Govt mini-reshuffle Feb 2023

[Guest]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-64552137

"New Cabinet appointments in full

The new appointments announced as part of the PM's mini-reshuffle have also been confirmed in the last few moments.

These are:

Grant Shapps - Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero

Kemi Badenoch - Secretary of State for Business and Trade

Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media, and Sport

Michelle Donelan - Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology

Greg Hands - new Tory Party chairman"

Four new Departments created

[malumbu]

So DECC is back again. Bonkers closing it down in the first place. And this is on the day that BP announced its biggest ever profits and that they were scaling down their move to reduce fossil fuel extraction. And so many discussions on the ED local matters on this website are motorists complaining about restrictions. Well that's an invite for them to join in the wider discussion but unfortunately the Lounge appears dead as a dodo.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-64552137

Four new Departments created

 

No more bureaucrats telling us what to do, cut the red tape, etc etc

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

And so many discussions on the ED local matters on this website are motorists complaining about restrictions.

To be fair, discussion on this board doesn't reflect real life accurately. A few members of the Motorists' Liberation Front might continue to wage the keyboard war, but most people in Dulwich dont have cars, most car drivers don't drive every day, most drivers aren't continuing to complain about minor street closures 2 years ago...

[WomblingFree]

Useless fact of the day: Kemi Badenoch stood for MP (under her maiden name) in Dulwich and West Norwood in 2010. I’ve not voted for many Tories in my life, but she is the only one I can remember not voting for.

[Spartacus]

To be fair, discussion on this board doesn't reflect real life accurately. A few members of the Cyclist Liberation Front might continue to wage the keyboard war, but most people in Dulwich dont have cycles, most people don't cycle every day, most cyclists are continuing to gloat about minor street closures 2 years ago...

[malumbu]

Perfect timing. I had planned to respond earlier to DKH

1. that I was hoping to provoke a wider discussion with those very opposed to restrictions on motorists. Sadly Spartacus has referred to some manufactured culture war that many resort to (all that tit for tat nonsense) rather than some deeper views on what the new department should be doing to cut CO2 and other climate change agents. [although maybe he/she was doing what I do and lob the odd grenade in- if so well done you got me.

2. I think that this is indicative of a vocal minority in this area and similar metropolitan areas, those who support improved air quality and reduced emissions, until it affects them. Very different to Tory heartlands where there is resistance to anything that tries to drag us kicking and screaming out of our cars. And that includes most outer boroughs, and some inner too.

So essentially the new energy departments needs some substance in interventions, both soft and hard.

On other matters I am peed off at the downgrading of DCMS. Something that has been happening for some time.

[Spartacus]

Mal

My response to Billy was simply to turn some of the arguments and theories promoted by one side on their head and show how they could be equally applied to the other. Which as you point out is not constructive.

The car vs cycle (simplistic b&w stance) camps want to exclude the other camp and a classic example is Rahx3's recent attempt to claim that motorised transport doesn't cover the costs associated with infrastructure and non tangible costs (accidents, pollution...)

Yet without motorised traffic we wouldn't have the high quality road network or keep it maintained to such a high standard so that cyclists can use it.

Equally removing Cars completely from the equation would make public transport and delivery vehicles (both HGV and local delivery) more expensive as they would have to take up a higher proportion of costs to maintain the road network unless of course cyclists are also taxed to use (and maintain) the inferstructure

Arguing that cargo bikes could replace local delivery is a good one until you look at how goods are transported to the cargo bike start locations or how they deal with large / heavy goods (fridge freezers, construction materials, scaffolding, furniture....) which will require larger vehicles to make deliveries possible.

Then look at tradespeople who need a van full of tools to do their job.

If they all have to pay more to help maintain the roads then that cost will be passed on to the end consumer.

The argument that cars sit idly at the side of the road for 95% of the day can also be ironically leveled at cycles that, unless they are owned by a courier, will sit idle for 95% of the day.

I do laugh at the anti pollution brigade that want to ban cars entirely due to pollution, who then dismiss the idea that electric or hydrogen cars won't produce toxic fumes by saying "ah but what about rubber and brake particulates?" Their agenda is clearly one to make everyone cyclists.

The real answer is to find a way that all forms of transport can coexist safely without danger or disadvantage, especially as we are moving towards greener transport solutions.

This of course leads to other problems, how do we produce enough energy to supply the green revolution, how do we store it for peak times and how do we produce batteries without creating toxic byproducts or stripping the planet for minerals (lithium for example)

Every action has a reaction and removing one element in an equation may have unforseen complicated issues.

I did come across an interesting video recently which looks at what would happen if we turned the Sahara into a giant solar farm.

On one hand it would supply the worlds energy needs 6 or 7 times over. But on the other hand it would alter the ecosystem in ways we couldn't predict and may cause more problems then it solves. Then of course we run into the situation we have now with Russian gas, if the largest supplier falls out of favour or forces prices up then the solution becomes a problem that needs solving.

[malumbu]

So simple question, what will Grant Shapps and his Dept of Energy Security and Net Zero have to do to meet government's objective of net zero by 2030. He didn't do a great job at DfT. Fundamental behaviour change, hard interventions and serious money eg insulation, public transport and technical solutions (as we fall behind our EU cousins.....

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Their agenda is clearly one to make everyone cyclists.

Surprised you haven't mentioned the World Economic Forum, flouride and decimalisation.

[Spartacus]

Their agenda is clearly one to make everyone cyclists.

Surprised you haven't mentioned the World Economic Forum, flouride and decimalisation.

 

No idea why I would mention those Billy, maybe they are on your mind as your tinfoil helmet has obviously slipped... 😉

[Guest]

Start by scrapping OFGEM

[malumbu]

Why? Unless you want re-nationalising of the electricity generators and suppliers. Otherwise how will we keep these profiteers in line? Not sure if my spelling and grammar are correct but I am talking about blank cheques/licenses to print money

[Spartacus]

Start by scrapping OFGEM

 

Keep OFGEN but amend their remit to work for end consumers and not the generation /fossil fuel companies that have just experienced a massive profit from the price of oil and gas.

Also change the model of highest priced electricity generator sets the price for the market so that green energy which is cheaper is actually supplied to the consumer at the right cost and not the cost of gas produced electricity. Will make it more realistic and beneficial for consumers to switch to green.