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 2 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 1 hour 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.