Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

[P.J. Denyer]

• As it currently stands, and in view of the fact that Corbyn also wants rid of nuclear power, this measure would tend to increase reliance on electricity generated from fossil fuels, putting the "survival of the species" into greater jeapordy

This is the Labour Energy Policy not Corbyn's personally, so far as I am aware they do not have a no nuclear power policy? (I haven't looked too hard so I'm open to correction)

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If Corbyn has his way, we'd be rid of nuclear power stations as well as coal-fired power stations.

Absent some new technology, renewables cannot provide for the UK's baseload requirements. Storage may provide some of the answer but we'd probably need the capacity for several days' requirements.

Gas turbines are expensive things to have on standby on the off chance that they may have to be used.

A fleet of EVs would actually be a very large storage capacity and I wonder if some clever way could be found to use them as such?

I'm envisioning some utility owned charging stations where you would get maybe free parking or reduced cost of energy or whatever for leaving your EV plugged into the grid

 

[The Don]

Only if the *something* will actually help the situation and not make it worse and only if there is some chance of actually doing it.



I'm not sure that anyone is arguing against electric cars but there are two very pertinent points here:

• As it currently stands, and in view of the fact that Corbyn also wants rid of nuclear power, this measure would tend to increase reliance on electricity generated from fossil fuels, putting the "survival of the species" into greater jeapordy
• The policy itself appeals only to those who already support Corbyn. One of the main jobs of the leader of the Opposition is to provide an effective opposition to the government of the day. This proposed policy merely reinforces the media stereotype that he is a hippy-drippy, weirdy-beardy, Islingtonite completely out of touch with the British public at large. If he continues to propose policies like this, the Labour Party will be out of government for a generation

This is the Labour Energy Policy not Corbyn's personally, so far as I am aware they do not have a no nuclear power policy? (I haven't looked too hard so I'm open to correction)

Yes, I thought that I had made it clear that Corbyn, and not the Labour Party as a whole that was anti-nuclear (though there has always been a sizeable anti-nuclear power minority in the party) - my apologies if that was not clear.

The problem is that even if it isn't party policy, the fact that the leader holds those views will be enough for it to be presented as a reason not to vote Labour

 

[The Don]

A fleet of EVs would actually be a very large storage capacity and I wonder if some clever way could be found to use them as such?

I'm envisioning some utility owned charging stations where you would get maybe free parking or reduced cost of energy or whatever for leaving your EV plugged into the grid

And when you come back and find your EV battery drained because there was a peak in demand ?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And when you come back and find your EV battery drained because there was a peak in demand ?

It should be possible to specify a lower limit. If you live 5 miles away from work then maybe you can set it to 25% of full and if you live 50 miles away maybe 75% of full.

Actually...it's a thing...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

 

[The Atheist]

Only if the *something* will actually help the situation and not make it worse and only if there is some chance of actually doing it.

Oh, please do explain how Corbyn's plan would make matters worse.

As to him doing it, all he needs is the key to Downing Street.

Had you not noticed the northern European push along exactly the lines Corbyn is talking about?

As it currently stands, and in view of the fact that Corbyn also wants rid of nuclear power, this measure would tend to increase reliance on electricity generated from fossil fuels, putting the "survival of the species" into greater jeapordy

Several factors negate those points:

A coming increase in demand is likely to encourage more green investment, including production.

Even if fossil fuel is used, it's a damned sight easier to capture the carbon at one source than 10,000,000.

Generation from NG is less eco-damaging than internal combustion engines.

The policy itself appeals only to those who already support Corbyn. One of the main jobs of the leader of the Opposition is to provide an effective opposition to the government of the day. This proposed policy merely reinforces the media stereotype that he is a hippy-drippy, weirdy-beardy, Islingtonite completely out of touch with the British public at large. If he continues to propose policies like this, the Labour Party will be out of government for a generation

What a load of centrist crap.

Change has always come from the hard left. That morons and conservatives don't support Corbyn isn't his problem.

Also, there are no "rules" for how an opposition party can or should behave.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Yes, I thought that I had made it clear that Corbyn, and not the Labour Party as a whole that was anti-nuclear (though there has always been a sizeable anti-nuclear power minority in the party) - my apologies if that was not clear.

The problem is that even if it isn't party policy, the fact that the leader holds those views will be enough for it to be presented as a reason not to vote Labour

As things currently stand any policy or view held by any Labour leader will be presented as a reason not to vote Labour unless they present a raft of policies aimed at supporting that most oppressed of minorities, the billionaire media mogul.

