Pants on Fire!

[MikeJhn]

That can't be so in this land of illogical thinking - as all crows are black, God can't be black unless she is a crow.

But on reflection I suppose that is as likely as anything else though.

And it all accords to what she identifies herself as.

 

[mudman]

[Bold bit is another straw man.]
For perspective, I am most certainly not a green freak.
(My Mrs and I are "car people" and up until now, we owned 3 cars all of which are performance-oriented in nature and deliver less than 20mpg on average - I'm changing one of them to a BEV - but we're keeping the other 2 high-output CO2 machines - and happily paying whatever the price is for our devotion of worshipping at the altar of the performance car.)

On the topic of anti-EV or anti-CO2-reduction, etc.. I guess you haven't encountered the vehemence with which all things interconnected with "green" are reviled, attacked and "anti'd" by lobby groups (of the >right wing variety), and that much of that revilement gets echo'd by people claiming the passed-down frankly ridiculous claims - some of which we've even seen on this forum. For example it has been written here that "renewable electricity is more expensive" (a proven lie) and that reducing CO2 will "harm the economy" and that tackling climate change will "harm the least well off the most" - all of which is simply misinformation - and what is more, and this exceptionally important to acknowledge - the misinformation is precipitated from right wing sources. Some of which are in truth anti-EV - which you quite rightly describe as "not wanting the transition" and "not wanting any of the thing produced". <- This is a reality.

How is that a straw man? I gave my opinion of how I see you acting whenever a view is put forward that you disagree with. If I'm wrong, then fair enough, but address the point and show me how I am wrong rathjer than trying to show how much of an intellectual you are with your knowledge of classical rhetoric.

To reiterate my point, what you perceive as 'anti' are more questioning with a lot of unanswered questions. I believe that there are actually very few completely 'anti' green initiatives. There are probably a fair few that question what the point of net zero is when the global effect of the UK achieving net zero is so small, and I would say that these people are from both sides of the political debate. The response from such as yourself that ignores such questions seems to be bold statements of everything being lies and accusing all who are questioning of being rabid right-wingers.

Not quite sure why you have gone off on your final rant but no, I haven't 'encountered the vehemence with which all things interconnected with "green" are reviled, attacked and "anti'd" by lobby groups (of the >right wing variety)', can you provide examples? I do wonder if they are as vicious as you imply.

By the way, "and what is more, and this exceptionally important to acknowledge - the misinformation is precipitated from right wing sources." Why do you think this? I really don't think it matters what the source is except for people such as yourself to hold it up as evidence of the evilness of right-wing thinking. The importance is to look at what people are saying and if you disagree, then disagree, but provide reasonable evidence for why you disagree. At the moment, your whole position seems to be that anything proposed by the right wing is wrong and bad and must be opposed.
The whole question of climate change and how we, as a global whole, can solve the problem is one of the most pressing and difficult problems that mankind has ever faced, and reducing it to left v right and arguing about who said what is not going to solve it.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

How is that a straw man? I gave my opinion of how I see you acting whenever a view is put forward that you disagree with. If I'm wrong, then fair enough, but address the point and show me how I am wrong rathjer than trying to show how much of an intellectual you are with your knowledge of classical rhetoric.

To reiterate my point, what you perceive as 'anti' are more questioning with a lot of unanswered questions. I believe that there are actually very few completely 'anti' green initiatives. There are probably a fair few that question what the point of net zero is when the global effect of the UK achieving net zero is so small, and I would say that these people are from both sides of the political debate. The response from such as yourself that ignores such questions seems to be bold statements of everything being lies and accusing all who are questioning of being rabid right-wingers.

Not quite sure why you have gone off on your final rant but no, I haven't 'encountered the vehemence with which all things interconnected with "green" are reviled, attacked and "anti'd" by lobby groups (of the >right wing variety)', can you provide examples? I do wonder if they are as vicious as you imply.

By the way, "and what is more, and this exceptionally important to acknowledge - the misinformation is precipitated from right wing sources." Why do you think this? I really don't think it matters what the source is except for people such as yourself to hold it up as evidence of the evilness of right-wing thinking. The importance is to look at what people are saying and if you disagree, then disagree, but provide reasonable evidence for why you disagree. At the moment, your whole position seems to be that anything proposed by the right wing is wrong and bad and must be opposed.
The whole question of climate change and how we, as a global whole, can solve the problem is one of the most pressing and difficult problems that mankind has ever faced, and reducing it to left v right and arguing about who said what is not going to solve it.

