• *** Guest, YF World Cup prediction league launched, Click here *****
  • Further New Features Are Available - Click To Update

National Politics πŸ”΄ The Labour Party

Also wind, solar and tidal power will not get held up in the Strait of Hormuz.
 
Carpy said:
I’m so very sorry that I didn’t state that by energy, I meant electricity, which as you know, is a form of energy πŸ™„
Click to expand...
Energy also includes heating oil and the free logs @Essexyellows collects during his many visits to the woods. πŸŒ²πŸŒ²πŸ‘€
 
Looking likely Reeves will be out. If there’s betting odds on it, I reckon Darren Jones will be in. Already has treasury experience. Has to stay within fiscal restrictions. I reckon Burnham has promised him the job if he drops out of the running, which he has.
 
Burnham PM, Darren Jones Chancellor. What's not to like.
 
Fancy a dose of nepotism and "thats Handy Andy"?

"Transport for Greater Manchester awarded a Β£5.4β€―million contract to Be.EV in 2019.
Mayor Andy Burnham’s wife, Marie‑France Van Heel, later became the firm’s chief customer officer and board member, holding shares in its parent company."

Nothing to see here, purely co-incedence. :)

"Speaking in January 2025, Ms Van Heel explained how the contract with her husband’s authority had boosted Be.EV’s prospects – as well as what a motivation it is to have a financial stake in its future success.
Praising its founders for giving employees β€˜a piece of the action’, she told podcaster Liz Allan: β€˜So I am now a shareholder in the business, as are quite a few members of my team, which is just brilliant.’
It means β€˜we will all benefit from the success of Be.EV because we are all shareholders’, she added."

And now they have an express lane right to the top..................
 
Essexyellows said:
Streeting gets it as a "reward" for not standing against Burnham.
Click to expand...
TBF I don't think that was necessary, he saw the level of backing for Burnham and decided not to taint any future post-Burnham campaign
 
Essexyellows said:
After he quit as HS he supposedly had the required backing to challenge Starmer but held off, presumably to see if Burnham won....
Click to expand...
he had the required numbers to force a contest, doesn't mean he wasn't trumped by the numbers that backed Burnham. TBH I think that surprised many.
 
As far as chancellor is concerned, Yvette Cooper is well experienced and qualified with a PPE degree. Darren Jones has experience at the treasury so must have a good chance.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Rachel gets a P45.
Could Wes get a role in the homie office as I’m sure the present incumbent will be seen as one of the more successful operators?
He must have had a promise from Andy some weeks ago as to what he will next do.
 
Essexyellows said:
If you want a deeper insight into why it is a classic bundle of "smoke & mirrors" enjoy: https://cliscep.com...
Click to expand...
Yeah, "cliscep.com" definitely sounds like a neutral, reliable source of information about climate science. /sarc

Followed by some standard-issue b*****s about solar power's supposed threat to "prime agricultural land".

1) It's not all agricultural land, let alone "prime".
2) The total amount used for solar is 0.1% The total epexcted to be used is 0.6%. Less than golf courses. I'll await your "dig up all our golf courses to feed Britain" campaign with interest.
3) You can still graze animals around solar panels.
4) If you're worried about food security, switching from meat to arable would have a much larger effect than some performative fuss about solar.
 
Peterdev said:
As far as chancellor is concerned, Yvette Cooper is well experienced and qualified with a PPE degree. Darren Jones has experience at the treasury so must have a good chance.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Rachel gets a P45.
Could Wes get a role in the homie office as I’m sure the present incumbent will be seen as one of the more successful operators?
He must have had a promise from Andy some weeks ago as to what he will next do.
Click to expand...
I quite like Yvette Cooper as it happens. But PPE is the bog-standard politician's degree. Even Liz Truss has one, FFS. It's not any guarantee of economic competence.

List of University of Oxford people with PPE degrees - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

It's no wonder that politics is in such a state, given the shallowness of the academic gene pool they all crawl out of.
 
Last edited:
HayfieldYellow said:
Yeah, "cliscep.com" definitely sounds like a neutral, reliable source of information about climate science. /sarc

Followed by some standard-issue b*****s about solar power's supposed threat to "prime agricultural land".

1) It's not all agricultural land, let alone "prime".
2) The total amount used for solar is 0.1% The total epexcted to be used is 0.6%. Less than golf courses. I'll await your "dig up all our golf courses to feed Britain" campaign with interest.
3) You can still graze animals around solar panels.
4) If you're worried about food security, switching from meat to arable would have a much larger effect than some performative fuss about solar.
Click to expand...

