I'm not supporting Gove or any other tory. I'm probably more leftwing than Campbell but this is not what I would listen to the podcast for.

I want to better understand the UK's politics and simply Rory fails to enable that as he's not aligned to current Tories. Even when he was a MP he was so far on the liberal left of the party he's not representative of historic Tory thinking.

I don't they showcase disagreeing agreeably but showcase agreeing on most topics. What do they actually differ on?

1. Private schools
2. Royal family
3. Some aspects of renewables
4. Austerity but Rory is clear unsure
5. Historic geopolitical choices e.g. Iraq. Agree on current it seems
6. etc.

I'd be interested to hear if I'm missing anything. This misses the fact that there are huge choices to be made concerning how the country is run with Burnham vs Badenoch showcasing vastly different ideals not to mention Polanski, Farage, etc.

Personally I find Gove obnoxious but I'm sure there's a centre-right tory who'd balance Campbell's centre-left Labour mentality?

What's more it's clear that Campbell has the ear of Labour insiders which makes his views interesting and informative. On the flip side it's clear that Stewart is the last person Badenoch's team would be speaking to.

This is a commentary which is gaining a lot of traction. It's very noticeable how where I live low-carbon tech is not about being an environmentalist but being someone financially aware.

Our family was somewhat mocked by neighbours as idealists for what we've adopted at a lifestyle and technological level. Now we see friends and neighbours doing the same things including what we'd see as our more esoteric choices.

A basic example would be aviation. It's politically almost impossible to add fuel duties or carbon taxes (at a robust level) on aviation. The lobby is too smart in appealing to the mythical family priced out.

What Trump has done has converted our historically more expensive choice to visit our family (1200 miles away) by train from being the more expensive choice to the cheaper choice.

The same is applicable to people adopting e-bikes, EVs, heat-pumps, etc. almost everything.

For the 3 months July-September 2025 we paid £162.58 for 655kWh:

Our Agile costs July to September 2025

In the equivalent period of the last 3 months we have paid £164.50 for 699kWh:

Our Agile costs July to September 2026

The two figures are remarkably stable. We've paid £2 more the last 3 months than the same period last year but we've also consumed more energy. Furthermore this is all our energy consumption as this includes our transport, hot-water, heating, and cooking.

The stability in our bills is due to tons of things happening at once which have cancelled themselves out. Here are the external factors to our household:

1. Trump's war increasing the cost of wholesale UK gas 120%.
   1. This makes peak-time electricity costs far more expensive for us
   2. Makes still gloomy days more expensive
2. Removing 75% of ROCs from electricity bills in April. Reduced rates by 3.5p/kWh
3. More renewables in the UK grid meaning considerably more hours with negative pricing.
4. Regularity to the hours with negative pricing.

The final but perhaps crucial part is that we've made slightly more effort the last 3 months than we did last year to target cheaper energy prices. However, I see this as the benefit of living this way and not the negative.

Normally, people live in a way where when prices go up they just consume less or pay more. The Money-Saving-Expert notion of how we should live is this.

Time of use tariffs create a different model for how we can live. Instead of either paying more or consuming less one can react to crises by being marginally more conscious about when and how one consumes.

Outside the crisis perhaps not target cheap hours so much for laundry but during the crisis target the windy periods when pieces are negative. People do this already with their supermarket shopping so it's clearly possible for energy.

What's more it's clear that the rate that the UK's rolling out renewables any efforts now will be time-limited. It's simply becoming far more common for prices to become negative. Here's the chart for weekends in the UK:

https://preview.redd.it/a6fnrs8vqvsh1.png?width=1189&format=png&auto=webp&s=48ef87cffd53bd1f32b98e2ce51e3fcebfbeee9d

You can see that it's now around 36% of the weekends which is simply easy to plan for now. When it becomes 50% of the weekends anyone can deal with that.

What about the overall costs? Does it work in winter? I think 100% yes. Here's our annual costs:

Year long costs on Agile vs Flexible

Whilst we spend more in the winter the amount this saves per month is pretty consistent compared to the flexible tariff. Our rate goes up for those months but so does our usage meaning the saving remains the same.

This includes what was a relatively cold January where we kept our heating on at a consistent 21C (heat-pump).

Our family is not vegan. There are various reasons but mostly will become apparent in what I'm writing. I think we probably should be vegans but this doesn't change that we aren't.

What I find confusing about our national discussion is why non-vegans -- like me -- don't see that veganism benefits our lives. In many ways they are like early adopting innovators creating pathways which makes our lives easier.

Cost of Living

It's impossible for a plant based diet utilising seasonal produce cooked from ingredients to be expensive. What's more food price inflation is often concentrated in meat and diary products. Being higher up a food chain they are more vulnerable to climate shocks or fuel price shocks.

The issue for a non-vegan is often knowledge based not knowing how to cook -- quickly -- a recipe without certain products. Vegans/veggies help in two key ways:

• Supermarkets are always stocked with alternatives such as Tofu
• They create a public awareness for alternative recipes which are nutritious, cheap, and quick.

