There is more enthusiasm to talk about Opposition party policies than I have this early before an election when parties are or should be researching and developing their positions. People have written in with criticisms of Conservative net zero policy so I set out here in a neutral way what three Opposition parties think about this.
Reform has a page on their website. It says they would impose £10 bn of taxes on renewable energy to recoup the £10 bn of subsidy . It says they would get £30 bn of cuts in spending from NZ without specifying where.
It says they will licence more extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea. They will allow one or two onshore new trial wells with compensation.
Nigel Farage has made clear he does not believe in man made climate change.
Not on the website it has been reported they would cut energy bills by £1000, more than the average bill. It has not been explained how.
Conservatives have said they will repeal the Climate Change Act and abolish all the targets.
They will issues licences to drill for all the oil and gas available in the North Sea.
They will stop pressing people to buy heat pumps and battery cars, leaving it to the market to design affordable popular products.
They will abolish carbon taxes on power generation
They will cut subsidies for wind farms. They will cut average bills by £165.
They are against using thousands of acres for wind and solar farms.
The Lib Dems have just revised their net zero policy, delaying hitting net zero to 2050 from the election pledge of 2045.
They back no fossil fuel generation by 2030
They back small modular reactors, as do Labour, Conservative and Reform
They claim that changing electricity pricing and building more renewables will halve bills over ten years. As new renewables cost more than current power this looks impossible.
The government bans new oil and gas, claims to be 90% carbon free from UK based power generation by 2030 ( down from 100% in Manifesto),is banning new petrol cars from 2030, and pushing heat pumps and battery cars.
October 12, 2025
The Conservatives can say what they like because we know they will never implement it.
Way before the next election we are going to have massive power cuts. This will affect all aspects of life especially inward investment into the country. 2TK has 4 more years to complete the destruction of our power supplies and as he is unable to sack Milibrain this will be achieved
Reform are the only party to commit to repealing much of the damaging legislation of net stupid. The tories, limp dumbs, greens etc are irrelevant.
The latest wheeze is to give a £150 rebate to heat pump iwners by levying the same on gas boilers.
Net Stupid relies entirely on subsidies.
October 12, 2025
Just as a reminder on the stupidity of windmills. Today they are generating 0.68gw which is almost a record minimum. Gas and nuclear are generating 62% if demand. This on a quiet Sunday morning.
October 12, 2025
Wind has now dropped to 0.56gw and we are Importing 20% of our electricity. Insane.
October 12, 2025
Correct – Our energy policy is insane
October 12, 2025
“They back small modular reactors, as do Labour, Conservative and Reform”
Large nuclear reactors make more sense than small modular ones in cost per MW capacity terms, safety terms, connecting up and for protection from terrorism etc. Or at least they would be if you get all the endless red tape, planning and legal objections out of the way and just build a decent reliable design.
October 12, 2025
It is rather rare in engineering that building 60 small machines (with 1/60th of the capacity each) is likely to be cheaper, safer and more efficient than building one, two or three large well designed ones suitably positioned. Electricity is relatively easy and cheap to move about. Also cheaper to run, defend and maintain three rather than 60.
If we all switch to heat pumps we will need circa ten times as much electricity in winter as now. So loads more generation and grid will be needed but this wasted for most of the year. So this extra capacity and grid will be very capital expensive indeed over the year per KWH generated and delivered! Miliband and the CCC are either mad, deluded or evil!
October 12, 2025
Now down to 0.44gw.
October 12, 2025
I have yet to see evidence that Reform have a well thought out programme of legislative repeals that would work effectively to unwind net zero plans while keeping the lights on. They announced they would simply cancel CFD contracts without apparently having read them. Such cancellation would trigger immediate claims for compensation written into the contracts which the courts would uphold unless told not to by new law, which would undermine investment in the UK as law and contract could no longer be relied upon.
Reform and the Tories now have repeal of the CCA as a commitment. Of itself, it achieves little except removing a weapon that green parties could use to underpin fresh dictatorial pushes towards economic destruction via net zero. It can be neutralised by simply declaring a new target that we have long ago surpassed and citing the recent evidence that climate science has changed from that used to justify net zero. It is all the other legislation and rules established by OFGEM and NESO and DESNZ that need to be dealt with, perhaps starting with repeal of the 2023 Energy Act that gave OFGEM and NESO the obligation to deliver net zero.
I will offer some defence of the Reform claim to save £1,000 per household. It is based on Dr John Constable’s work at REF that identified that the overall cost of renewables subsidies in 2023/24 had risen to £25.8bn. There are about 29 million households, who will bear these costs in items they purchase as well as their own utility bills. If you adjust for increases in the main items to current levels you come reasonably close to the £1,000 figure. However, whilst some of the subsidies can be unwound as Claire Coutinho announced, others are more difficult to remove.