1. Approx 1765 hectares of Grade 1 or 2 land to the North East of Newark is being covered in panels to feed into the grid and replace Staythorpe Power station.

2. Our population is growing and needs feeding.......... better to grow your own rather than import from other countries whilst exporting deforestation and water consumption?

3. Sheep thats it.

4. A local, seasonal, balanced diet has the lowest impact on the planet.

BTW - "meat" such as cattle, sheep etc do something we can not do......... turn grass into protein and essential fats, vitamins and minerals. :)
 
Essexyellows said:
1. Approx 1765 hectares of Grade 1 or 2 land to the North East of Newark is being covered in panels to feed into the grid and replace Staythorpe Power station.
Click to expand...

You'll notice I didn't say that zero farmland was being used for solar power, so I'm not sure what that single data point proves: "some solar farms are quite large", I guess. The total area of Nottinghamshire is 216,000 hectares, so your plant covers 0.81%.

The total area of golf courses (sorry to labour the point) in Surrey alone is 44,100 hectares.

The UK hasn't been self-sufficient in food since the end of the 18th century, so I think that boat might have sailed, slightly. Yes, solar power has a cost. But it's not the big deal that you're making it into.
 
Last edited:
HayfieldYellow said:
I quite like Yvette Cooper as it happens. But PPE is the bog-standard politician's degree. Even Liz Truss has one, FFS. It's not any guarantee of economic competence.

List of University of Oxford people with PPE degrees - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

It's no wonder that politics is in such a state, given the shallowness of the academic gene pool they all crawl out of.
Click to expand...
A degree in business economics would be desirable but I’d venture not many have that.
 
Basham Wonderland said:
The source you linked is to an opinion piece that says "probably" - i.e. it looks like a guess. Do you have any other sources for this claim?
Click to expand...
It was the first hit that came up when I googled "UK food self-sufficiency". I've looked again and other pages say "early 19th century" or "pre-1750". Some sources suggest the Second World War, but even if self-sufficiency was briefly achieved, it was with rationing in place and lashings of Woolton Pie, a large cohort of servicemen outside the country, an intensive home-gardening drive ("Dig For Victory") and marginal land (including valuable wildlife habitat lost forever) being brought under the plough.

So I think the point stands without getting into the weeds of exactly when: the UK has not been self-sufficient in food for a very long time, so this familiar objection to solar farms, rarely deployed in relation to other land uses, feels opportunist and bogus.

And such nitpicking doesn't address the other points I made: the proposed area to be dedicated to solar farms is in reality a very small proportion of land (under 1% - less than is already dedicated to golf, to use the common comparison). Switching to a more efficient mix of food production (arable over meat and dairy) would have a much larger impact, if food security really was the concern. And not all solar farms are on agricultural land, let alone "prime agricultural land", to use the formula by which this concern is almost always expressed. And if solar farms were placed on moorland or downland or whatever, the complaint would simply shift to loss of wildlife habitat or visual amenity (cf wind turbines).

So it feels like a standard off-the-peg objection, designed to sound sciencey and plausible, but not standing up to much scrutiny. Without getting too conspiracist about it, it's amazing how often "legitimate concerns" like this, phrased almost identically, turn up in debates about climate change and Net Zero. It's almost as if there are some pretty committed and well-coordinated feeders of climate misinformation around. These people don't care about food security, it's just about turning public opinion against solar power (and climate action in general).
 
Last edited:
HayfieldYellow said:
It was the first hit that came up when I googled "UK food self-sufficiency". I've looked again and other pages say "early 19th century" or "pre-1750". Some sources suggest the Second World War, but even if self-sufficiency was briefly achieved, it was with rationing in place and lashings of Woolton Pie, a large cohort of servicemen outside the country, an intensive home-gardening drive ("Dig For Victory") and marginal land (including valuable wildlife habitat lost forever) being brought under the plough.

So I think the point stands without getting into the weeds of exactly when: the UK has not been self-sufficient in food for a very long time, so this familiar objection to solar farms, rarely deployed in relation to other land uses, feels opportunist and bogus.

And such nitpicking doesn't address the other points I made: the proposed area to be dedicated to solar farms is in reality a very small proportion of land (under 1% - less than is already dedicated to golf, to use the common comparison). Switching to a more efficient mix of food production (arable over meat and dairy) would have a much larger impact, if food security really was the concern. And not all solar farms are on agricultural land, let alone "prime agricultural land", to use the formula by which this concern is almost always expressed. And if solar farms were placed on moorland or downland or whatever, the complaint would simply shift to loss of wildlife habitat or visual amenity (cf wind turbines).

