinion.  Not sure how thats 'getting into a funk'

Edited 11 hours ago by JamesPa

[Gus Potter]

45 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

1) I agree with

Ok that is settled. 

 

45 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

2) I cant see how moving as rapidly as reasonably possible away from being almost completely dependent on a finite resource controlled by a small number of largely despot nations is anything other than common sense.   Neither can I see that leaving the relatively tiny amount of that resource that we do control in the ground for as long as we can, so we can use it if we get desperate and/or for applications where there is no alternative, is anything other than common sense.   

 

Obviously there is room for discussion over the speed of the this transition, but not to make it is grossly irresponsible for our economic security in the unstable world that you quite rightly identify we live in.

 

That has to be combined with defensive measures such as those to which you refer.  There is a difficult discussion to be had about where to defend and where to abandon.  We cant ultimately stop nature so any investment in defences has a limited lifetime unless the world collectively reduces climate change, and we will need to take this into account.

First paragraph. The UK oil and gas energy resource is not "fininite" in terms of the next 50 years. There is plenty! It's just that the UK tax system makes it less attractive to extract. If we use our own resource that satisfies and mitigates your point of despot regimes, blatent abuse of human rights. Cut off their money!

 

That is why we need to be relying on the West of Scotland oil and gas fields and fracking. Schiehallion, Loyal, and Foinaven fields. This gives us national energy security in the short to medium term and delivers well paying jobs and income taxes etc from that. . The money we get from this can then be used to drive towards zero carbon emissions. If we just import oil and gas we are paying the Arabs instead, for no benefit to ourselves. You have to remember that us Brits are great innovators, we can't do that if we have no cash!

 

Unfortunatly we have the Greens in Scotland who don't know what a woman is, so we have much doubt about their ability to make evidenced based decisions on the oil and gas industry which impact on all of the UK. You see they can control this through the planning system not least!

 

One of my pals is an SE who is working on this, the actual design of the rigs and how you extract oil and gas in deep water and then get it to shore. It's also to do with the quality of the oil. Much of the oil from the Middle east is a bit crap to say the least and really churns out some nasty stuff during the refining process. 

 

45 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

3)  All I did was ask for a reference to back up your claim about their policy, without expressing an opinion.  Not sure how thats 'getting into a funk'

Ok, fair enough. But this is a typical response from lefties,  mention Reform and you are far right. I mention them as an Engineer. 

 

Tice and Farage have said in their speaches that they recognise that they don't have the strength and depth within their party to run the country. But they have said that they will second people from indusrty, Engineers, Doctors to support them where they are weak. Take some time and listen to some of their speaches before you come back for a second time and ask me for evidence. 

 

In the round though I think we are of the same mind. 

45 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

There is a difficult discussion to be had about where to defend and where to abandon. 

Here you make a good pragmatic conclusion. 

 

Lastly is ok to disagree!

Edited 11 hours ago by Gus Potter

[Mike]

11 hours ago, Crofter said:

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

That's an interesting question. Just went hunting and came up with this chart, showing public approval & disapproval of Government between 1957 & 1991. The only periods when more people approved of the Government than disapproved, were 1957 to 1962 (Harold Macmillan, Conservative, Keynesian economics, prosperity, "You’ve never had it so good" - until the Profumo scandal), and 1964 to 1966 (Harold Wilson, Labour, low unemployment, economic prosperity, major social reforms, "white heat of technology" - until defeated at the polls).

 

Source: Social and Political Change in Britain (1945-1991) | ROPER CENTER

 

 

Edited 10 hours ago by Mike

[JamesPa]

10 hours ago, Gus Potter said:

First paragraph. The UK oil and gas energy resource is not "fininite" in terms of the next 50 years. There is plenty! It's just that the UK tax system makes it less attractive to extract. If we use our own resource that satisfies and mitigates your point of despot regimes, blatent abuse of human rights. Cut off their money!