There is also a rising potential bill for write-off costs for stranded renewables and grid assets as we move to a more sensible energy system. The size of this is increasing at tens of billions a year.
October 12, 2025
It’s laughable.. the Conservatives now saying they’d repeal the Act welcomed by Cameron and bolstered up by May. Just tell me how this would ever happen… Total 180 degree U turn against the wishes of 75%of the party.
Reply Parties are broad coalitions and can change their minds. I was part of a small group who got the pro EU Conservatives to hold a referendum which revealed how most Conservative voters were pro Brexit
October 12, 2025
Reform have a Trumpian obsession with net zero. In October 2008, some 465 MPs voted in favour of the Climate Change Act, including 263 Labour members, 131 Conservatives, 52 Liberal Democrats. Just 5 Tory MP’s voted against – all Conservatives – Christopher Chope, Philip Davies, Andrew Tyrie, Ann Widdecombe and Peter Lilley
Many folk took this on and installed solar panels on their roof, using the free electricity generated to charge an EV. Of which the SMMT reports that of the end of August 2025 there are over 1,600,000 fully electric cars on the UK’s roads.
Badenoch’s proposal to repeal the Climate Change Act drew intense criticism from scientists, business leaders and senior Conservatives, who argued that abandoning the Act would harm the UK economy and drive more climate extremes.
The next election will be fought on immigration and the boat people, not net zero. There will be a lot of tactical voting (“anybody but Farage”) Reform will not win.
October 12, 2025
SG. Re my comments above. Today windmills are generating next to nothing. The ones bleating about cancelling ner stupid are the grifters and shysters who are making vast amounts of money from the scam.
When the lights start to go out just watch what the next election is fought on. We are being deindustrialised and bankrupted by a WEF mandate which no one voted for.
October 12, 2025
The CEO of an energy company, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, has appealed to Milliband to discuss policy because the country is de-industrialising. Milliband refuses to discuss it with him!
Why? Because net zero is the tool for de-industrialising western countries, and unfortunately, our Labour Party, and some conservative MPs, have fallen for the lies!
October 12, 2025
I suspect that Nett Zero will escalate rapidly in the electorare’s minds once the inevitable power cuts consequent on Miliband’s obsession kick in. It is a telling aspect of his insanity that he apparently was not prepared to even discuss the issue with the boss of much of the UK’s remaining chemical industry. Surely, someone with a coherent justification for their actions would be prepared to defend them, any not just blank any discussion. As for scientists and Nett Zero, I think that you will find that whilst most agree that our climate is changing (not just warming – it cooled through the latter part of the twentieth century), many have now concluded that any human influence is trivially small in comparison to the sun and other natural factors that have been in action for millions of years.
October 12, 2025
Anyone who thinks they know who will win the next general election is kidding themselves. “A week is a long time in politics” said Harold Wilson. Well three and a half years is a hell of a long time. Almost anything can happen over that period.
The only prediction i would make is that the Greens under the idealistic Hippy Polanski will get nowhere. And Corbyn’s calamitous Fruit ‘n’ Nut party will fail miserably.
October 12, 2025
@Old Albion – as it is today we have the choice of more punishment or ‘the others’. Tomorrow?
October 12, 2025
Well clearly solar is not free, the solar panels are rather expensive to install and maintain plus you get the energy largely in summer middle of the day when you rarely need much. That is why large tax player subsidies were given. Plus they are a fire risk and grid connection is subsidised too.
EV cars rarely save more CO2 than is used to manufacture the cars – this when used on a UK mix of electricity. Keeping you old car running is nearly always better for reducing CO2! Plus the batteries are short lived and rarely worth replacing!
“Intense criticism” mainly from vested interest perhaps?
October 12, 2025
@Lifelogic – “Intense criticism” I would suggest it is all those getting, sorry enjoying, the UK taxpayer being forced to fund their life style. EV’s, Solar panels, windmills, etc,etc those with money being funded by those that are barely surviving(modern serfdom) If any of these project showed the promise of cheap, reliable energy they suggest these people, these entities, taking the taxpayers hard earned money would have found their own means to fund things rather than prey on others. Its this NONE concept of Government money that has been forced onto society, when it is taxpayers money they are talking about
October 13, 2025
At a domestic level …
Solar energy is free but the aparatus to capture and use it is not, just like with gas, except the gas fuel is not free.
Incidence of solar energy is generally highest in the summer at midday but most systems are engineered to deliver their stated energy at lower light levels over several hours, so peak light is a bonus.
Systems and the FITs/SEG payments are not taxpayer funded.
Most energy related systems are fire risks, give some detail references please as I suspect there have been more fires and explosions from gas systems.
Grid connection is not subsidised.
