Posted by: @editor

↑

@jamespa, what frustrates me most about politics, not just here but globally, is that when we vote, we don't get to pick a la carte. You vote for a party or a president (depending on where you are in the world), and you get the whole bouquet... the environmental protections might come bundled with economic policies you hate or the "stronger for the country" measures arrive with little or no regard for the planet. There's no menu where you can tick "good climate action + sensible economics + no nonsense" and leave the rest behind. You take the package deal or you don't.

And running through every single one of those packages is the same overriding force, money and economies. It rules the world. It always has, and it always will. What's right for the long term (cleaner air, stable climate, energy we control) gets subordinated to what keeps growth ticking, jobs safe, taxes manageable and voters happy in the next election cycle.

…

@editor, you’re close to what frusrates me most too. We don’t generally get to vote for a local representative; the winning candidate raises local issues, but the party line trumps the local electorate’s wishes.

I remember a rather clichéed joke about two friends on a trekking holiday in Africa. At one point, a cheetah appears on the track up ahead and one of them takes off his backpack, takes out his trainers and starts putting them on.

”What are you doing?”, asks his friend. “You can’t honestly expect to outrun a cheetah!”

“No need”, his friend replies. “I only need to outrun you.”

That typifies my feeling about the political process these days. The primary aim of a party seems to be to stay in power, and doing something good with that power comes in a poor second best. Elections aren’t based on “vote for us ‘cos we’ll do xyz”; they’re based on “Don’t vote for them ‘cos they’re worse than us”. We don’t vote for the best candidate or party; we just vote for the least bad.

@majordennisbloodnok @editor @transparent 

It's inevitable you get to vote for the bouquet unless every matter goes to referendum which is unmanageable and anyway would lead to worse outcome because the electorate would vote for an impossible combination of all the 'good' things.  The result would be like a budget where each line is chosen individually based on a popular vote, it wouldn't add up.

So we have individually to decide both what matters most and what to believe of what's said.  

And of course parties will do at least some of what it takes to stay in power, because if they don't they won't be able to do the things that they believe are good. 

Posted by: @transparent

↑

Poor decisions get implemented because there's a lack of well-reasoned argument put forward by the Opposition.

Sometimes, but on many of the major things there is a genuine difference of priorities so any reasoned argument can't change the outcome once any particular group is in charge.  Welfare is one obvious such area, renewables, brexit, choosing when to die, minority rights, abortion are some more.   On all of these, and many more, reasoned argument plays little or no part in the outcome because the opposing factions have different motivations. 

Posted by: @editor

↑

That said, I can't help thinking the household-level stuff we talk about here on the forums (solar, batteries, heat pumps, etc.) remains one of the few things we do have direct control over. It's not going to rewrite global energy policy, but it does carve out a bit of personal independence from the mess. 

Local Government is likely to have a greater say in regional energy strategy in the future. Grants for Retrofit and whatever replaces ECO4 will be administrated by local authorities.

Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) is under way, to replace the two-level District/County government with Unitary Authorities. One of the criteria under which the boundary changes will be decided is whether the prospective new Unitary Authorities are able to handle further devolution of powers from Westminster.

The decision for Surrey has been made and its first Unitary Authority elections will take place in May'26.

There are 19 other Counties currently with LGR in progress. They are listed on this Wikipedia page.

Any prospective candidates for seats on the new Unitary Councils will now be considering the policies on which they hope to stand. They will need to have a policy for energy, which Forum Members here could contribute to.

It is elected Councillors (or their Officers) within those new Unitary Authorities which will have the opportunity for seats on the Strategic Boards for creation of the Regional Energy Strategic Plan.

Posted by: @transparent

↑

Local Government is likely to have a greater say in regional energy strategy in the future. Grants for Retrofit and whatever replaces ECO4 will be administrated by local authorities.

Administered by maybe, funded by, not.  He who pays the piper calls the tune.

I'm also unsure how regional energy strategy will help if the government decides to be anti renewables.  Decisions from above will dominate. 

It would be easy to slow down the transition, award drilling and fracking licences, remove any preferential treatment for renewable tech and shift it to oil and shale gas, load all costs from legacy policies which can't be reversed onto electricity bills, reinstate the defacto ban on onshore wind, make offshore wind unattractive by amending terms.  Transition more or less stone dead.  Certain foreign states might be keen to help short term because of the obvious long term benefits.