Land use and resource competition

There's no way around the fact more plant based diets means less land use. Like the cyclist frees up road space for the car user the vegan means a main price pressure on other foods (agricultural land competition) reduces their costs. Simply put they are meaning the lifestyle costs of others are actually cheaper due to less raw ingredients competition.

I think I could go on and on but this is the trend we get from sustainable choices. Whether we are talking about actions to use less oil/gas, to cycle, to eat less meat, to fly less, etc. The person making the sustainable choices is helping considerably even those who're not making those choices.

Everyone not using gas this winter is alleviating the pressure on Europe to import gas. Everyone who's vegan is doing the same with food price pressures.

What confuses me as a non-vegan is the antagonism and failure of the mainstream to get these simple points. No-one is being harmed but tons get lifestyle benefits. The other thing which confuses me is how people judge the costs based upon packaged prepared items and not the raw ingredients.

In summary, this winter as food prices rise I'm incredibly grateful to vegans. Our family is adopting meal patterns which are normal for them for more of our meals. This means we can dodge the price prices which are almost guaranteed for food costs. This means we remain well fed without this eating away into our disposable income.

A very exciting development for anyone living in Oxford and especially those without access to a car (especially children).

We are being afforded equal access to parts of the countryside with these new quiet lanes (similar to LTNs). This means families without cars -- a large population in Oxford -- or children can get safety deep into the surrounding countryside.

This example means there's a safe route to Stanton St John which is where the Rectory farm is. At my son's school there are tons of families who simply can't afford a car so have been left out of being able to participate in these activities.

Anyway, I hope everyone tries to enjoy the amazing opportunities this is likely to bring along with the other routes being made calmer for safe active transport.

I've been thinking about this a lot recently. The big change appears to be cheap drones which means it is relatively cheap to inflict immense damage to oil production, refineries, and distribution. We can add mines to this as well.

Any asset being built now needs to be built not just with perspective of keeping costs down but also to guarantee security. For a place which has long standing local disputes weaponising the ability to produce, refine, or distribute oil appears likely to remain attractive going forward.

Do people in the oil industry believe this or do they believe that something closer to the status quo of 2021 could be reestablished? What long term costs in terms of security are people envisioning being added to the overall production costs due to security? Are people betting heavily on production in places which have a security premium due to their location?

Given the significant changes for on street parked cars being able to easily charge at home this is monumental. With the huge variety of cheap EVs now available it means we've a way for people to sidestep the brunt of the Middle Eastern crisis for UK drivers.

This is what we've paid over the last 12 months. We are on a tariff which gets the price shocks immediately as they happen (Octopus Agile). We don't own anything which burns oil or gas but we also don't own solar/batteries. We've not paid for anything out-of-pocket as our finances don't permit but have used things like Green Loans.

We are a family of 4, commuting, school runs, tons of household energy chores, etc. To our surprise energy is staying cheap with August the exception. This September has been exceptionally cheap with an average rate of 13.2p/kWh.

This is due to wind power managing to override the negative actions of Trump in the Middle East. Peak-time electricity is becoming expensive but it's easy to not do heavy demand when we have peak prices. Almost half the weekends have had negatively priced electricity -- you get paid to consume -- since Trump attacked Iran.

Our bills over the last 12 months for all energy

A typical east Oxford street

For anyone coming from various parts of continental Europe this aspect of Oxford is incredibly shocking. Oxford has pavements which are designed to be wide enough for wheelchairs, prams, etc then decides to make them into carparks.

I've seen wheelchair users being required to exit the pavement due to a lack of space to go on the road. Similarly parents pushing prams encounter the same obstacles to just walk safely. Young children can't be told they're safe on a pavement as some car might be parking.

Do people in Oxford see how bad this is or are there cultural reasons why it's not really something which bothers people? I understand that anyone who's not a wheelchair user these cars might be annoying but you can largely cope.

The additional thing is that when I first moved to Oxford the cars were not as wide. Now they are not only occupying the 50cm or so of the pavement but adding an additional 10-20cm. Clearly people prefer to incur on the pavement more than risk being exposed on the road risking their cars being scrapped.

Why is this the case in a city which otherwise looks out for others?

For just the first half of 2026:

>The EU’s trade deficit for energy grew from €71.3 billion to €101.1 billion between the first and second quarters, with fuel imports from the US rising from €19.8 billion to €29.0 billion.

What's remarkable is that the EU's trade deficit is so low despite the energy trade deficit. For most other sectors we are on average "Buying European" -- at least exporting like we import.

The best way to buy European is to buy an EV like the Renault 5 or a European made heat-pump such as Aira.

This way you're not just buying a European piece of technology but pivoting a lifestyle away from buying non-European energy.

The Greens must force him to spell out how.

Most fossil fuel burning technologies last around 20 years. There are tons of 20 year old cars, 20 year old boilers, etc. Decisions on aviation are made decades in advance. etc.

If he says net-zero by 2050 this means no new combustion cars in the 2030s.

If he says net-zero by 2050 this means no airport expansion now as SAF can't scale that quickly.