WRT EV CO2 cost, define “rarely”, with such interest you must have key references and data at your fingertips. You have spouted this bullshit countless times and never backed up your claims with data or references. I have pointed to the Argonne labs study reported by Reuters before which suggests the breakeven point is around 13,500 miles for a particular circumstances. There is no single answer but that is at least a start.
So what are the numbers for your counter claim and also the “batteries are short lived” statement.
I ask for data because you claim to be a scientist and continually sneer at anyone making claims or taking actions you disagree with as being non-scientist. So show the people you sneer at a good example.
October 12, 2025
Do you use the number of MPs who back issues they don’t understand in any other areas?
Rape gangs? Leaving the EU? Disability subsidirs? Tax?
October 12, 2025
@Narrow Shoulders – too simples, logica, for some to comprehend let alone think about
October 12, 2025
This morning I clicked on an advert regarding the installation of solar panels. It claimed a saving of around £250-£300 a year on electricity for a 3 bed house and lauded the generosity of the taxpayer-funded subsidies.
The VERY small print at the bottom casually mentioned that the cost of installation would be in the region of £10K. (But that was before re-decoration etc was taken into account.)
So no savings whatsoever …. just very large expenditure.
October 12, 2025
Indeed!
October 13, 2025
Can you identify the offer as I cannot find any that are taxpayer funded.
There is one that takes about eligability if on lower income but explicitly states that the “grant” involved is funded by the other paying customers.
10K is a very expensive solution, does that include batteries?
October 12, 2025
So you’re saying solar panels imported from China are free ? I missed that bit of news. What about the solar energy that supplies the national grid ? Is that free too ? If not, why not ?
October 12, 2025
I don’t think the UK is big enough nor ugly enough to drive climate extremes. If the idea was so good wouldn’t the Chinese be doing it?
October 12, 2025
For such important legislation it is surprising how many MPs did not vote. At the 2005 election there were 355 Labour, 198 Tory, 62 Lib Dem, 6 SNP and 9 DUP plus the Speaker. A few seats changed hands in by-elections by 2008.
It is now being reported that No 10 are increasingly concerned that Miliband will not be able to deliver his CP2030 programme, and that the cost of the attempt will prove unacceptable. Bawling by vested green interests because their programme to transfer weath to themselves is under threat doesn’t constitute a good argument to continue to pursue net zero. Its potential influence on global climate is unmeasurable. The economic harm it imposes is entirely evident. Meanwhile Carney’s green banking initiative has collapsed. The UN-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance says members voted to end the membership-based structure and cease operations.
October 12, 2025
Testing.
October 12, 2025
1 2 3
October 12, 2025
Good Morning,
I have a couple of questions for you Sir J.
While your former party was in office and fell into the NZ philosophy, was there carried out an independent, thorough review and analysis of the drivers behind the policies, and were these presented in adequate form to MP’s to make an informed decision?
Was it adequately explained, that ‘the science’ is never settled, but develops and changes as new evidence and research is carried out? Were the costs (with reliable data) to the economy, of achieving NZ ever presented to MP’s?
Reply No. Some of us made the case against the bad NZ policies and I helped secure the lifting of the new oil and gas ban and delay to the new petrol car ban. I and a few others questioned Royal Society scientists who visited the Commons to set out their view of the “settled science “ about past warming periods, accuracy of models, other causes of warming and cooling, role of water vapour, changes in solar intensity etc.
October 12, 2025
@Reply – are you suggesting no one in government wishing to spend money that wasn’t theirs, delete jobs that create the countries wealth, thought it was incumbent on them to have research done, not even from their advisors. The real question it begs is what is the point of government, parliament and all their advising departments
October 12, 2025
Thank you for this candid reply. So, the most expensive policy other than war to be implemented by our parliament was not properly considered either for necessity nor adequacy, and the costs not known. This is not a party issue, it is a competence and ‘fit for purpose’ issue. If this is how democracy works Nation now, then it is not providing the management needed.
Reply Agreed. Labour drive through the Climate Change Act and Conservatives embedded new targets without Ministers arguing over the science or the likely impacts of the adopted policy. MPs like me provided some debate over the impact of battery cars and heat pumps etc.
October 12, 2025
Our energy policy is shambolic, a point made by Professor Dieter Helm in 2017 when he published his Energy Review. When ideology trumps physics, economics and engineering practicalities failure is inevitable. When political leaders set targets based on aspiration rather than economics and engineering reality failure is the outcome. This is why Net Zero 2050 and banning new ICE’s in 2030 is total nonsense. I cannot see any target set by any political party actually achieveable especially if an arbitrary date has been set. Where is the costing analysis, the engineering analysis, the disruption and timeframe? Net Zero is so damaging and pernicious both economically and technically that only a National Referendum will resolve the matter. We’ve had three decades of energy policy failure by an assortment of politicians. The result. abject failure. We cannot go on like this.
