Yet another dose of cold reality for politicians to absorb and accept — except of course none of them will, at least at the moment, because of the abuse and scorn that would be poured over them.
May I point to Dieter Helm’s latest blog? He sets out at the beginning how politicians behave, and how the DESNZ does as well. Keep repeating a glaring untruth, and double up on it….
You both reach the same conclusion, but from different directions — the current systems are unsustainable and eventually the cost will get so great that a complete breakdown then ensues.
Somehow we have to force politicians to address the points you are both making, and change policy. But sadly in the meantime you and I have to carry on trying to save our Scottish landscape from the current folly.
More people locally are noticing your blogs and drawing attention to them. Please keep giving us the ammunition we need so badly! Thank you! John
Whatever the PR I suspect that AR7 will be at best a qualified success. The financial environment has become quite difficult for large offshore projects. The smaller companies who invest in onshore wind and solar are less constrained but in practice the proportion of consented projects that go ahead is quite low and has been falling for solar. There is no magic bullet for grid connections and there are very clear threats to the viability of AR7 projects from both Reform and the Conservatives so bidding but delay signing any firm commitments is likely to be the best strategy.
Thank you Gordon. I can see how frustrating it must be for politicians who start with simple aims. I can also believe there may be serious issues with the civil service. However it's easy to see that civil servants pointing out the legislative complexity you have outlined could be viewed unfairly as being obstructive while merely doing their job.
There is a fine line between (a) being honest in recognising complexity but trying to find ways through it, and (b) treating process as more important than outcomes or, in effect, using process as a deliberate way of trying to slow or block change. Most of us have a reasonable sense of the difference, which is crucial to the humour in Yes Minister.
My purpose in writing the piece was to warn that some of the expectations of the savings from reversing Net Zero are quite unrealistic unless the changes implemented include dealing with things like the ECT and other investment treaties. There is a strong - and reasonable - convention in UK law that if a party has said that it will do certain things and then wins an election, then it has a mandate to implement those changes without being blocked by the courts or obstructed by the bureaucracy. Again, fine lines because details matter and are rarely spelled out in advance, but those advocating a radical change need to be reasonably clear about what this involves in advance.
They might welcome further loss of trust in politicians/politics in general but usually they want to believe that the public or voters believe them. Chaos in the sense of purely random preferences may offer a temporary benefit but necessarily it is evanescent so that capacity to do anything is very limited. Thus it depends on whether politicians are in the business for profile or name recognition alone or because they have things they want to achieve.
Gordon,
Yet another dose of cold reality for politicians to absorb and accept — except of course none of them will, at least at the moment, because of the abuse and scorn that would be poured over them.
May I point to Dieter Helm’s latest blog? He sets out at the beginning how politicians behave, and how the DESNZ does as well. Keep repeating a glaring untruth, and double up on it….
You both reach the same conclusion, but from different directions — the current systems are unsustainable and eventually the cost will get so great that a complete breakdown then ensues.
Somehow we have to force politicians to address the points you are both making, and change policy. But sadly in the meantime you and I have to carry on trying to save our Scottish landscape from the current folly.
More people locally are noticing your blogs and drawing attention to them. Please keep giving us the ammunition we need so badly! Thank you! John
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!"
and yet still they plough on ... AR7.
Whatever the PR I suspect that AR7 will be at best a qualified success. The financial environment has become quite difficult for large offshore projects. The smaller companies who invest in onshore wind and solar are less constrained but in practice the proportion of consented projects that go ahead is quite low and has been falling for solar. There is no magic bullet for grid connections and there are very clear threats to the viability of AR7 projects from both Reform and the Conservatives so bidding but delay signing any firm commitments is likely to be the best strategy.
Thank you Gordon. I can see how frustrating it must be for politicians who start with simple aims. I can also believe there may be serious issues with the civil service. However it's easy to see that civil servants pointing out the legislative complexity you have outlined could be viewed unfairly as being obstructive while merely doing their job.
There is a fine line between (a) being honest in recognising complexity but trying to find ways through it, and (b) treating process as more important than outcomes or, in effect, using process as a deliberate way of trying to slow or block change. Most of us have a reasonable sense of the difference, which is crucial to the humour in Yes Minister.
My purpose in writing the piece was to warn that some of the expectations of the savings from reversing Net Zero are quite unrealistic unless the changes implemented include dealing with things like the ECT and other investment treaties. There is a strong - and reasonable - convention in UK law that if a party has said that it will do certain things and then wins an election, then it has a mandate to implement those changes without being blocked by the courts or obstructed by the bureaucracy. Again, fine lines because details matter and are rarely spelled out in advance, but those advocating a radical change need to be reasonably clear about what this involves in advance.
Some politicians would welcome further loss of trust, as that increases the chaos in which they thrive
They might welcome further loss of trust in politicians/politics in general but usually they want to believe that the public or voters believe them. Chaos in the sense of purely random preferences may offer a temporary benefit but necessarily it is evanescent so that capacity to do anything is very limited. Thus it depends on whether politicians are in the business for profile or name recognition alone or because they have things they want to achieve.
There are some current politicians who clearly want to achieve something that has nothing to do with governing the country