UK Politics Decoded

Welcome to UK Politics Decoded. An independent platform providing clear, evidence based explainers on UK government and policy. Every article is: • Human verified • Modular and accessible • Fully sourced, with transparent reference lists • Guided by our editorial and publishing standards Our mission is simple: make UK policy understandable, accurate, and open to public scrutiny. Explore our Standards Hub: (standards.ukpoliticsdecoded.uk)

The kicker is that Chinese panels are made to the exact specification of the MCS scheme but a lot cheaper, MCS only puts up the price of the panels, but you can also install Chinese ones without MCS if you plan on not exporting to the grid with a grid tie Inverter that has a sensor and install yourself to avoid the inflated installation costs.

@jonburkeUK I wish the government would subsidize the cost of solar panels. But the last thing the government would ever actually do is help their citizens.

You can’t afford a coal mine. You can’t afford a gas turbine. You can’t afford an oil rig. Only fossil fuel states and billionaires can. But you can afford a solar power station on your roof. Now, ask yourself why you encounter so much anti-renewable energy propaganda.

@jonburkeUK You don't even have to install it on your roof the government announced that plugin solar is here. ukpoliticsdecoded.uk/decoded-news/u…

Instead of replying to each post I have put them in here instead of separating them like you have so its easier to read. On a few of these points we’re actually closer than it sounds, but we’re talking past each other. Network and balancing costs Yes network and balancing costs are rising as we connect more variable renewables and run the system in new ways. NESO’s own balancing cost reports and Clean Power 2030 advice explicitly say that large scale network reinforcement and market reform are needed to keep costs down over the transition, not that the current setup is optimal or cheap. Those costs are already visible in bills and will grow without reform and timely grid build out. Marginal pricing and the 30-40% point A typical GB bill splits roughly into three big chunks: Wholesale/commodity (what generators are paid) Networks and balancing (TNUoS/DUoS/BSUoS etc.) Policy and other charges (CfDs, RO, FiTs, VAT, supplier costs, etc.) Recent breakdowns put wholesale/commodity at around a third of the total for a benchmark household, with the rest made up of networks, levies and other charges. That’s the sense in which I referred to 30-40% not as a precise fixed share for every household, but as the order of magnitude of the marginal pricing component relative to the full bill. Nuclear planning and build out We agree that the UK has historically gold plated nuclear and that recent work (including the nuclear taskforce) is about simplifying and speeding up delivery. My point was simply that planning and consenting reforms are now on the table and being implemented. I’m not claiming they’re perfect or complete, only that the policy direction has changed from “stall” to “try to build”. CfDs and whether they are wildly out of the money CfDs are a risk transfer mechanism, consumers guarantee a strike price, and in return get money back when market prices are high. In some auctions and technologies, recent strike prices have clearly been too low to clear (AR7 being the obvious example), which shows the design and assumptions need updating. That doesn’t mean the whole CfD concept is inherently wildly out of the money, it means we need realistic cost assumptions and auction parameters so that contracts actually clear and deliver value. Volume vs value and zero/negative prices I agree that more MWh is not the same as more value. Congestion, curtailment and zero/negative prices at sunny/windy off peak periods are exactly why NESO and DESNZ are now looking at Reformed National Pricing, locational signals, storage and flexibility markets to better match where and when power is produced with where and when it’s needed. That’s not a denial of the problem, it’s the problem statement. On official reports (NESO, DESNZ, CCC) It’s fine to criticise assumptions especially cost curves that have clearly moved since they were written but if we’re going to dismiss NESO, DESNZ and CCC entirely as not worth the paper they’re printed on, we’re no longer arguing about evidence, we’re just trading priors. I’m happy to compare specific numbers, scenarios or cost assumptions from those reports with the analysts you cite and see where they diverge. My core argument isn’t renewables are free or storage solves everything tomorrow. It’s north sea extraction is finite, and front loading production brings forward the point at which we are fully import dependent. System design choices (pricing, networks, flexibility, planning) determine how painful that transition is for bills and security. We should be honest about both costs and risks of renewables, of gas, of nuclear and not pretend any of them are zero. If you want to dig into one specific piece say, bill composition, CfD flows, or the 2035 peak demand gap I’m happy to stick to that and compare numbers rather than trade one line verdicts.

@uk_decoded @TiceRichard @reformparty_uk (Bonus) 7. Finally the issue isn’t even about the cost of these policies. It’s about the demand gap and the way they are essentially planning for ‘demand management’ (load shedding) within a couple of years.