October 12, 2025
One of the first thing Miliband did was to cancel the study of net zero costs that Claire Coutinho had commissioned ahead of the election to be a counterweight to the biassed official advice from NESO and the CCC. I gather that NESO are now starting to back pedal from their position that CP2030 is achievable. You will have seen in the press it has been revealed that Miliband used his power as sole member of NESO to twist their arms to say it was possible.
October 12, 2025
Kemi can say whatever she likes, all the time the Party Grandees/LibCONs who pushed the Net Zero Insanity remain in the Party (most of whom are safely installed in the House of Frauds) she will not be allowed to scrap it. I might start to take notice of her “promises” when she’s removed the whip from:
Cameron, Osborne, May, Goldsmith, Johnson, Gummer, Hague (and many others who haven’t immediately come to mind).
The LibDems will continue to push the nonsense because they mostly represent affluent southern Constituencies and their voters are generally former Remainers and are not yet struggling financially.
I do however believe that given the chance, Reform will do what they say they will do. Farage has a 30-yr track record of sticking to his guns and Richard Tice has done more than anyone to highlight the insanity of Net Stupid.
October 12, 2025
@Donna – I do think you will find it is more bizarre than that she sat in the collective responsibility team of the Cabinet that agreed the policy direction – her name as with others in her team have their name on it. If she disagreed she could have walked…
October 12, 2025
I agree …. but you have to consider the (remote) possibility that since “she’s an engineer” she actually did a bit of independent research and realised that she’d been participating in an unscientific and ludicrous cult …. with no engineering practicalities to support it.
Or, she just wants to improve the Not-a-Conservative-Party’s polling.
I guess you have to decide which is more likely.
October 12, 2025
+1
October 12, 2025
I would feel happier if what Reform say they will do were actually properly thought through into an achievable programme that keeps the lights on while moving to a cheaper system. They have the ultimate objective set out, but they need to do a lot of work in how to get there. Wasting money on nationalisation of 50% of utilities is one unaffordable policy that needs to go. I’ve commented on some other aspects that need reform previously.
October 12, 2025
All this bluster about which party will do what over ‘net zero’ avoids the central issue, which i regularly post here.
If you believe ‘climate change’ is real, then you need to understand who contributes most co2 to Earths atmosphere, and it ain’t the UK.
We contribute around 0.04% Compare that to China which contributes 30% and rising. As this is becoming more widely known Mad Ed Miliband has had to change his narrative. No longer does he whinge on about co2 emissions. Now he rattles on about energy security.
I mean “energy security” relying on wind and sunshine! Take a look at Ian Wragg’s contribution this morning. That tells you all you need to know about “energy security”
The whole ‘net zero’ stupidity is nothing more than virtue signalling to the world at huge financial cost plus de-industrialisation, lost jobs and increased imports (mainly from China) and the increased co2 emissions that creates. It will make no difference to global Co2, as other nations will quickly exceed our miniscule contribution. It is a policy of the madhouse.
October 12, 2025
@Old Albion – “If you believe ‘climate change’ is real,” you know the cost of change, so you have a plane to develop the funds to change. You also know you need a resilient reliable means to sustain a growing society. To refuse to have those situations covered at the outset means you are not fir for purpose.
The other unanswered question the UK’s competitor nations are not even on the same playing field they are getting on with being prosperous Nations creating a tomorrow. 95% of the Worlds population is on a different path to the UK
October 12, 2025
Ian B. I have posted twice today and you have responded to both. Unfortunately i have no idea what you are trying to say in either response.
October 12, 2025
Predictive text working against me. If you, meaning those in government and parliament want to force change on a nation they would have a plan(not plane) on how to generate the funds/wealth required for the project all sorted before they started cancelling things. The would also have had viable resilient alternatives for these changes in place before they abandoned what was known to work.
Then again in thier position they have the resourse, reports/research to review how thier plans will fulfil the dream before they started.
They would have recognised that NetZero is said to be a world situation, but would have asked why some 95% of the World population is not engaged. The HoC instead has forced the UK to be an ‘outlier ‘
650 MPs knew this(sarc)when they voted these changes and the majority chose to destroy rather than build our future
October 12, 2025
net-zero is a european disease
October 12, 2025
Energy policy that I seek would (1) guarantee sufficiency and security of supply and (2) deliver the lowest price possible to help industry flourish. Doing more good than that is welcome but not essential.
I have meagre enthusiasm for any of the parties’ policies although Reform’s £1,000 off bills sounds nicer than the Conservatives £165, Mr. Miliband’s £300 or the Lib Dems apparent £0 for one can fondly muse on how one might spend those saved sums even whilst knowing we will never see any.