 

[The Don]

Oh, please do explain how Corbyn's plan would make matters worse.

As to him doing it, all he needs is the key to Downing Street.

Had you not noticed the northern European push along exactly the lines Corbyn is talking about?

Absent some new technology to allow renewables to replace the baseline generation capacity of nuclear, it increases reliance on fossil fuels. Given that coal generation is being phased on, it increases reliance on gas imported from Russia - not a good thing IMO.

Yes, Northern Europe are doing similar things and they are facing the same challenges as the UK. Norway and Sweden are able to generate a lot of baseline from renewable sources - Germany's solution to decommissioning nuclear appears to be importing electricity from other countries, effectively shifting the "problem" of nuclear and fossil fuel generation to other countries.

Denmark's solution has already been described here and also relies on other countries having spare baseline capacity to fill in the renewables gap.

Several factors negate those points:

A coming increase in demand is likely to encourage more green investment, including production.

Even if fossil fuel is used, it's a damned sight easier to capture the carbon at one source than 10,000,000.

Generation from NG is less eco-damaging than internal combustion engines.

I disagree. In order to effect change in the UK the party needs to be centreist. The greatest innovations, the welfare state, the NHS and so on have all come from the centre.

Corbyn's desire to get rid of nuclear will increase the need for fossil fuel generated electricity

What a load of centrist crap.

Change has always come from the hard left. That morons and conservatives don't support Corbyn isn't his problem.

"morons and conservatives" are Corbyn's problem if they don't vote for him. That's especially the case when those same "morons" are like me, longstanding party members and voters who see Corbyn's mish-mash of policies which don't join, or add, up as a reason not to vote for Labour.

Also, there are no "rules" for how an opposition party can or should behave.

True but with Brexit, the UK is arguably facing its biggest crisis since the second world war. Instead of buckling down and fighting for the interests of those who will be most damaged by Brexit, the working (and non-working) man and woman, the Labour Party is making itself unelectable by focusing on policies which will reduce its ability to be elected and infighting all led by someone who, although popular among Old-Trots and Momentum (though they seem to be fighting among themselves) turns off the electorate at large because he appears lukewarm and is unable to motivate and enthuse the electorate.

Because of all of this, mitigation of the worst effects of Brexit relies on rebellious Conservative MPs - the opposition has dropped the ball comprehensively IMO.

 

[The Atheist]

I disagree. In order to effect change in the UK the party needs to be centreist.

We're just going to have to disagree, then.

The centre is a dead end. You might have noticed the sharp shift right recently in UK and USA.

Fight fire with fire, not slap at it with a wet, centrist blanket. Think Keir Hardie, not Tony Blair.

 

[The Don]

We're just going to have to disagree, then.

The centre is a dead end. You might have noticed the sharp shift right recently in UK and USA.

There has, as disaffected, poorly educated, older white people have decided that a Labour Party that increasingly seems to be pandering to the "Islington Crowd". The "ban on sale of electric cars" is an excellent example of the kind of policy that the disaffected could not give a flying **** about.

The future of the planet is doubtless very important but it's a long way away when a person is more concerned about where they are going to get a job and how they, or their children, will be able to afford to buy a house. The perception (true or not, I happen to think not but that doesn't matter) is things are at an all-time low right now. People have very short, and very rose-tinted, memories and think that we had it better in the 80's or 90's or 00's.

They want concrete policies which will deliver jobs and houses to where they live - now. The Brexiteers lied like bastages but those lies tapped directly into those concerns and fears and appeared to provide a solution (getting rid of those foreigners who came over here and took our jobs - a complete lie in all respects but something that resonated).

To people like this, Labour's historical core support, a ban on the sale of petrol cars seems like fiddling while Rome burns. They have no prospect of buying a new car and they can hardly afford their electricity bill now* so the prospect of more expensive cars (EVs are twice the price of petrol cars) and more expensive electricity (a consequence of more renewables coming on stream) is hardly enticing.

Fight fire with fire, not slap at it with a wet, centrist blanket. Think Keir Hardie, not Tony Blair.

The trouble is that Corbyn is a wet blanket. Everything about him is slightly moist and apologetic. A socialist firebrand passionately spouting populist socialist policies could entice voters back to the Labour fold.

Corbyn lacks the personality, charisma and the policies to achieve that (and tbh I couldn't point you at an alternative leader with the right qualities within the Labour party).