Another UK energy expert says: Drill Baby Drill British Gas boss: Drill North Sea to bring down energy prices Only ⁦@reformparty_uk⁩ can be trusted to bring down cost of living Been saying this for yrs Tories started this Net Zero madness telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/…

OK so your denying and saying is wrong: 1. the national grid upgrade plan. 2. Marginal pricing is not 30-40% of consumers bill's. 3. The government has not changed the planning system for nuclear electricity generation. 4. The CfD system does not put back into the system to stabilize prices like it did in the energy crisis and when prices are stable it does not incentivise investors into the sector. 5. In 2025, Great Britain achieved a record year for renewable electricity, with renewables producing over 127 TWh and accounting for 44% of the total generation. and that. So even though this is all supported by evidence, official reports, government press releases etc you choose to ignore it. Here I will give you a start: neso.energy/news/britains-…. neso.energy/what-we-do/ene… electricitycosts.org.uk/electricity-bi… gov.uk/government/new…

@uk_decoded @TiceRichard @reformparty_uk Every single sentence of yours is embarrassingly, glaringly, painfully wrong. Wind gen is highly correlated across UK and EU - google ‘Dunkelflaute’. A peak gen gap of 10GW will never, ever, ever be dealt with by a few battery projects. Energy is complex, do yr research.

@Geordie_grandad @BenGrahamUK ipcc.ch/assessment-rep… ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr…

@uk_decoded @BenGrahamUK So explain to a layman. 1. How do we change the climate favourably? 2. Then how do we stop it from changing once at the optimum level? 3. What is the optimum level? 4. Finally how do we then keep it stable at that optimum (yet to be agreed) level?

We’re told a 1°C temperature rise is proof of man made climate catastrophe. Yet over billions of years, earth has seen far greater swings, ice ages, warming periods, all without fossil fuels. At what point do we question the narrative instead of blindly funding it?

@jemmm85517813 Been a GP I would have thought that you would recognise scientific studies that have been verified and back up by evidence, instead of just dismissing it..

@uk_decoded Not true..Increased insolation & decreased cloud cover can account for all recent warming which is very slight.

97% of CO2 comes from natural sources. We cannot change that.

That is why the National grid are installing new storage to cope with peek demands as part of its upgrades, this also includes balancing the grid that has been previously published. At the moment we are importing gas yes but the electrification transition is not complete, and 30-40% of consumers electricity bill is the outdated Marginal pricing system. The Government has also changed policy so that the planning and building of nuclear reactors for energy generation is cheaper and faster, I am guessing that this is aimed to build more nuclear electricity generation sites in the near to medium future (will have to keep an eye out for announcement on this topic).. Then there is the CfD system that by design will be putting back into the system again like it did in the crisis that the Russia-Ukraine war created, stabilizing consumers energy bills. Some people believe that weather s static, if the wind stops in a location it stops all the way around the UK that is factually wrong, local and regional weather patterns do not support that type of thinking.

@uk_decoded @TiceRichard @reformparty_uk All our government’s renewables policies have done is increase the costs of the system to the highest in the world and STILL we are dependant on 30GW of gas to meet peak demand in 2035. It doesn’t matter how many turbines you build, you need a backup for still q1 peaks.

Considering the fact that the UK has around 1% of the global market, the UK would not be able to effect the international wholesale price in a meaningful way to cut the prices for consumers within the UK meaning that this would not help consumers with the cost of filling you your car, household and business energy bills, these are known facts that the companies that extract these resources are for profit and sell at international wholesale prices. So your saying it is better to have short term resource independence that will never happen as we rely on imported resources, over long term offsetting imported resources while the UK electrification is in transition? it is important to reduce the dependency of the UK on imported resources but foresight is further than the end of ones nose.. The UK and every country in the world will need gas and oil based products until an alternative is found but reducing our dependency on imported resources is the current policy, especially when looking at the current energy mix (consumption) that is changing year upon year. So lets look at what your suggesting: - It is better to bring total import reliance closer than to offset while the UK electrification transition is complete and reduces reliance on imported gas for energy generation and heating homes. - The UK can have resource independence, this is factually wrong, by the time industry is ready to ramp up extraction with new rigs, the war will most probably be over and independence on resources is not achievable. - The UK can extract more, yes it can but it will not effect the price consumer are paying as the UK has such a minute fraction of the market share it will not adjust the international wholesale price.

So you don’t want to use *available resources, now during a crisis* for the fear that they might not be there in 20y time (note: with supportive policy they could be). What kind of logic is that? UK is about to go to the wall if there is another energy crisis. What could be more ‘resource independence’?

So your focusing on the profit related side of the debate not that other facts like resource depletion, reliance on imported resources and economic shock. This does not support resource independence, what the government and previous governments are doing with renewables and electrification to reduce economic shock (this includes job security, tax receipts, total reliance on imported resources at international wholesale prices etc), save the NHS billions on air pollution related illness and deaths etc. There is a lot more to the debate than pure profit for private companies.

Of course producers were not silent prior to the war. Most of them were already shutting up shop with comments like “we’ll go somewhere with a more stable tax regime, like Nigeria”. Why would companies sit on ‘unused licences’ if they weren’t profitable? One producer recently paid 102% tax on production, that’s why.