October 12, 2025
Policies are secondary to the fact that neither Labour nor Conservatives are trusted. The LibDems also lost credibility from broken promises from their time in coalition. Perhaps this was long enough ago for them to be taken a little more seriously this time around.
Kemi Badenoch is doing her best by trying to give some gravity to her policies by showing that the research and consultation has been done and by avoiding quick-fire policy-making. It seems that she is acutely aware of the trust deficit. Her slow-but-sure method is probably the best way to tackle this but I think it’s too late now. The leader is not the problem. Lack of trust is the problem. Same for Labour which has lost all credibility.
October 12, 2025
“Lord make me chaste, but not yet”.
The Climate Change act was in 2008, nearly 20 years later we have wasted a lot of time and money and not much has changed. Mainly on lawyers and scribblings. If anything we are going to Hell in a handcart even faster. This has become a game for politicians who have no useful ideas and no means to improve the UK economy. All political parties are looking for a way to row back but non has any workable ideas what to do next.
The UK election is nearly four years away – a lifetime. Until then we will have legal challenges (tiresome and expensive) over the government’s implementation and published strategies. To no useful effect, time and money down the drain. We build few power stations but build many AI data centres – which seem to do nothing but chuck hot water down the drain and deliver trite apps to waste our time and collect our innermost thoughts and secrets for processing by Palantir et al.
Meanwhile Nature and economic reality rumble on. Housing, over population, lack of decent jobs, a declining economy and a world where the US – China axis defines what matters. Mr Trump has artfully pushed us into an irrelevant corner.
No one cares what Reform or Farage or Badenoch or Starmer or any of the rest say. They are merely creating a makework scheme for politicos and scribblers. It is they who are pushing our handcart to Hell and charging a fortune for the privilege.
October 12, 2025
I don’t entirely agree about the impotence of opposition. Important parts of it come from independent experts, and where opposition politicians take note of what they say to inform their criticisms it greatly strengthens their arguments. The combination is now getting increasing media coverage and more people are increasingly well informed as is evident from many comments at this blog or even in comments to articles in the tabloid press.
Well targetted opposition carries weight when it is backed by sound data analysis, proper economics, and better forecasts. As I noted above, No 10 is now getting nervous about the consequences of Miliband. Starmer tried to move him. He overruled the Teesside hydrogen hub in favour of AI investment. There is now a lot of scrutiny on the Ming Yang proposal to build a supposed £1.5bn wind turbine assembly facility at Ardersier on security and other grounds including subsidies for China. As it becomes increasingly evident that CP2030 won’t happen there will be a lot of pressure to adopt a different course, simply to keep the lights on.
October 12, 2025
Call me a simpleton but why don’t they different pricing at the consumer side for the differently generated products.
No subsidies, no guaranteed prices and the same tax on each.
Let the market decide. I have no doctrinal need for renewable, I have a practical need for the cheapest, most reliable product.
October 12, 2025
Good idea. I specifically ask for gas generated electricity but I can only buy ‘guaranteed green energy’ At an increased price.
October 12, 2025
Yes
October 12, 2025
The Daily Sceptic reports today:
“The [renewable energy] subsidy cost between July and September 2025 totted up to £657.7 million, all of which is added to our electricity bills ……… In short, we are currently paying £11.4 billion a year to subsidise renewable energy. And this does not even take into account all of the indirect costs imposed by the intermittency of wind and solar power.”
Yet STILL the Eco Nutters in the Establishment insist that the intermittently functioning windmills and solar panels will provide cheap, reliable energy.
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/10/12/renewables-subsidies-rise-yet-again/
October 12, 2025
+1
October 12, 2025
@Donna – it doesn’t account for how much of the Taxpayer money is sent directly abroad propping up other regimes. Forcing the UK Taxpayer to make other Nations wealthy while they get poor, shows as far as parliament is concerned the fight goes on
October 12, 2025
That’s only one tranche of subsidy, and far from the largest: moreover, the CFD subsidy in summer is much lower than in winter since it is dominated by offshore wind which tends to be becalmed. We have the effects of the Carbon Tax which add £7-8bn, ROCs adding £7.7bn this year, Feed in Tariffs costing around £2bn, extra balancing costs of at least £2.5bn, over £1bn for the Capacity Market, at least £3bn for charges for extra grid pylons and substations, and more.
October 12, 2025
“The evolution of policy on net zero“ alas politics has bought the “science” they wanted the science had been hugely distorted for political ends. But the politicians cannot change the scientific realities.
Richard Feynman’s “Nature cannot be fooled”
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
Alas MPs, Politicians, Civil Servants, Academics, researchers, the CCC, judges and the legal system can be conned, tricked into a belief system, fooled or bought.
October 12, 2025
See the excellent book The War on Science by Lawrence M. Krauss, Dawkins, Peterson, Pinker et al.