This could, and depending on the decision at the next election will, be done within a single parliament.  

The only thing which might prevent this from being politically possible would be a challenging global oil situation at the time.  That might delay it but would also become a reason (albeit a reason that would involve double speak) to justify the licences.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

I'm also unsure how regional energy strategy will help if the government decides to be anti renewables.  Decisions from above will dominate. 

That's why we shouldn't just be talking to election candidates we might agree with.

I am learning about what might occur if the next general election produces a government which opposes Net Zero because I'm in dialogue with such candidates. They, in turn, ask me about

• what caused the outage in Spain and Portugal in April'25
• have we still retained enough farm-land to grow what Britain needs if we continue to grant planning consent for solar farms
• could we still charge EV's overnight at home once ICE cars are no longer sold

Those are perfectly reasonable questions to which I will happily provide insights into the underlying science. That allows candidates to assess if their policies/strategies could be supported technically before they make a public announcement.

Incidentally, in the midst of writing the above post, I've just answered a phone call from a Committee Member of the Local Government Association.
The content we freely discuss here on the RHH Forum is what our elected representatives are eager to learn about.

Posted by: @transparent

↑

That's why we shouldn't just be talking to election candidates we might agree with.

Completely agree with that although not sure it will change much.  I spent about 45 mins discussing policies with the local representatives of a party that I disagreed with.  After a while it became clear that whatever I said wasn't going to change their view because the view was based entirely on what they had been told, whether or not they had any evidence to support it.  

Posted by: @transparent

↑

Posted by: @editor

↑

That said, I can't help thinking the household-level stuff we talk about here on the forums (solar, batteries, heat pumps, etc.) remains one of the few things we do have direct control over. It's not going to rewrite global energy policy, but it does carve out a bit of personal independence from the mess. 

Local Government is likely to have a greater say in regional energy strategy in the future. Grants for Retrofit and whatever replaces ECO4 will be administrated by local authorities.

Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) is under way, to replace the two-level District/County government with Unitary Authorities. One of the criteria under which the boundary changes will be decided is whether the prospective new Unitary Authorities are able to handle further devolution of powers from Westminster.

The decision for Surrey has been made and its first Unitary Authority elections will take place in May'26.

There are 19 other Counties currently with LGR in progress. They are listed on this Wikipedia page.

Any prospective candidates for seats on the new Unitary Councils will now be considering the policies on which they hope to stand. They will need to have a policy for energy, which Forum Members here could contribute to.

 

It is elected Councillors (or their Officers) within those new Unitary Authorities which will have the opportunity for seats on the Strategic Boards for creation of the Regional Energy Strategic Plan.

Great work @transparent 

Playing the long game helping to make sure people are informed. 

Gradually making more people aware of the possibilities is exactly what is needed. It is definitely a marathon not a sprint over the next decade and beyond. 

Posted by: @editor

↑

@jeff hefty read… exhausted now, but will admit I skimmed a lot it.

I think the core frustration the report taps into is real for anyone who’s ever sat down with a heat pump quote or solar payback calculator… electricity bills are still high enough to make the next step feel like a gamble, even when renewables are supposed to be the cheap, home-grown answer.

The vicious circle, high prices, slower adoption, fixed costs spread thinner, even higher prices, is exactly what holds people back, and the report is probably right to call it out. Switching the big goal to “Cheaper Power 2030” sounds sensible on the surface… be stricter on contract prices, build the grid smarter, get locational pricing working and don’t lock in expensive deals just to hit gigawatt targets.

But here’s where it gets a bit eye-roll worthy for me. Tony Blair himself hasn’t been in power since 2007, yet here we are in 2026 with his institute still dropping ‘heavyweight’ papers that sound like they’re briefing ministers. Is this genuinely independent analysis or is it shaped by the same big energy lobbying interests that have always preferred managed decline over rapid disruption?

Putting the politics aside isn't easy, I was wary about posting the link. Am not surprised a lot of comments have drifted into politics, it is a general issue with this forum and a lot of forums generally that unintentionally drift into politics. I see it on forum on unrelated topics I sometimes post on. 

