Clearly the aim here is political rather than economic: it’s about building credibility with markets ahead of a push for independence

That’s fine - as long as politicians are clear that’s the aim, and don’t mislead the public by acting like this will result in more investment

PMs aren’t elected - MPs are. And no one voted for a Labour MP in 2024 based on Keir Starmers vision - he didn’t have one and that’s why Labour is where it is now. What matters is how elected MPs act to represent their constituents both in parliament and as PM selectorate.

Heat in Buildings Bill appears to have been dropped and yet another Heat in Buildings Strategy (presumably with yet another consultation) is there in its place. Woeful.

Hasn’t this test been set and failed before? Is there any basis in track record for thinking they’ll follow through on much/ any of this? I’ve only skimmed the buildings annex and it’s watered down, delayed, rehashed. But not at all surprising. I won’t be surprised if they bin PRS MEES this parly.

If the price of an additional unit of supply is zero, why would anybody build additional generation capacity? Doesnt that mean it make no money?

Good stuff from Tavsih? from Aberdeen Uni calling out the misinformation on the true drivers of O&G job losses including price volatility, productivity improvements and basin depletion - NOT CLIMATE POLICY.

It also strikes me how narrowly the Summit is focussed on oil and gas and energy generation. There won’t be transition with massive efforts to create demand for electricity, such as accelerating the deployment of heat pumps.

So benefits are up as a proportion of all labour compensation, balancing out weak pay increases. Thats grounds for many people to be really angry - those people on middling and stagnant pay but ineligible for benefits - while also paying taxes and seeing public fabric decay. I’d say quite exciting.