How is this consistent with the plot, apparently produced by the Industry and posted by  @Beelbeebub  here?  Perhaps you could provide the source of your data so we can get to the bottom of this, its important!

 

A 50 year horizon (presumably to near exhaustion) means we have to have made a whole lot of progress towards eliminating our reliance by 2050 anyway.  The graph referred to above suggests that the horizon is more like 25 years.

 

We currently import 40% of our total energy (net).  Between 1980 and 2005 we were either (net) break even or a net exporter, but even then, at the height of production, only by relatively modest amounts in global terms and in comparison to our own use.  Its difficult to see how this is consistent with any kind of energy security based on the reserves we now have left.

 

10 hours ago, Gus Potter said:

That is why we need to be relying on the West of Scotland oil and gas fields and fracking. Schiehallion, Loyal, and Foinaven fields. This gives us national energy security in the short to medium term and delivers well paying jobs and income taxes etc from that. . The money we get from this can then be used to drive towards zero carbon emissions. If we just import oil and gas we are paying the Arabs instead, for no benefit to ourselves. You have to remember that us Brits are great innovators, we can't do that if we have no cash!

OK so 'the money we get from this' implies no or only minor changes to the UK tax regime (otherwise we dont get the money).  Yet above you assert that this is a problem.  You cant both  benefit from the tax and relax the regime.

 

Essentially you are saying that we do need to make the transition but perhaps a bit slower.  Reform dont seem to be proposing that, I quote 'Scrap Net Zero and Related Subsidies Ditching Net Zero could save the public sector over £30 billion per year for the next 25 years'.  I cant find anything in their policy booklet about defence measures against climate change either, and if you look at the 'budget' on pages 23 and 24 there is nothing for civil infrastructure of this scale and its difficult to see how such infrastructure could be self funding.   Essentially therefore they appear to be proposing do nothing at all for 25 years other than invest in small modular reactors.   I reiterate that its difficult to see how this is consistent with any kind of energy security based on the fossil reserves we now have left.  

 

10 hours ago, Gus Potter said:

Tice and Farage have said in their speaches that they recognise that they don't have the strength and depth within their party to run the country. But they have said that they will second people from indusrty, Engineers, Doctors to support them where they are weak. Take some time and listen to some of their speaches before you come back for a second time and ask me for evidence. 

 

Sorry but unless its in writing, I dont think what politicians (:of any colour) say has much credibility.  Policy booklets/manifestos are what parties of all colours are prepared to commit to.  Politicians, again of all colours, say all sorts of things in speeches with all sorts of weasel words that amount to little or no commitment, and I for one dont have the time to listen to all of them.  In terms of seconding people from industry, so far as I am aware all Governments do that (and it was argued above that industry has too much influence).  I cant see the differentiator here.

 

10 hours ago, Gus Potter said:

In the round though I think we are of the same mind. 

10 hours ago, JamesPa said:

I would probably agree. 

 

   

Edited 1 hour ago by JamesPa

[JohnMo]

15 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

Sorry but unless its in writing, I dont think what politicians (:of any colour) say has much credibility.

Remove the underlined but, I think you have hit the nail on the head.

[JamesPa]

16 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

Remove the underlined but, I think you have hit the nail on the head.

Thats a somewhat defeatist attitude although I do understand your thinking.

 

If its written, particularly if its in the manifesto or published policy document, you can at least refer back and check what the weasel words are.  You also know that it has passed scrutiny and being stated alongside other commitments, ie its a package which has either been thought through as a whole (or if it hasnt you will be able to tell) and has been shared with others in the same party.

 

If its spoken you usually cant check the weasel words and most importantly its said in isolation so may well be inconsistent with other things that are said.

 

Neither is perfect and circumstances do change, so we cant expect any government to meet 100% of its manifesto commitments.  However at least we have a solid, reasonably complete and consistent basis to go on and, in a written policy document, a direction of travel against which they can be tested.