Daily Mail have an anti-EV agenda

When you say "question the point of net zero", I reckon you are being economical. Questioning the point of net zero is a very valid behaviour. I fully support that activity. What really is not a valid behaviour is to use a platform of extreme privilege (wealth, lobby money and media ownership) to infect the landscape of discourse with deliberate misinformation and disinformation, and to even give "equal weight" to the minority of dissenting "expert" voices perpetuating those misinformation and disinformation stories for onward transmission by media.

I've already covered above, for example the deliberately perpetuated lie that renewable energy is "more expensive" than fossil energy. This observation is not "my opinion". After all, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool worshipper of not just ICE vehicles, but ICE vehicles that are inefficient on purpose. I go to car meets, make noise in my car getting there, and generally accelerate for fun. I sometimes drive on tracks. For fun. And in doing so, return 8mpg of 99RON fuel. Probably less. I make a lot of tyre chirrup-ing noises and create a great deal of high-performance-brake-pad brake dust. I'm a luddite. I don't really like the thought of the death of performance ICE. Makes me sad. But as you say:

"The whole question of climate change and how we, as a global whole, can solve the problem is one of the most pressing and difficult problems that mankind has ever faced"

I totally agree. 100%. We're facing a tipping point of potential mass extinctions.

However, when you say:

"reducing it to left v right and arguing about who said what is not going to solve it."

...my take is that this is being overly simplistic.

All one has to do is to map out where the misinformation and disinformation and "climate denial" is originated to be able to see in absolute stark truth that the multitudinous "climate denial" agendas and "anti-green" lobbies are 100% being pushed from right wing sources. It's an observation. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not an opinion. It's not an "argument". It's observable reality. An incontrovertible truth. Case in point is (extreme-) right wing Trumpian Policies: drill-baby-drill, extract from Paris Accords, and abolish the entire EV agenda. Not just abandon an EV mandate or water it down a bit. Entirely demolish it altogether.

If people were being a bit more fair to what I was saying, instead of faux offence, I'm never did suggest all crows are black. The observation was that all of the anti-green, anti-net-zero and anti-EV is from the right. Not that all right of centre individuals are anti-EV. That is the classic straw man. Of course there are "right of centre" individuals who are not climate deniers. I am aware and fully endorse. I am yet to encounter any single "left of centre" organisation or individual of platform that perpetuates the climate denial agenda. It would be very, very obvious to identify if there were, since it would be an extreme outlier. A leftist who also is a climate denier? Doesn't that just jump out as an oxymoron to all who read this? It does to me...

I also don't use a starting point of saying - you are obviously a righty, so you must be a climate denier.
It's the other way around. Oh, I see that you have views indicating you may be a climate denier, which means you are probably lean towards the right. (and probably more than just a bit to the right).

 

[DrPhill]

privatisation of public services is a precursor to its withdrawal, rather than positive recognition the private sector may do some, most, or even all things better

You are right, let’s look at the successes
Privatized water for example. Thames water.
Privatised rail, for example East coast rail and Southeastern rail
Privatised energy companies supplying Gas and Electricity.
All amazingly successful.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

You are right, let’s look at the successes
Privatized water for example. Thames water.
Privatised rail, for example East coast rail and Southeastern rail
Privatised energy companies supplying Gas and Electricity.
All amazingly successful.

Read the post - I said some, most or even all. Want examples of shining government managed projects:

• HS2 - grossly over time and cost
• Scottish Parliament - likewise
• Cross rail - more of the same
• Hinckley Point
• Government regulation - a large part of the failures you identify are Government failures
• PFI deals - often expensive and poorly negotiated terms
• Time and cost of resolving major issues - Post Office, contaminated blood, R3 Heathrow etc

IMHO the public sector, like the private, has significant strengths and weaknesses. Success will come from through knitting the best of both to deliver the best outcomes.

