Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Are you aware that the last Labour government were subsidising households to put solar panels in place, and one of the first thing Cameron’s austerity government did was to pull the plug on that?
I happen to know about that because my son was in Nottingham selling solar panels at the time; but sales dropped off a cliff when the Tories (ffs man, it’s always them) removed the funding.
That was subsidising private folks to put solar on top of their houses! I know you will not agree but please read and bear with me. I'm not defending Cameron per se, more looking at it in context with the times :
That policy was at a time when the country was having to cut costs following the financial crash
It involved putting money on to bills overall to subsidise people that could afford to put solar panels on their roof so this meant that people at the bottom who could not afford it were paying extra to subsidise those that could*
Ed Milliband and every Labour PM since shouted "cost of living crisis" at every opportunity (see above.)
This is very different from councils putting solar panels on their own property's roofs reducing the costs for those at the bottom (see above) as well as bringing in some extra funds for the surplus going into the grid AND working towards the green end game. WIN WIN
So the new argument here is supporting a policy that "hurts the poor" to fund solar panel installations for those that could afford to take advantage of the policy? You support that? Someone struggling in a "cost of living crisis" should pay extra on their bills so the fella across the road can get 5 grand off a 15 grand installation? Is that not Trumpenomics?
The original "FIT" meant that the homeowner was paid the subsidy not just for the electricity they exported to the grid but also for the electricity they used themselves! Surely this contradicts every other left wing argument in the past thousands of pages? You're actually arguing against Cameron stopping a policy that paid "haves" money extracted from the "have nots?"
p.s. I didn't need to research the above because I remember the leaflet / pamphlet dropping through my letterbox way back when. 30% off loft insulation and I saw the solar panels bit in there about getting a grant or something for about a third of the purchase / installation cost and was like.....Hmm, yeah right...we're surviving only on tax credits and they think this is viable. lol
And the Labour bit is a grasping really. They introduced the subsidy just weeks before they got booted out of power!
This is amusing though. Guardian article on solar panels "Are they worth it." Seems Mr Green Lefty, George Monbiot, opposed solar panels but this article references the argument and dissects the + / - coming to the conclusion of ...........No they're not worth it. How times change
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/mar/10/feed-in-tariffs-solarpower
Last edited:
Just to add, if I could afford it and I owned a house I would probably do it. Government can surely setup something that does not charge consumers the earth and covers costs (maybe the fabled GB Energy) where people could get the solar panels on credit and very low interest rates paying a similar amount as their energy bills per year on the finance?
My energy bill is £157.35 per month so that's $1888. Cost of installation these days £10k? So I will pay the government £1888 (inc interest) per year+inflation only for say 7 years. Deal? Nah they will make no money to push up to their pals that way!
My bill will be lower than that in reality. They always end up owing me money at the end of the year.
My energy bill is £157.35 per month so that's $1888. Cost of installation these days £10k? So I will pay the government £1888 (inc interest) per year+inflation only for say 7 years. Deal? Nah they will make no money to push up to their pals that way!
My bill will be lower than that in reality. They always end up owing me money at the end of the year.
Cutting in here. Does anyone else see the parallels between Starmer and Russell Martin?
Turn a defeated bunch around, shock us turning them into winners and then proving naff once promoted.
Time Keir went to Scotland? For me he’s lost it and time for the ‘Board’ to act before it gets embarrassing
Turn a defeated bunch around, shock us turning them into winners and then proving naff once promoted.
Time Keir went to Scotland? For me he’s lost it and time for the ‘Board’ to act before it gets embarrassing
"My point was that the council should have been putting solar panels up 10 years ago"
Exactly, more so as interest rates were near zero, we had the perfect storm of cheap borrowing costs and falling renewable technology prices, but instead they chose "austerity" that crippled long-term investment. Not just putting up solar panels but building - state backed - infrastructure like our European chums in Denmark and Germany.
This is why utilities with naturally low profit margins (water and now renewable energy) should be state-owned - rather than green policies or our basic need for water instead becoming a source for profit extraction schemes. When something works so well it becomes cheap and unprofitable, that's precisely when the state should run it rather than subsidizing private companies to do a worse job. Successful green technology is too cheap and effective for capitalism
Bingo! Precisely what state-owned renewable energy should look like! £1,888 per year for 7 years to pay off £10k solar panels, after which your energy becomes essentially free. Cut out the middlemen, offer low-interest financing, and create a win-win where we get cheap energy and the state builds a massive renewable asset base.
Instead, we get the worst of both worlds: high consumer prices, corporate subsidies, and glacial paced rollout because everything has to generate private profits first.
Last edited:
No they spent the money on unneeded roofs and bathrooms because that was what their cronies at Kier and such like were into.
We probably agree on state owned energy at the point we are at now. Capitalism has turned into a free for all with weak regulators and private companies totally ignoring their responsibilities as part of the deal......and expecting the state to fund stuff on top as well.