So it feels like a standard off-the-peg objection, designed to sound sciencey and plausible, but not standing up to much scrutiny. Without getting too conspiracist about it, it's amazing how often "legitimate concerns" like this, phrased almost identically, turn up in debates about climate change and Net Zero. It's almost as if there are some pretty committed and well-coordinated feeders of climate misinformation around. These people don't care about food security, it's just about turning public opinion against solar power (and climate action in general).
Click to expand...
I suppose it's one thing taking a guess at when we were last self sufficient (because you could make a case that the second we started to import sugar and spices we were no longer "self sufficient"), but the more important and interesting thing is to work out when we last had the capacity for self sufficiency - i.e. the ability to provide enough bread, protein and vegetables to support life on the island.

There are solar farms going up on the fields around my village which are on prime agricultural land, it is in the highest quality category, and supported organic dairy farming and wheat/maize.

Now I actually prefer biodiversity to self sufficiency - so if Ed Millibanter were to put protection on solar fields preventing them from ever being used for housebuilding, or required that they be preserved for wildlife in some way, then I would be on board.

I'm just a bit suspicious that these solar farms - when solar tech improves far enough to render them unnecessary - will one day be prime housebuilding land. Having genuinely once been premium organic pasture (I'm not making it up).
 
Basham Wonderland said:
I suppose it's one thing taking a guess at when we were last self sufficient (because you could make a case that the second we started to import sugar and spices we were no longer "self sufficient"), but the more important and interesting thing is to work out when we last had the capacity for self sufficiency - i.e. the ability to provide enough bread, protein and vegetables to support life on the island.

There are solar farms going up on the fields around my village which are on prime agricultural land, it is in the highest quality category, and supported organic dairy farming and wheat/maize.

Now I actually prefer biodiversity to self sufficiency - so if Ed Millibanter were to put protection on solar fields preventing them from ever being used for housebuilding, or required that they be preserved for wildlife in some way, then I would be on board.

I'm just a bit suspicious that these solar farms - when solar tech improves far enough to render them unnecessary - will one day be prime housebuilding land. Having genuinely once been premium organic pasture (I'm not making it up).
Click to expand...
I really thought I'd dealt with the nitpicking about the exact date when the UK ceased to be self-sufficient in food. Seems I was wrong. Silly me, I should have realised you were only trying to score points, and not bothered wasting my time taking your objections at face value and in good faith.

Your "suspicions" are unevidenced. And your observations are parochial and anecdotal. Your confirmation bias is very obvious, I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:
HayfieldYellow said:
I really thought I'd dealt with the nitpicking about the exact date when the UK ceased to be self-sufficient in food. Seems I was wrong. Silly me, I should have realised you were only trying to score points, and not bothered wasting my time taking your objections at face value and in good faith.

Your "suspicions" are unevidenced. And your observations are parochial and anecdotal. Your confirmation bias is very obvious, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
I'm amazed that you could read my reply and think I'm point-scoring - I was actually just trying to have a pretty amicable chat. I suppose the heat is taking its toll, have a good weekend!
 
HayfieldYellow said:
I really thought I'd rebutted the nitpicking about the exact date when the UK ceased to be self-sufficient in food. Seems I was wrong. Silly me, I should have realised you were only trying to score points, and not bothered wasting my time taking your objections at face value and in good faith.

Your "suspicions" are unevidenced. And your observations are parochial and anecdotal. Your confirmation bias is very obvious, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
An aside some might find mildly interesting.... I've always had a fascination with maps and love trawling through the web site below trying to pin point the various photos to Google maps. (I know, I know. Have pity not disdain).

Anyway I was amazed by the number of allotments in aerial shots from the 1940s and 1950s clearly driven by necessity and rationing. For example, and one for the Oxford School alumni, the top and middle plateau are covered with them. Unless it's something else that looks like allotments!

And apologies in advance if I send any of you down this particular rabbit hole!


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Threads

Essexyellows
National Politics Your Party
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
Londox
Londox
Coffin Dodger
  • Sticky
National Politics 🟒 The Green Party
22 23 24
Replies
699
Views
40K
Boris
B
Marked Ox
  • Sticky
National Politics 🟑 The Scottish National Party (SNP) 🏴󠁧󠁒󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿
2
Replies
57
Views
7K
Orkney Islands Yellow
Orkney Islands Yellow
QR
  • Sticky
National Politics πŸ”΅ The Conservative Party
151 152 153
Replies
5K
Views
419K
boogaloo
boogaloo
Back
Top Bottom