I don't think Miliband is focusing enough on affordability generally so we are getting locked into an expensive renewable architecture and processes rather than a cost effective one. 

I also don't agree with the short term North Sea Oil and Gas strategy of the government. We have head of Octopus Greg Jackson, the head of RenewablesUK and many other renewable supporters now saying we should be making more use of North Sea Oil and Gas. These are hardly the normal fossil fuel champions... The government tax income on the North Sea has fallen from circa 10billion to 2 billion in just a few years. That is a lot of money that could fund heat pumps, insulation, solar etc. if even a few more North Sea sites were opened and a fraction of the income recovered. The irony is on our doorstep... Norway is at almost 100% renewable electricity, but the fourth largest natural gas exporter in the world and we are very reliant on them....

We have CfD contracts for wind farms and Nuclear. Gas turbine generators and North Sea providers have said they are open to discussions on similar CfD contracts. We could also store more gas to get over some of the volatility. None of the these need to be long term solutions, just part of the transition to net zero. 

This sort of thing could perhaps be done carefully without impacting the transition, in fact it could help fund the transition and reduce volatility if done well? Perhaps I am too optimistic that this would help, others on the forum are more than welcome to correct me. I am no expert, just an interested observer. 

It is what it is as while Miliband is in power the only thing he cares about is hitting the 2030 target irrespective of  short and long term cost (according to my friends in his department). So discussion on national policy seems rather academic for the next few years. 

I do like what @transparent is doing to slowly but surely make sure local government and local elected representatives are well informed so at least informed decisions, warts and, are made locally, taking into account every thing else going on. 

I don't know what is best, but I am pretty sure the current approach isn't great... Others on the forum will be better informed than me I am sure. 

Posted by: @jeff

↑

I don't know what is best, but I am pretty sure the current approach isn't great...

Which may well be the case but...

You have ultimately to choose from what is on offer, not what you may personally think is perfect.  That will inevitably include some things you like, some which you perceive, rightly or wrongly, could be improved, and some which you don't like.

I don't personally expect ever to like everything that any Government is doing, not do I expect it to be perfect.  Thats just not reasonable.

Unlike some, I don't see this as a choice of the least bad, I see it as representative of the fact that (a) we all have different circumstances and values and (b) government is run by humans, who are inherently imperfect.  

Those who broadly support any particular mix of policies might want to consider whether they should call out the good at least as much as they focus on the bad.  For some time it seems we can see only the bad, which plays into the hands of people who have no realistic plan beyond getting into power, whatever that takes and also contributes to a general and imho unhealthy level of negativity.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Posted by: @jeff

↑

I don't know what is best, but I am pretty sure the current approach isn't great...

Which may well be the case but...

You have ultimately to choose from what is on offer, not what you may personally think is perfect.  That will inevitably include some things you like, some which you perceive, rightly or wrongly, could be improved, and some which you don't like.

I don't personally expect ever to like everything that any Government is doing, not do I expect it to be perfect.  Thats just not reasonable.

Unlike some, I don't see this as a choice of the least bad, I see it as representative of the fact that (a) we all have different circumstances and values and (b) government is run by humans who are inherently imperfect.

Those who broadly support any particular mix of policies might serve us all better if they called out the good at least as much as they focus on the bad.  For some time it seems we can see only the bad, which plays into the hands of people who have no realistic plan beyond getting into power, whatever that takes.

Thanks @jamespa 

Posted by: @jeff

↑

Am not surprised a lot of comments have drifted into politics, it is a general issue with this forum and a lot of forums generally that unintentionally drift into politics. I see it on forum on unrelated topics I sometimes post on.

There are certain topics that are inherently tied to politics, and I think they do deserve discussion. The only reason I tend to limit them is because political conversations can quickly become heated, and people understandably have strong views.

That said, when approached rationally and respectfully, these are exactly the kinds of discussions we should be having because policy, regulation and funding decisions directly shape renewables and energy in the UK.

So as long as we keep things measured, disagree where needed without it becoming personal and focus on constructive debate, I’m very open to more of these conversations. The key is making sure they don’t drift into point-scoring or hostility.