Gransnet forums

News & politics

What will save the Tory party?

(115 Posts)
Whitewavemark2 Fri 08-Dec-23 13:08:12

I’ve just been browsing the most recent polls and whilst I don’t for one minute believe that Labour will get a 270 majority as predicted, it does seem a huge mountain for the Tories to climb.

They are clearly hanging on and on in the hope things will start to improve, but every new initiative just seems to make it worse.

What on earth do Tory supporters think will save them from a wipe out?

Purplepixie Tue 19-Dec-23 08:41:25

This government is the worst ever. Such liars and so corrupt. Labour had better win the next election or we will all be out on the street and eating cake - before the guilotine!

Lovetopaint037 Tue 19-Dec-23 08:43:19

It never bodes well for a party to remain in office for too long. They become stale and in the case of the Tories seemingly prone to corruption.

Katie59 Tue 19-Dec-23 08:54:02

Published in the FT

The Committee on Climate Change estimate that reaching net zero emissions by 2050 will cost c. £50 billion per annum by 2050. BEIS’s [the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s] own analysis find the costs to be 40% higher, at around £70bn per annum, but still within the annual cost envelope of 1–2% of GDP estimated by the Committee. On the basis of these estimates, the total cost of transitioning to a zero-carbon economy is likely to be well in excess of a trillion pounds.”

Just so everyone knows how much is being spent on “Climate Change” the OBR are expecting it to be over £50bn PER YEAR. That is £1000 for every man woman and child in the UK each year at 2019 prices. So lots of sacrifices are needed.

ronib Tue 19-Dec-23 09:33:37

Katie59 I wonder at what point the world will begin to see the benefits? Maybe around 2040?

MaizieD Tue 19-Dec-23 09:54:28

It would be interesting to see how those figures have been arrived at, Katie59.

Wheniwasyourage Tue 19-Dec-23 10:01:07

Well, you either spend the money on trying to keep the temperature rise under some sort of control, or you spend it on, for example, rehousing those living on flood plains or beside unstoppable wildfires. Not to mention coping with unstoppable migration from countries devastated by drought or sea level rise. Which would you prefer, Katie59?

Siope Tue 19-Dec-23 10:16:13

Katie59 That article, based on a letter written by Lord Hammond is quite old, I think. It’s also very one-sided and thus inaccurate. The London School of Economics analysed his claims:

The detailed calculations by the Committee on Climate Change informed the decision by Theresa May’s Government to introduce an amendment to the 2008 Climate Change Act to change the target for emissions reductions in 2050 from 80 per cent to 100 per cent. This amendment was passed by Parliament in June 2019.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) examined the Committee’s estimates in its July 2021 Fiscal risks report. It concluded: “In the balanced pathway, the CCC estimates the total net cost of abatement across all sectors of the economy between 2020 to 2050 at £321 billion – with £1,312 billion of investment costs mostly offset by £991 billion of net operating savings.”

It also noted: “From 2040 onwards, net operating savings are projected to outweigh investment costs. And by 2050, the CCC projects a £19 billion annual saving relative to its baseline emissions scenario.” If similar savings of the same size continued in the years beyond 2050, investment costs would be completely offset by 2070.”

DaisyAnneReturns Tue 19-Dec-23 10:40:20

Purplepixie

This government is the worst ever. Such liars and so corrupt. Labour had better win the next election or we will all be out on the street and eating cake - before the guilotine!

I don't think it's just the government Purplepixie. Some/many of their supporters seem only to follow those saying what they want to hear so become addicted to lazy reporting.

Siope Tue 19-Dec-23 11:57:36

The clowns took over the Tory show years ago
Moderate Conservatives are worried the party could fall into the hands of extremists: where have they been since 2016?

That’s a headline and sub-head from the reasonably right-wing journalist Hugo Rifkind in today’s Times

The rest of the article (you can skip the paywall) goes a long way to explaining what has gone wrong with the Tories.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-clowns-took-over-the-tory-show-years-ago-kt8gstdjk

Fleurpepper Tue 19-Dec-23 13:05:13

Back to the title = NOTHING can.

Katie59 Tue 19-Dec-23 13:15:08

Siope

Katie59 That article, based on a letter written by Lord Hammond is quite old, I think. It’s also very one-sided and thus inaccurate. The London School of Economics analysed his claims:

The detailed calculations by the Committee on Climate Change informed the decision by Theresa May’s Government to introduce an amendment to the 2008 Climate Change Act to change the target for emissions reductions in 2050 from 80 per cent to 100 per cent. This amendment was passed by Parliament in June 2019.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) examined the Committee’s estimates in its July 2021 Fiscal risks report. It concluded: “In the balanced pathway, the CCC estimates the total net cost of abatement across all sectors of the economy between 2020 to 2050 at £321 billion – with £1,312 billion of investment costs mostly offset by £991 billion of net operating savings.”

It also noted: “From 2040 onwards, net operating savings are projected to outweigh investment costs. And by 2050, the CCC projects a £19 billion annual saving relative to its baseline emissions scenario.” If similar savings of the same size continued in the years beyond 2050, investment costs would be completely offset by 2070.”

It is 2019 and the existing Net Zero is based on it, we now know Sunak has decided to row back on the progress. Personally I had no idea how much it was costing I was surprised at the £50bn/yr

Grantanow Tue 19-Dec-23 13:22:41

Katie59

Democratic just like Israel, more likely an unholy alliance, PR is not a panacea, if there is no majority the extremists exact their price.

Israel is somewhat exceptional because there are reserved seats in the Knesset for the orthodox religious parties. Proportional representation is quite common across Europe. People feel their voice is heard but I'm not sure government is any better than what we now have. It depends on the quality of the politicians and the UK has had some pretty poor ones in recent years.

Happygirl79 Tue 19-Dec-23 18:31:45

I can honestly think of nothing to save this government from being voted out at the polls. Nothing.

DaisyAnneReturns Wed 20-Dec-23 08:14:46

Katie59

Democratic just like Israel, more likely an unholy alliance, PR is not a panacea, if there is no majority the extremists exact their price.

No Katie, democratic "just like" a country where everyone's vote has equal value.

How that vote helps construct a government is down to the voter, not all of whom care, or are knowledgeable in this area. I don't think a voting system can ever change that, although education (Citizen's Juries, etc.) may.