If he says net-zero by 2050 this means no new or replacement boilers for UK homes by 2035 at the latest.

We should never accept warm words where the actions don't match the mouth. This is at all levels. I don't give a damn if someone says "climate change is serious" if their actions are contrary to their words.

This applies to Andy Burnham as it does to the person who's upset by wildfires in the holiday resort they flew to.

This change on the books for a while means during a cost-of-living crisis Labour have made:

• EVs the cheapest new car to buy (£3750 discount)
• Accessible for cheap home-charging for almost all citizens (this change with 2p/mile costs)
• etc.

Those who rely on secondhand cars will take time to get the benefits. There's little to avoid this but now there's literally no reason for almost anyone to buy a new combustion car other than a love of the "broom-broom" sound.

The rule was announced in the pipeline over 12 months ago which means the 70% who've not followed the incentives this year through getting new combustion cars have no right to complain about any cost-of-living issues going forward.

EDF publishes these rates for GB average in Jan 2027:

1. Electricity: 32.61p/kWh
2. Gas: 10.97p/kWh

This implies they expect relative to October 2026 price cap:

1. Electricity up 23.9%
2. Gas up 37.6%

Compared to the more relevant January 2026 price cap:

1. Electricity up 17.8%
2. Gas up 85.0%

EDF's expected rates can be found here at the bottom of the page where it's a spreadsheet.

What does this mean for average users?

This shows they've limited the growth in electricity prices relative to gas. The very energy poor households which are single fuel will see a more moderate increase than high gas usage households.

For those with gas boilers actions to turn down the thermostat will have a disproportionate effect on bills. Managing one's exposure to gas prices is critical. Around 30% are on fixed rate deals meaning they escape a lot of the pain.

EDF publishes these rates for GB average in Jan 2027:

1. Electricity: 32.61p/kWh
2. Gas: 10.97p/kWh

This implies they expect relative to October 2026 price cap:

1. Electricity up 23.9%
2. Gas up 37.6%

Does Octopus publish its own estimates?

What this means for the various Octopus smart-tariffs is up for debate. Fixed rate deals going up in demand creates demand suppression for these users which will impact how the various smart-tariffs are priced.

EDF's expected rates can be found here at the bottom of the page where it's a spreadsheet. There are different expectations for different regions and where EDF sees the prices going into Q4 2027 which is entirely speculative.

Our family of 4 adopted to climate kit:

1. heat pump (£4k)

2. ebikes (£2k pre tax)

Total costs less than £6k spread over 0% Green loans.

A typical family of 4 pays £4-5k a year on energy (gasoline, natural gas, and electricity) in the UK. We have paid £850 ($1150) over the last 12 months despite lots of washing, leaky old 1860s house always 22C, school runs, work commute, etc

If fossil inflation happens badly that standard figure will shoot up. Ours wont by anything remotely comparable.

Low carbon lifestyles make one robust when geopolitics is a mess. we will save in costs our upfront investment in one year now

Our bad heat pump rollout and failed offshore wind auctions under the Tories are deeply responsible.

We are the only major gas heating economy to have more gas boilers now than in 2022. This is the example of anti Green actions destroying our collective security and making us poorer.

Aviation is the (no so) secret environmental of Britain. It's basing its future so heavily on aviation. Already it consumes the same amount of jet-fuel as it does petrol (both 13Mt)

We are not even having robust national discussions about it yet.

This is great news for anyone accessible to london. People can now leave St. Pancras in the afternoon to then take a direct Milan train from Brussels.

It means you wake up in northern italy (or swiss mountains if an early bird) in the most family friendly mode of transport.

Lots of residents in the UK are like mine split between italy and the UK. we are booked for Easter school holidays.

When combined with Eurostar our ticket price was £200 less than what Easyjet would have been to Verona. We can bring extra luggage at no cost. The children adore travelling this way

https://preview.redd.it/9c8emwvrfdoh1.png?width=1120&format=png&auto=webp&s=14dc39c0b49d6106f0980a269d717caf5d4a728d

The UK's wholesale gas price is the highest since the end of December 2022. This means that the January price cap is odds on to be around what it was under Liz Truss in October 2022.

The UK had one meaningful policy tool to de-risk the UK from 2022 onwards: heat-pumps.

UK's gas usage over 12 months

Virtually all gas demand is for home-heating. The only effective way to de-risk the UK to reduce European LNG imports is via electrification of heating. Renewables do some legwork as well but the blue line shows how it's less pronounced.

Despite the central importance to get the UK public off gas (and oil) heating to using heat-pumps it is curious why the topic of the UK's pathetic uptake rate is not discussed. They discuss a lot the supply of oil and gas but never really the failure to pivot demand.

This is a political question as the economics is there already. Our operational costs are 35% of gas before this escalation. It'll be a lower percentage now. The return on investment is typically 4-5 years but due to political laziness minor issues hold back adoption.

This is simply never discussed by Rory or Alastair despite often their interests in climate and the Ukraine war. For instance our failure to roll out heat-pumps is a clear factor why Europe as a whole still imports Russian LNG.