If I were Starmer, I think I’d launch my own energy saving campaign.
I’d ask other prominent voices (Martin Lewis?) to collaborate.
I’d focus on things people are less likely to know, like flow temp on boiler, or the relative energy use of boilers vs lights.(1/3)
I’d say I know some of this might seem obvious, but if everyone does it, it will make a huge difference.
I’d say the risk is without advice, more people will do things that damage their health. (2/3)
I think it would help show I was a government in waiting not a passive opposition (which remains their big risk) (3/3)
(This was actually James Frayne’s original idea but he’s not on twitter so…you snooze you lose)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Delighted that Public First’s paper on energy bill reform is published today. If the government is serious about ‘decarbonising heat’ it needs to sort the incentives so that it's not much more expensive for a household to run net-zero heating publicfirst.co.uk/wp-content/upl…
We modelled 4 scenarios and found moving 'policy costs' onto general taxation and then a carbon price across gas and electricity does the best in terms of not increasing bills; not costing govt lots of extra money; and giving the best incentives for decarbonised heat.
A few underlying points. 1) we are lagging massively behind other countries on heat pumps; and 2) even those countries aren't moving fast enough to hit the governments target of 600k heat pumps
Yet another thread on budget (sorry). TLDR: people think taxes will go up, should but not immediately, and like windfall and carbon taxes best (but with big caveats..). Polling pre media frenzy.
1. People think taxes will go up to pay for the pandemic, but they’re not expecting them to go up this year.
2. They also think taxes should go up. 60% think Government should raise taxes at some point. 50% of those who say that it is generally better to have lower taxes, say the Government should raise taxes at some point. Half expect their own tax bill to increase.
A report I wrote (as secretariat) on carbon pricing is out today. A few thoughts from me: 1. "of course carbon taxes are the right idea in principle, but they are politically hard" is the view of many I have spoken to. This report is based on public opinion/consent
2. What is that opinion? First, people still care about the environment a lot. They are even willing to see a somewhat slower recovery if it's environmentally friendly (though they still don't know what net zero is or what it will mean.)
3. Can they support carbon pricing? Yes, but on conditions: it needs to be fair (everyone needs to be paying their share, including businesses, and it should drive other countries to follow suit); 4. There need to be credible, affordable alternatives