Blaming public sector failures on political interference, or private sector failures on shareholder greed is grossly simplistic. Dogma driven dismissal of either leads to seriously sub-optimal outcomes

 

[DrPhill]

Read the post - I said some, most or even all. Want examples of shining government managed projects:

• HS2 - grossly over time and cost
• Scottish Parliament - likewise
• Cross rail - more of the same
• Hinckley Point
• Government regulation - a large part of the failures you identify are Government failures
• PFI deals - often expensive and poorly negotiated terms
• Time and cost of resolving major issues - Post Office, contaminated blood, R3 Heathrow etc

IMHO the public sector, like the private, has significant strengths and weaknesses. Success will come from through knitting the best of both to deliver the best outcomes.

Blaming public sector failures on political interference, or private sector failures on shareholder greed is grossly simplistic. Dogma driven dismissal of either leads to seriously sub-optimal outcomes

My initial goal was to allow you to remove the 'if not all' from your claim by providing examples.
It is widely acknowledged that private comapanies are more efficient - for some definition of 'efficient'. In the case of many of them this seems to be 'efficient at extracting value for shareholders and board members from the assets of the company'.
Many of these privatisations show either huge incompetence or willing connivance by the governments that created them, so I won't argue against your comments on 'the government'.
I would much rather see the resources owned by society managed a little incompetently, than see them efficiently stripped of value and loaded with debt by privateers.

Some background:

From the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66051555
"When the company was privatised in 1989, it had no debt. But over the years it borrowed heavily and is currently £15.2bn in debt, by one measure.
(..................)
Analysts say Thames Water's current debt amounts to about 80% of the value of the business, making it the most heavily indebted of England and Wales' water companies."

From the independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ration-nationalise-bills-labour-b2685605.html
"Thames Water has warned the government that it faces bankruptcy if it is not allowed to raise bills by more than agreed with regulator Ofwat. The UK’s biggest water company will put it’s prices up by 35 per cent over the next five years, down from the 53 per cent that was requested.
(...........)
If Thames Water goes bankrupt, the government would be forced to carry out some form of nationalisation.
(...........)
However, the move could also force the government to take on Thames Water’s £16bn debt pile."

So, privatised industry paid huge amounts of boneses and dividends, raised loans using the company as capital, and are now likely to go bankrupt leaving the tax payer with a £16bn bill. Exceptionally efficient private industry.......

Also covered in the times: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politic...ptcy-after-stalemate-with-regulator-r8rx2h8l3
S&P downgrades Thames Water debt further into ‘junk’ territory: https://www.ft.com/content/4c55608a-bfe2-4761-95e6-e8e57e4fdc94

 

[Terry - Somerset]

My initial goal was to allow you to remove the 'if not all' from your claim by providing examples.
It is widely acknowledged that private comapanies are more efficient - for some definition of 'efficient'. In the case of many of them this seems to be 'efficient at extracting value for shareholders and board members from the assets of the company'.
Many of these privatisations show either huge incompetence or willing connivance by the governments that created them, so I won't argue against your comments on 'the government'.
I would much rather see the resources owned by society managed a little incompetently, than see them efficiently stripped of value and loaded with debt by privateers.

Some background:

From the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66051555
"When the company was privatised in 1989, it had no debt. But over the years it borrowed heavily and is currently £15.2bn in debt, by one measure.
(..................)
Analysts say Thames Water's current debt amounts to about 80% of the value of the business, making it the most heavily indebted of England and Wales' water companies."

From the independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ration-nationalise-bills-labour-b2685605.html
"Thames Water has warned the government that it faces bankruptcy if it is not allowed to raise bills by more than agreed with regulator Ofwat. The UK’s biggest water company will put it’s prices up by 35 per cent over the next five years, down from the 53 per cent that was requested.
(...........)
If Thames Water goes bankrupt, the government would be forced to carry out some form of nationalisation.
(...........)
However, the move could also force the government to take on Thames Water’s £16bn debt pile."

So, privatised industry paid huge amounts of boneses and dividends, raised loans using the company as capital, and are now likely to go bankrupt leaving the tax payer with a £16bn bill. Exceptionally efficient private industry.......

Also covered in the times: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politic...ptcy-after-stalemate-with-regulator-r8rx2h8l3
S&P downgrades Thames Water debt further into ‘junk’ territory: https://www.ft.com/content/4c55608a-bfe2-4761-95e6-e8e57e4fdc94

I largely agree with the analysis of the failure of Thames Water. Exploitation of their privileged monopoly position was evident almost from the outset post privatisation.