But they would not offer this! They would prefer to hand my money to Dale Vince and big industrial setups instead..........which ties in with the above
They would rather subsidise private companies than benefit you or I......and that includes this current government as they are still part of that group think western world that models everything on how much they can steal for their friends.The above the government would get 1 more piece of their supposed green objectives done, make a little bit of money out of the person they helped from the 7 years of surplus until the 7 years was paid off and I daresay a small profit on the credit too + reduce someone's bills potentially for 25 years but that is not their aim. Their aim is simply to make a different set of private companies rich off the public's back.
And if they actually thought about it where they already utilise those prices to maintain their false growth figures......... houses with recently fitted working solar panels value goes up as well!!!
Last edited:
Crude AI but like I say. They should've done Solar instead of re roofing:
You must log in or register to see images
Add on the un-needed new bathroom and the complete re-wiring that I refused to let them do (but others did) and the new UPVC windows the replaced un-necessarily.........we could go on. lol. But none of these were checked to see which houses needed what updating / repairing / replacing. Whole streets were just done!
Wondering whether I should wait to buy this council house or not. Could do with an updated kitchen first. Hmmm.
We’ve got MPs today backing Israel’s actions in Gaza.
It’d be crude to equate the human suffering there with past conflicts
Last edited:
No they spent the money on unneeded roofs and bathrooms because that was what their cronies at Kier and such like were into.
We probably agree on state owned energy at the point we are at now. Capitalism has turned into a free for all with weak regulators and private companies totally ignoring their responsibilities as part of the deal......and expecting the state to fund stuff on top as well.
But they would not offer this! They would prefer to hand my money to Dale Vince and big industrial setups instead..........which ties in with the above
The above the government would get 1 more piece of their supposed green objectives done, make a little bit of money out of the person they helped from the 7 years of surplus until the 7 years was paid off and I daresay a small profit on the credit too + reduce someone's bills potentially for 25 years but that is not their aim. Their aim is simply to make a different set of private companies rich off the public's back.
And if they actually thought about it where they already utilise hose prices to maintain their false growth figures......... houses with recently fitted working solar panels value goes up as well!!!
It's not incompetence or oversight; it's the system working exactly as designed to "steal for their friends" while keeping the public paying premium prices for basic needs.
Now, If only there was a new party that is serious about offering an alternative to the Labour-Tory consensus of corporate welfare, who want policies that demonstrate how public ownership can work better for ordinary people.
Parliamentary office
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Dear Mr Corbyn
The Government can surely setup something that does not charge consumers the earth and covers costs (maybe the fabled GB Energy) where people could get the solar panels on credit and very low interest rates paying a similar amount as their energy bills per year on the finance? My energy bill is £157.35 per month so that's £1888. Cost of installation these days £10k? So I will pay the government £1888 (inc interest) per year+inflation only for say 7 years. Deal?
Imps
Last edited:
Excuse my ignorance, but yesterday when Danny Kruger a sitting Tory MP joined Reform, how does that not spark a by-election? Surely that constituency voted in Conservative, not Reform?
@......loading......
Thanks a lot, much appreciated.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62lnzdndkeo
Thanks a lot, much appreciated.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62lnzdndkeo
Never has done, but I agree it's not what the voters voted for.
I did think about that actually. It's never been a requirement (you vote for the person, not the party) but when Farage had people defect to UKIP they did trigger by-elections and stand again. Surprised none of the journalists I've seen have asked about it.
Largest portion of the welfare bill by some miles. Pensioners better off under Labour - despite boohoo sob story bs about WFA.@......loading......
Thanks a lot, much appreciated.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62lnzdndkeo
Not researched it but I would guess more defectors don't agree to by elections than do.
Sarah Wollaston defected from Tory to ChangeUK (remember them. lol) in the Brexit wars after promising her constituents in 2017 she would accept the leave result. She defected in 2019 and didn't trigger a by-election despite her previously sponsoring a bill that aimed to make triggering a by election automatic if an MP defected from one party to another.
She point blank refused and then later in the year she also left ChangeUK and sat as an independent! Then even later in the year she joined the Lib Dems and a few months later when Boris called an election she got booted out!
Last edited:
It's going to a good cause. Can't sniff at 4.7% but you probably won't have to worry about how much of the welfare bill it takes up when it's your turn.
I haven't decided what I'm going to spend it on yet, probably decorate my second home. It generally needs a spruce up each year, particularly because it's empty most of the time.
Glad this is an end to all that spurious every pensioner deserves cash for their hearing bollocks.
I'm sure you're right and people could probably argue it's a waste of money to do it.
My point is UKIP did it before under Farage's leadership and I expect he said something about it at the time. So I'm surprised an Emily Maitlis type hasn't asked him a question along the lines of "In 2014 you said [insert quote about defectors standing down and triggering a by election]. Why aren't you making Danny Kruger do that?" Or maybe they have and I just haven't noticed.