For his myriad faults, Tony Blair had the charisma to get elected and offset against the omnishambles of PPI and Iraq, New Labour quietly managed to get quite a lot done to undo some of the worst effects of Thatcherism. The investment in the NHS and schools, tax credits and infrastructure investment are all things for which they deserve far more credit IMO.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

There has, as disaffected, poorly educated, older white people have decided that a Labour Party that increasingly seems to be pandering to the "Islington Crowd". The "ban on sale of electric cars" is an excellent example of the kind of policy that the disaffected could not give a flying **** about.

The future of the planet is doubtless very important but it's a long way away when a person is more concerned about where they are going to get a job and how they, or their children, will be able to afford to buy a house. The perception (true or not, I happen to think not but that doesn't matter) is things are at an all-time low right now. People have very short, and very rose-tinted, memories and think that we had it better in the 80's or 90's or 00's.

They want concrete policies which will deliver jobs and houses to where they live - now. The Brexiteers lied like bastages but those lies tapped directly into those concerns and fears and appeared to provide a solution (getting rid of those foreigners who came over here and took our jobs - a complete lie in all respects but something that resonated).

To people like this, Labour's historical core support, a ban on the sale of petrol cars seems like fiddling while Rome burns. They have no prospect of buying a new car and they can hardly afford their electricity bill now* so the prospect of more expensive cars (EVs are twice the price of petrol cars) and more expensive electricity (a consequence of more renewables coming on stream) is hardly enticing.



The trouble is that Corbyn is a wet blanket. Everything about him is slightly moist and apologetic. A socialist firebrand passionately spouting populist socialist policies could entice voters back to the Labour fold.

Corbyn lacks the personality, charisma and the policies to achieve that (and tbh I couldn't point you at an alternative leader with the right qualities within the Labour party).

For his myriad faults, Tony Blair had the charisma to get elected and offset against the omnishambles of PPI and Iraq, New Labour quietly managed to get quite a lot done to undo some of the worst effects of Thatcherism. The investment in the NHS and schools, tax credits and infrastructure investment are all things for which they deserve far more credit IMO.

While I have sympathy with what you say it seems to sum up the problem of tackling climate change in a nutshell. It's always going to be a problem for tomorrow compared with the daily grind until the problems are immediate and beyond repair.

A truly left-wing movement would be surely as concerned for the Bangladeshis who are going to have to learn to live underwater as they are for the working poor being able to afford an iPhone for their teenage daughter?

Again we are straying into dangerous populism territory if we decide that perceptions trump reality and it's all about pandering to whatever the public decide they want.

 

[The Don]

While I have sympathy with what you say it seems to sum up the problem of tackling climate change in a nutshell. It's always going to be a problem for tomorrow compared with the daily grind until the problems are immediate and beyond repair.

A truly left-wing movement would be surely as concerned for the Bangladeshis who are going to have to learn to live underwater as they are for the working poor being able to afford an iPhone for their teenage daughter?

Again we are straying into dangerous populism territory if we decide that perceptions trump reality and it's all about pandering to whatever the public decide they want.

You are right about the concern for others and climate change which. A charismatic leader would be able to communicate the kinds of policies which would tackle climate change in a way that would appeal to the electorate at large and/or present it as part of an integrated range of policies which would primarily help people at home (to save money, save jobs and whatnot) which would also help to tackle climate change.

No matter how well intentioned, or indeed how effective, Labour's policies are, they are presented in a way that makes them seem worthy and those proposing them remote from society at large.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

For his myriad faults, Tony Blair had the charisma to get elected and offset against the omnishambles of PPI and Iraq, New Labour quietly managed to get quite a lot done to undo some of the worst effects of Thatcherism. The investment in the NHS and schools, tax credits and infrastructure investment are all things for which they deserve far more credit IMO.

I'm in partial agreement with you however I think that the fact that so much of the good was done 'quietly' while 'business friendly' policies like PPI were trumped from the rooftops has, in itself, done harm. I know far too many people who are being, or likely to be, hurt by this governments policies who don't see any difference between the three parties in practice and therefore don't see any reason to vote.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

A charismatic leader

Does such a person exist within the Labour ranks? Or even within UK politics? Its all fine and well pointing out shortcomings with who we have but unless we have a better option then what is the actual proposal before us?

 

[The Don]

Does such a person exist within the Labour ranks?

IMO no, but there are a few with more charisma than Corbyn.

Maybe the Labour Party can try to look for one.

Or even within UK politics?

Yes, that frog-faced ******* Farage. The tow-haired himbo Boris. Thanks to his antics on Strictly, even dear old Ed Balls seems to have some level of popularity.