Whilst I expect the Government to take over day to day operations if they finally fail, I hope this does not extend to taking over the loan obligations. Those who were so foolish as to invest in an obviously a high risk venture should carry the can for their own mis-judgements.

It is a gross failure of regulation which allowed them the abuse - a regulator appointed by government. It is a joint deficiency of Tory and Labour governments, both of whom had over 12 years to ensure that the regulatory remit and regulators were capable of meeting the challenge.

They failed. They have also failed in the:

• energy sector - extensive bail outs following Ukraine conflict energy price increases. They failed to understand companies offering cheap energy deals without covering energy purchases carried an unacceptably high financial risk.
• sewage pollution - low consumer bills and inflation targets took priority over adequate infrastructure investment - end result was entirely predictable
• rail - but don't really expect better performance post nationalisation - it is IMHO a lost cause
• 2008-10 banking crisis - international dimension but failures due to a lack of regulatory competence - insufficient knowledge of loan quality underpinning bonds, poor bank stress tests, links between "casino" and commercial/consumer banking etc.

 

[DrPhill]

I largely agree with the analysis of the failure of Thames Water. Exploitation of their privileged monopoly position was evident almost from the outset post privatisation.

Whilst I expect the Government to take over day to day operations if they finally fail, I hope this does not extend to taking over the loan obligations. Those who were so foolish as to invest in an obviously a high risk venture should carry the can for their own mis-judgements.

It is a gross failure of regulation which allowed them the abuse - a regulator appointed by government. It is a joint deficiency of Tory and Labour governments, both of whom had over 12 years to ensure that the regulatory remit and regulators were capable of meeting the challenge.

They failed. They have also failed in the:

• energy sector - extensive bail outs following Ukraine conflict energy price increases. They failed to understand companies offering cheap energy deals without covering energy purchases carried an unacceptably high financial risk.
• sewage pollution - low consumer bills and inflation targets took priority over adequate infrastructure investment - end result was entirely predictable
• rail - but don't really expect better performance post nationalisation - it is IMHO a lost cause
• 2008-10 banking crisis - international dimension but failures due to a lack of regulatory competence - insufficient knowledge of loan quality underpinning bonds, poor bank stress tests, links between "casino" and commercial/consumer banking etc.

And I largely agree with you...... apart from you pessimism about rail. Other countries have made it an efficient part of their transport infrastructure. Why cant we?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Rail subsidies are largest in China ($130 billion), Europe (€73 billion) and India ($35.8 billion) ...

Someone once said railways were a 19c answer to an 18c problem.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Subsidies
UK government operating subsidies to the rail industry in the year to April 2024 totalled £12.5bn Operating subsidies. In addition a further £9.6bn was paid for enhancements including HS2.

Passenger revenue was £11bn.

Overall subsidies seem broadly in proportion to a European comparator yet we perceive the quality of services to be lower and the fares higher. Something is materially wrong.

Possible problems
One possibility is that much of the infrastructure is Victorian - a credit to the original builders but expensive to maintain, fails to meet modern passenger expectations, and reflects major deficiencies in investment over the years. Much of Europe had the good fortune (???) of war and rebuilding.

Another may be a fundamentally inefficient or incompetent operation beset with resistance to change, overly burdensome administration and regulation, costs associated with separate management structures for train services, track, and rolling stock.

Needs honest and objective analysis, which may be at variance with preconceived outcomes.

The future
I am not convinced rail is part of a strategic transport future, save for commuter traffic in and around major urban areas where alternatives may cause congestion and/or pollution. The nature of work has also changed with online shopping growing fast and an expectation of WFH.

• it seems an economically very expensive way to transport people and goods from A to B.
• it seems unlikely ever to be truly competitive even if issues are properly identified and solved - comparison with road transport needs to take into account taxation on fuel and VAT
• comparison of alternative transport modes are often engineered to give desired outcome - eg: "terminal to terminus" rather than "door to door" - an exercise in self delusion.
• goods transport is largely inefficient as it multiplies product handling and needs goods yards - often now alternatively used for parking, commercial or housing.
• early in the lifetime of any major new rail investment, autonomous vehicles will supplant rail for goods delivery using vehicles with capacities appropriate to the goods carried,
• the nature of car ownership will evolve - "cars/pods" will be summoned by smartphone app providing "door to door" service with digitally managed "trains" on longer routes.