Sorry, I thought you were diminishing it on EdM’s behalf. Didn’t realise we were agreeing. I’d still say it all safely sits fairly under CCS but no big deal.
09.03.2026 22:56
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Sorry, I thought you were diminishing it on EdM’s behalf. Didn’t realise we were agreeing. I’d still say it all safely sits fairly under CCS but no big deal.
Ok, he’s building a massive new gas power station and a brand new gas-to-hydrogen plant as well as funding the abatement of these and some legacy hard to decarbonise gas processes, all on top of the pipes, terminals and underground storage to pump that CO2 back into. Not sure that’s any cuddlier tbh
Does seem to be a desire that people who disagree on this must be coming from some sort of anti-renewables/decarbonisation position, rather than disagreeing about the most effective path for UK to do this given real budget constraints and the impacts of shocks. Ed Miliband is spending £21bn on CCS
This Iran stuff should be a chance for UK to think hard beyond Chagos deal. Cyprus has come into focus. But all other BOTs and the Channel Islands too. Choice to be part of the UK with devolved government and seats at Westminster or part ways? And what is the Commonwealth for?
West Ham - especially any new owners - might be keen to give up their £3.9m rent and take the £20m losses off of the Mayors hands.
Live from the London Stadium shortly. I have a theory that the Premier League’s new squad cost ratios rules might be great news for Sadiq Khan and bad news (but actually good long-term) for West Ham and their stadium rental deal of century
Another chance to plug the Hassabis documentary on YouTube with 439m views in 3 months that I’ve never seen mentioned on this website.
Good stuff from Khan. London to Cambridge right at the centre of development of AI such that Demis Hassabis dug his heels in on not going to Silicon Valley when Google bought DeepMind.
Being richer and more stable also pretty useful when our wet, windy and surprisingly northerly country needs to invest a lot to get off globally traded FFs. Going faster makes that capital intensive, highly interest rate sensitive process more expensive up front. Higher deficits weigh down hard.
Exactly. Best way to manage any price shock is to be rich and hedged. 10s of thousands of jobs in supply chain and local services makes us a bit richer (and kicks in long before first additional barrel pumped). And as you say, it means one part of the economy zigs hard when the rest zags.
Reeves warns about inflation. Think govt should be thinking hard about focusing on keeping down PPI and business energy prices rather than leaving them to the wolves again and not CPI and household bills. Better imp to have stable, lower prices across the economy, more jobs and lower interest rates.
Remarkable how much vape shops get in the new for bad reasons.
Helpful. That North Sea gas is 15% cleaner than LNG imports is a fact we all should know.
Additional factchecks about how many British jobs are supported by NSG vs LNG imports would be helpful. Add in impact on balance of payments, UK govt deficit and funding available to accelerate renewables.
That’s an even hotter take. I was thinking use the CfD/EGL revenues for it. But totally agree on doing that at some point in more benign conditions. Replacing levies with VAT would have help tip balance towards electricity over gas too. Getting to 10% still a good start though.
If land banking was a problem (it isn't) then fix the planning system which makes planning decisions so unpredictable that developers need to have a pipeline of land just in case 5 councillors in a meeting room one evening say "no" after years of pre-planning work on a site.
Hot take summary: Govt should protect businesses from higher energy bills, funded by the higher bills on households.
Politically, not directly helping energy bill payers seems suicidal. But medium term, protecting bill payers just lets energy price shock permeate across the economy like Japanese knotweed. And a lot of people can actually do quite a lot to cut their energy use temporarily.
Domestic energy bills are becoming quasi-taxes in a CfD/electricity generators levy - £120MWh generates an extra £5bn/yr vs £80MWh. Govt using them as taxes rather than just handing back the cash to bill payers when prices go up helps BoE avoid hiking rates in face of global energy crisis.
Would the inflation impact of higher energy prices be best tackled by having emergency subsidies for commercial/industrial energy rather than a consumer energy subsidies? Accept some 'temporary' CPI to avoid as much higher, stubborn, hard-to-drive-out PPI/job losses as possible.
Current owners probably too dug in to renegotiate. But the danger is coming. And would be the first order of business if any new owner came - nothing will help the club more and instantly drive up the asset value than smiling pictures with Mayor on the pitch.
Business case is clear to me for West Ham to get those revenues on the books and renegotiate lease so GLA no longer losing £20m/yr and hands over full operation and those costs along with those vital yet still underexploited revenues.
Legal fees and complete absence of goodwill (e.g. putting in WiFi) saps away further any collaboration to boost growth. More widely, it weighs down on the club and its entire commercial proposition - deters blue chip sponsors and other investors who could improve on current deals.
Issue for West Ham is that their sweet deal on the tenancy is a nightmare for revenues. London Stadium takes most food and beverage sales and revenues from other events there. And the toxic relationship with the landlord obviously stops naming rights deal and slows opening to full 68k capacity.
Now if they could somehow add £20m to revenue that would get them down to 90% - save 2x£2m, avoid a fire sale of players and/or 6pt penalty. More relegation trouble. And each position higher in the Premier League table is worth £2.7m. That extra revenue could be worth £5-10m a year.
So West Ham being 15% over is a £3m fine (nearly as much the rent they pay!) Do that again the next season and that’s not just another £3m but 2x15% over, so 30% is breached and a 6pt penalty.
West Ham revenue will be about £200m this year and current SCR is probably over 100% with the amortisation. New rules mean any £1m over 85% is ‘luxury taxed’ at 10%. Cumulative 30% excess over 85% within 3 years is a 6pt penalty.
I’m slightly obsessed by West Ham’s outrageous London Stadium deal and the £20m/yr GLA is losing. But London taxpayers might just be saved by the Premier League’s new squad cost ratio (SCR) rules.
Excellent, persuasive* piece.
*i.e. it has persuaded me
The spending in advance of finding anything/nothing - direct jobs, supply chain, local service economy jobs esp. Aberdeen - will make a small but important dent in the deficit. Especially good policy ahead of Scottish election. If Ed Miliband should say that money to fund faster green transition
This feels quite vibesy too tbh. Is the logic of banning new licences different to shutting down exisitng North Sea production too?