October 12, 2025
Has the 2030 ban on petrol cars been carefully thought through.
Electric cars are expensive and there is no sign that they will ever be available in the sub-£5,000 or so that you can pay for a serviceable petrol or diesel car. As huge numbers of people use cars to get to work how on earth will they be able to get there without a relatively cheap car especially if their current car is, say, written off in a crash. Unemployment beckons.
October 12, 2025
Mm. That’s the whole point of the excersise
Price Joe public off the road so the great and good can swan about in their Zil lanes. Agenda 30, you will own nothing etc etc
October 12, 2025
They can all buy a Nissan!
Nissan have said they will continue to make petrol and diesel cars, as they are very popular. They will also produce EV’s for those who want one!
Choice!
October 12, 2025
I have just bought a new diesel Discovery. Delivered on time in spite of the hacked computer. Mine was the only car sold that day in the huge branch in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Rows of EVs fading in the sun, unloved, unwanted, homeless.
October 12, 2025
The Not-a-Conservative-Party is starting to talk about delaying the ban on new petrol/diesel cars …. but even IF they get to form the next Government (they won’t) they will not take Office until 2029, one year before the current ban takes effect. And the destruction of the UK car manufacturing sector will have been destroyed long before then.
If you are considering buying a new car (I am) and do not intend getting an EV you will have to do it in the next couple of years. I’ll be doing it next year, or possibly early ’27.
So Badenough can make any “promises” regarding delaying the car ban she likes. It won’t make a scrap of difference.
October 12, 2025
Do governments in the UK ever think anything through – let alone “carefully think through”
The whole net zero agenda is bonkers and bogus. Economic, employment and defence vandalism from the very dangeous Ed Miliband – and from Cameron, May, Boris, Sunak and Engineer Kemi is still largely on the fence!
The VAT on school fees, 1m PA plus low skilled immigration levels, housing policy, burning wood at Drax, benefits higher than wages, the over sized bloated state sector, the ECHR, our defence systems, our tax system, housing laws, employment laws, health and safety laws, the no deterrent criminal justice…
October 12, 2025
Coutinho dropped a big hint in her speech. She said “At the moment Labour’s giving handouts to people to buy electric cars and electric heating at the very same time they’re making electricity unbearably expensive. That’s back to front and we will reverse it.” So that would be no more EV subsidies. She also mentioned the Vauxhall Luton closure as an undesirable net zero consequence.
Something else she said also taught my eye, though I’m not sure how far she has considered the consequences. “But if we can create technologies that others can’t, that will be by far Britain’s biggest contribution to tackling climate change.” Probably one of the biggest contributions that can be made is continued research into how to make ICE vehicles and fossil fuelled generation more efficient. In my lifetime I’ve already seen huge improvements in both, with ICE mpg trebling, and power station efficiency amost doubling, yet thermodynamics tells us further improvement can be made. Eking out global fuel supply is a benefit to us all regardless of climate issues.
Reply There is also continued interest in fusion
October 12, 2025
There is also a greater continued interest for cheap reliable fossil fuel energy & fuel ….from the people
October 13, 2025
Indeed fusion will surely become practical and affordable soon, I suspect within about 20 years. So we have plenty of fossil fuels left until then,
October 12, 2025
At least there is no longer unanimity between the major parties, and that is a big step forward.
I cannot see why anyone in their right mind would buy an electric battery car at this stage. Ten days ago the M5 was closed for a good deal of a day in both directions, and more than a day on the South bound lane when a car transporter carrying six electric cars burst into flames North of Exeter, because of a fault in the battery of one of the cars.
October 12, 2025
+1
October 12, 2025
I agree with your scepticism about Reform. There are many contributors to this site who have blind faith in them, but, in practical terms, it’s difficult to envisage them going from 5 MPs currently to a working majority at the next election, no matter what the polls say. A pact with the conservatives would seem sensible and it may well need to be in place in readiness for an early general election.
October 12, 2025
A pact with the Conservatives would kill Reform unless the Conservative party drops its liberal Woke elements. The party is still obsessed with the centre ground. Opinions among both the political classes and the public are now far too polarised for that to be of any practical use. The centre is now an empty space. Most are stationed aound the edges, the extremities. My view is that the Conservative Party should be dissolved and true conservatives go off to Reform, and the wet liberals go off either to Labour or The Lib Dems. It’s drastic but I can’t see Kemi Badenoch, much as I like her, achieving the changes within the party that are necessary. She was very badly treated over retained EU Law. Taken as a whole, it has lost sight of a conservative philosophy of government in the national interest. It needs a new Roger Scruton and a head banger alongside Kemi to lead the changes. I can’t see anyone forthcoming in these roles.