Its all fine and well pointing out shortcomings with who we have but unless we have a better option then what is the actual proposal before us?

We don't have a perfect alternative to Corbyn, but that's not to say that there aren't better alternatives.

Ideally you'd have great policies being promoted by a great leader. IMO Labour have OK-ish policies being promoted by a very poor leader

 

[The Atheist]

There has, as disaffected, poorly educated, older white people have decided that a Labour Party that increasingly seems to be pandering to the "Islington Crowd".

Don't start me on bloody baby-boomers.

What they want can go **** itself.

The future of the planet is doubtless very important but it's a long way away when a person is more concerned about where they are going to get a job and how they, or their children, will be able to afford to buy a house. The perception (true or not, I happen to think not but that doesn't matter) is things are at an all-time low right now. People have very short, and very rose-tinted, memories and think that we had it better in the 80's or 90's or 00's.

Newsflash - people are morons.

To people like this, Labour's historical core support, a ban on the sale of petrol cars seems like fiddling while Rome burns.

Which is exactly why leaders need to step up and slap fossil fuels.

If Corbyn really wanted to start making moves, he should propose a 200% tax on all air travel and freight.

The trouble is that Corbyn is a wet blanket.

Oh yeah, that is a real issue.

What the world needs is more Alpha Male leaders, or at least Alpha Female leaders like Ms May, the Vicar's bleeding daughter.

Strong - that's what leaders need to be!

You know, like Mr Trump, Mr Putin - tough, hard men not afraid to un-PC.

Plus ce change...

 

[The Don]

Don't start me on bloody baby-boomers.

What they want can go **** itself.

That's your opinion but from a politician's point of view they are diligent about voting and as such carry a lot of political influence.

Newsflash - people are morons.

Your opinion, and if they are they will continue to be morons and in order to effect change a party needs to be in power. Somehow the narrative needs to change and to do that there needs to be someone persuasive and charismatic to do it.

Which is exactly why leaders need to step up and slap fossil fuels.

If Corbyn really wanted to start making moves, he should propose a 200% tax on all air travel and freight.

That sounds like a typical Corbyn move - unlikely to make a significant difference to the amount of CO₂ being produced but likely to put most people's backs up. A policy trying to do the right thing, but a surefire vote loser.

The public needs to see the carrot rather than the stick. Take-up of LED bulbs and CFL bulbs has been pretty good. Not specifically because people want to save the planet but because they want to save money. Likewise the sale of more efficient cars, those that produce lower emissions have significantly lower or even zero vehicle excise tax and of course there are lower fuel costs too.

Oh yeah, that is a real issue.

What the world needs is more Alpha Male leaders, or at least Alpha Female leaders like Ms May, the Vicar's bleeding daughter.

Strong - that's what leaders need to be!

You know, like Mr Trump, Mr Putin - tough, hard men not afraid to un-PC.

Plus ce change...

Who said anything about alphas ? (and for a start, there's no way Trump is an alpha, he's too thin-skinned and insecure for that)

Also, where did this non-PC bit come from ? Where have I advocated for that ?

The straw is strong here

 

[P.J. Denyer]

The public needs to see the carrot rather than the stick. Take-up of LED bulbs and CFL bulbs has been pretty good. Not specifically because people want to save the planet but because they want to save money. Likewise the sale of more efficient cars, those that produce lower emissions have significantly lower or even zero vehicle excise tax and of course there are lower fuel costs too.

I see this as aimed more at manufacturers than the public, the public are already encouraged to buy low or zero emission cars by tax and congestion charge policies.

The switch to more environmentally friendly light bulbs is, as you mention an interesting comparison-: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs#European_Union

The basic strategy seems to have been the same. Announce a ban in with a lead time to let manufactures plan their product replacements and put production in place. I seem to remember a lot of complaints about this policy too but I don't know anone who has a problem with it now.

 

[Tolls]

There is a difference, though.
There was no general infrastructure changes, or changes in habit, required by the move to LEDs. The bulbs worked with current fittings.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

There is a difference, though.
There was no general infrastructure changes, or changes in habit, required by the move to LEDs. The bulbs worked with current fittings.

I' say that low and zero emission cars work with existing roads but that would be (more than) slightly facetious.

Obviously the two situations aren't exactly the same, but it was brought up to suggest that the change to more environmentally friendly light bulbs had happened without government intervention of the type being proposed for cars, that wasn't the case.

I think the greater timescale being proposed before the legislation comes into force reflects greater practical challenge. Light bulb manufacturers had as little as two years to make the switch on some lines.