5 Comments

Re Warm Homes Plan. Not sure it’s right that not boosting it now doesn’t have future trade offs. Sends a signal to the supply chain not to invest so when govt does want to press the accelerator there may not be enough fuel in the tank (if they want it to be as big as suggested in opposition).

Expand full comment
author

Interesting. I have I think the opposite take in that all existing suppliers can carry on under existing programmes as planned plus the knowledge there is more coming in the spring. Committing additional cash now might limit the scope to change programmes or funding streams because suppliers are locked in

Expand full comment
Nov 1·edited Nov 1Liked by Sam Alvis

You're right that the supply chain will be waiting for the Spring Budget. But the 3.4bn mentioned over the next 3 years is around the same (maybe less?) than budgeted under the previous govt, so I wonder if it will move any dials in practice. There's also the issue that capacity planning tends to take place over a 1+ year period, so even waiting until spring 25 to confirm the whole sum means not much can change until mid parliament.

Expand full comment

One mild disagreement: The fuel duty freeze is fine - the current tax is far above the carbon price - so if you can bank some political credit for it, which you can use to build windfarms, that's a good tradeoff.

Though the fiction that it will increase in future is ridiculous.

Expand full comment
author

Yeh that is fair. Though I think there is a strong signalling power beyond the actual level that govt is making ICE seem like the ‘working persons’ choice in perpetuity

Expand full comment