October 12, 2025
Global warming and cooling are entirely natural phenomena, and have been for thousands and thousands of years. It is absurd to think the UK, as a single country, can make the slightest difference to it. Even if every country in the world followed the UK, it would make no difference at all.
Trying to get the UK to Net Zero is as daft as the people who said the Earth was flat!
What is so frustrating is that it is not difficult to research to prove that CO2 is not a problem, and Net Zero is bonkers. When will our MPs wake up?
Comment for SG – All you are giving us are the numbers of stupid MPs in 2008. They did not have the facts then, and they still don’t now.
October 13, 2025
The world has had ice ages with far higher levels of CO2 than current ones! It is a vast exaggeration just one of millions of factors that affect the climate most mankind has virtually zero control over.
October 12, 2025
The most extraordinary thing about climate change is that even though there is in truth no scientific consensus, politics has adopted extreme positions. I should have thought that when there is great uncertainty, sensible government should exercise great caution and prioritise reducing the uncertainty. But it now seems extremely hard to get public money for research that does not set out to confirm that climate change is dangerously out of control due entirely to the actions of mankind and only extreme and costly action can avert the extinction of all life on earth. So alarmism is guaranteed. Being cynical I would say governments love a good scare in order to frighten people into accepting the enormous public costs of hugely expensive prestige and, in this case virtue signalling programmes. And they do this without regard to the opportunity costs of blocking alternative and potentially far superior solutions.
October 12, 2025
PS I wasn’t going to add this but after reading other comments I should.
Ice cores encompassing 800,000 years of atmospheric cycles from Antarctica (EPICA C) have shown two salient facts: the interglacial cycle (the dominant warming and cooling cycle) is about 100,000 years long and we are only a short way into the current warming part of the cycle. These ice cores show that in all inter-glacial warming periods increasing temperature precedes CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Therefore rising CO2 cannot be the driver of warming but warming can be the driver of rising CO2.
Some might remember the alarmist cries of the melting polar ice and rising sea levels when the 1,250 square miles of the Larsen B iceshelf broke off from Antarctica in 2002 and drifted northwards. Research showed that the cause was most likely to have been volcanic action underneath the ice shelf, part of a chain of undersea volcanoes stretching for thousands of miles. This shows how people jump onto a narrative rather than consider alternative explanations that risk destroying their preferred narrative.
The future is one of a warming earth in line with 8 previous known interglacial cycles. Caution is warranted, but panic and a rush to half baked solutions is not. And this warm period will almost certainly be followed by another ice age – which was the climate scare as recently as the 1970s. The truth is we don’t know.
October 12, 2025
“This shows how people jump onto a narrative rather than consider alternative explanations that risk destroying their preferred narrative.”
This is the issue with all sides of a topic, The only certain thing is that the extent of bullshit amplification will increase as will taxes, regulations and wastage.
Individuals just have to find their own path and try to mitigate the rubbish consequences from government et al.
October 12, 2025
PG :
Correct. The Western side of Antarctica is part of the Pacific ring of fire and contains many volcanos which make its geology and climate completely different to the much larger and much colder eastern side. Not only does the Antarctic Vostok ice core data show CO2 following temperature but there is no CO2 explanation, let alone anthropogenic CO2 explanation, for how the planet warmed to exit the most recent ice age just 11,000 years ago.
October 12, 2025
“They [the Conservatives] will stop pressing people to buy heat pumps and battery cars, leaving it to the market to design affordable popular products.”
Are you sure, Sir John?
When Mike Graham of Talk recently interviewed Matt Vickers, MP, Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party, he said there was no change to their policy regarding the banning of the sales of petrol and diesel cars.
https://youtu.be/j-ho-6V6r5o?t=11568
He also said that although they would repeal the CC bill they still intended to continue with the Net Zero project (“the green stuff”) in an “affordable way”. Decarbonisation is never going to be “affordable” and is totally unnecessary anyway because additional atmospheric CO2 has little if any effect on global temperature because of saturation as shown by Happer & Wijngaarden using the IPCC’s own radiative warming theory.
Reply A zDeputy Chairman is not a Shadow Cabinet member. Claire Couthino sets out agreed Shadow Cabinet policy which is what I am quoting.
October 12, 2025
I’d say they haven’t decided.
October 12, 2025
The biggest problem for NetZero is those that chose it ignored the costs. Those that chose it refused to find, and develop practical alternatives before just cancelled things. It has been about a cosy illogical unproven sound-bite to appeal to the gullible, to attract the gullible vote. Praying on a the naive religious cult.
Not once when they cancelled the UK’s future did they mention that the direction they would take would add to World pollution. Not once did they say the UK would get there by offshoring jobs, production and energy putting everyone’s future in the hand of the whims of foreign powers.