Some facts: 1. Oil and gas companies have licenses that issued to them but are unused. 2. The push to extract more by the companies only came with the increased international wholesale price caused by the US-Iran war, before that they where silent. 3. Extracting more brings the estimated depletion date of the UK's basin closer, bringing the economic shock that will be felt by everyone along with it, the government and future governments need this time to put in place policies to reduce the economic shock that depletion will bring when the UK is totally dependant on imported resources.

It is a difficult thing to say your party has got it wrong. We all care about the environment but making our people poor while the world watches is making us a warning not an example. Kudos to @TufnellHenry for his bravery today.

The post omits facts: 1. Gas and oil companies have extraction licenses untouched, not used. 2. The push from the oil and gas companies only can after the international wholesale price raised because of the US-Iran conflict, they where silent until then. 3. By extracting more gas and oil the UK's basin depletes faster currently estimated at 2050 (24 years time), leaving the UK totally reliant on imported resources, and the economic shock of resource depletion will be felt by everyone.

This is the best and clearest explanation so far on why we must reopen and exploit our North Sea reserves by @KathrynPorter26. Gas is traded regionally not globally. British gas from the North Sea can bring down European prices in the summer. It is significantly cheaper than LNG. We would also benefit from additional tax revenues, improve our balance of payments, and keep oil and gas jobs in Britain, as well as in the wider supply chain like refining. It looks the Energy Secretary is too dug in to change course, and Starmer is too weak to overrule him. telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/…

Over 300 school nurseries will open or expand from September, targeting childcare gaps in the poorest areas. But there’s a structural problem. Childcare frees parents to return to work yet UK job vacancies have fallen to 721,000, the lowest since the post Covid peak. The UK doesn’t have a welfare problem. It has a vacancy problem. ukpoliticsdecoded.uk/decoded-blog/s…

@1984EndDays @BenGrahamUK What is bollox? you add no context or content to the debate at all.

@uk_decoded @BenGrahamUK Bollox

I did not say that I just outlined the facts and evidence that obviously extracting more will bring the depletion date closer making the UK totally reliant on imported resources and the fact that the economic shock from the depletion needs to be taken into account when the government and future governments need this time to put in place policies to reduce that economic shock. I also highlighted the fact that the oil and gas companies where silent until the international wholesale price hit its recent high, now they want to have faster extraction to maximize profits, they currently have licenses sitting there been unused to extract more gas and oil but what is obvious is that building new rigs and extracting from a basin close to depletion is expensive and hard.

@uk_decoded @TiceRichard @reformparty_uk So, you’d rather a Norwegian company profit than a UK one? Got it, thanks.

@mr_james_c The deindustrialization issue is decades long with no government having political will to tackle it.

It's odd that the "Thatcher is evil because she destroyed industrial jobs in Northern England" people seem to be very very quiet about Miliband and Labour doing *exactly the same thing* to Britain's oil and gas industry, steel industry, petrochemicals industry, farming, pottery industry, hospitality industry... basically any industry that uses electricity.

@JillBelch If you look at the history of that account it is always been corrected with actual facts, the poster does not look at any evidence that you post to correct them, its an ongoing issue.

Sorry. That’s nonsense. Around 137 countries (out of 198) now have net-zero targets. That covers 75–80% of global emissions. Why would they post this when it’s clearly not true? I wonder??

The facts omitted form the Article: 1. The depletion of the UK's gas and oil basin is estimated to be 2050, extracting more will bring that date closer and have the UK rely more on imported resources. 2. The UK currently has around 1% of the oil and gas market extracting more will not bring down the international wholesale price. 3. The UK shale is deeply fractured and not suitable for fracking this means that these resources are unable to be extracted safely and a official report states this fact by introducing earth quakes, there is also a risk to coastal communities.

My latest column for the @Telegraph discussing why we need to boost our UK oil and gas production @ClaireCoutinho @AndrewBowie_MP @griffitha @NJ_Timothy @DavidGHFrost @afneil @Iromg @AllisonPearson @MerrynSW @EdConwaySky telegraph.co.uk/gift/e66801581…

@Telegraph The existing licenses are not been used because of the UK's basin been close to depletion estimated to be 2050, drilling more will bring this date closer, this is just political theatre playing to the masses without giving factual information just opinion.

🛢️ In the face of an energy crisis caused by the war in Iran, the Conservative Party leader hit out at Labour for shutting down the North Sea and refusing to issue new oil and gas licenses Read Kemi Badenoch's lines in our latest politics report ⤵️ telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/…

Factual context: 1. The UK holds about 1% of international wholesale prices, if we extracted more it would not move the price at all. 2. The UK's basin is estimated to depleted in the resources that we CAN extract 2050, that is 24 years, if the UK raises extraction it brings this date closer. 3. Extraction companies want to extract more when the prices are high like it is now as it means more profit for them as they are private for profit companies. 4. existing licenses are not been used as a depleting basin is expensive and hard to extract from, thus decreasing profits for extraction companies.

Absolute madness. Net Zero Lunatic Ed Miliband is singlehandedly bankrupting the country.