This situation the costs has been known to successive UK Governments since the concept was invented. Each Government has refused to put the UK first, has refused to change things. Has refused to comprehend as to why none of the UK’s competitive nations are destroying their nations in the same way
October 12, 2025
The difference between the Conservatives and Labour, Lib Dems and Greens is that the Conservatives are now saying they say they will repeal the CC act in order to continue with the Net Zero project in an “affordable way”. But as Sir Dieter Helm, Professor of Economic Policy has pointed out in a recent podcast, just the decarbonisation of our electricity (well, 95% in the NESO Clean Power 2030 plan) is going to be very, very expensive and if politicians wish to pursue it to do our bit to save the planet then they should be honest about the costs with the electorate. According to Professor Gordon Hughes of the Renewable Energy Foundation the UK taxpayer has already funded £220bn in renewable subsidies (£8000/household) since 2002 (2024 prices) and is currently funding £26bn/year. NESO has costed its Clean Power 2030 project at “over £40bn annually”, so another £8000/household by 2030 by which time it will be necessary to not only subsidise the renewables, the grid upgrades and the battery backups etc. but also the gas generated backup which will be needed to be available at any time to provide full power whilst only used for 5% of the time. NESO’s plan also necessitates rolling blackouts, called euphemistically, Demand Side Response (DSR), at times of peak demand and when electricity over the interconnectors is not available or insufficient and this will also have a cost to each household.
October 12, 2025
There are two excellent websites that compare each party against the ZEV mandate and related net-zero car/road taxes
WhatCar – https://www.whatcar.com/news/uk-election-the-different-political-parties-plans-for-motoring/n26933
EVA England – https://www.evaengland.org.uk/2024/06/20/manifesto-ev-pledges/
They explain in detail each party policy to EVs etc
Reply This is all out of date. Conservative policy is going through a big change to deliver cheap energy as prime aim, and Labour policy is being eroded by realities as with modest dilution of clean power lledge.
October 12, 2025
Kemi Badenoch may have said that she intends to repeal the CC act but it is the intention of half her backbenchers who are members of CEN (Conservative Environment Network) to continue with the Net Zero Mission to net zero CO2 emissions by 2050 as detailed in an article in Conservative Home 02/10 by the Director of CEN. The members of CEN want simply want to get to net zero “differently” saying it is necessary “To encourage others to go further and faster, UK climate leadership must not be abandoned, but reinvented in a more credible, conservative fashion” and adding “The UK is only a tiny share of global emissions, but we can and should play an outsized role in addressing this challenge through leveraging our strengths in technology and finance.” I suppose the UK tax-payer will be providing the finance and China the technology (infrastructure). If the electorate were to vote back into power the Conservative Party, with the high likelihood of a large fraction as members of CEN, then the danger is that the promise to repeal the CC act will be no more effective in reducing the costs of Net Zero than the previous promises to reduce immigration or to completely leave the EU (we are now one country, two systems).
Reply Conservative candidates next time will have to agree to vote for repeal of ECHR and Climate Change laws.
October 12, 2025
Reply to reply: Whilst Kemi has said she will repeal the CC act, what about PM May’s Net Zero by 2050 act? Will this be repealed? And will the whole Net Zero Mission be scrapped or just adjusted to look “affordable”, whatever that means?
Reply Of course. This is a big change. The new Conservative leadership thinks NZ policies and targets are doing big damage to the UK and must be repealed.
October 12, 2025
But does it include repealing/abolish the climate change committee and reintroducing fracking shale gas ….too many mirrors & too much smoke
Reply Lets see what these parties develop.
October 12, 2025
The Conservatives appear to be opposed to fracking ? That is a differentiator. Also the Greens are opposed to nuclear which may influence Labour policy when they need votes.
Reply No statement on fracking by Conservatives. Some existing reservoirs use gas or water injection anyway. This does not give Green party policy as I am expecting big changes under the new Leader.
October 12, 2025
It’s already evident that the announcements at the Conference gave a number of CEN member MPs fits of the vapours. They should take note that she said “today I can announce the first policies from our Cheap Power Plan.” Note the word FIRST. There is a lot more to come, some of which she hinted at in her speech which you can read in full here
https://www.conservatives.com/news/energy-is-prosperity
I would recommend viewing the YouTube version which shows her slide presentation which drove home many of her points: it starts at 34 minutes in the linked video. The text is useful to confirm precisely what she said.
October 12, 2025
184 criminals were illicitly shipped, into the UK yesterday on the 11th October from France…They’re not interested in net-zero; only freebes
October 12, 2025
And they’re not worried about the need for an identity card in order to work as they’ve no intention of ever working except on the black market. Also, they’re not worried about the cost of Net Zero as all their energy bills are paid for them.
October 12, 2025
Clarkson standing for parliament is going to shake things up