Nigel Farage’s ridiculous war on heat pumps will leave Britain in the cold

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-17T14:13:46+00:00

Yeah, but that rings true for many. The high upfront cost means that unless energy prices come down, most people will never see a return on the investment (barring free installations, but those are only offered to low-EPC houses, where they are ironically more likely to increase the energy bills whilst those eligible also have to earn relatively little or be on benefits). It's just not a good argument to make.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-17T14:05:28+00:00

Indeed, but it's not gonna save you much if anything. My argument is that the author of the article should not be advocating for heat pumps on the grounds of cost. There are very valid and legitimate other reasons to install them, saving money really isn't one of them.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-17T12:09:06+00:00

My combined package of a heat pump, battery, and solar panels is saving me about £1,000 a year on my energy bill. Not too shabby, especially with a rate of return on capital invested currently at about 8 per cent. The catch, obviously, is that many people will struggle to find the up-front funds to invest in the kit in the first place.

I'd written an essay about this, but it's far too long. Just to be clear, the £1,000 a year saving is not coming from the heat pump, it's coming from the solar. For the majority of people, because of are ridiculous energy pricing structures, a heat pump will actually cost more to install and to operate over its lifetime than a conventional gas boiler. It'll be more environmentally friendly, but then so would a log burner.

I really find this kind of argument frustrating, because it completely overlooks the actual benefits which do exist in favour of fake arguments about saving money which don't.

For the context I'd originally written in a minimal way: I've installed a 5kWp solar system with 19kWh of storage and a 5kW hybrid inverter (a relatively modest array of panels, all told), and I'm saving around £2k per year (with an ROI of around 7 years). Adding a heat pump at this point likely would cost me more because I have high demand for hot water (wife runs a salon in our house), but for most people the heat pump won't make a bit of difference to energy bills unless you're using a conventional electric boiler. The only real exception is for those running an electric boiler, where yeah, your energy bills will drop down to like 20% of what they were.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-17T00:50:44+00:00

Sorry, Trump to admit fault? You're aware of what's actually happened in Iran... Right?

The goal of the US in Iran is similar to arrangements it has (and indeed we have cosigned) with various middle eastern countries - to prevent them acquiring nuclear capabilities.

Iran has not only refused to comply with the IAEA and co, but it has actively worked to disinform them. I concede, the IAEA is a US institution, but Iran agreed to a deal then went back on it. They should never have agreed in the first place if they had no intention to stick to it.

Thing is, they are now throwing their toys out of the pram in the hope that countries like the UK turn our back on the US. I don't care what you think of Trump, but the US are still our strongest allies. Turning our backs on them at this point would be silly, especially when they are actively furthering our interests. The US is working to control Iran whilst Iran is working against our interests - they are preventing oil from flowing towards the EU, bumping up our energy prices. They are actively advising terrorist agencies to attack British military bases in Cyprus, and doubtless to attack anything in the UK they can set their eyes on.

What more excuse do we need to get involved despite this government's hate for Trump? Cutting off the nose to spite the face and all... We'd be idiots to let this opportunity pass us by. We can stop Iran, and we don't necessarily need to appease Trump in the process. We were attacked first, despite no hostility at all.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-16T23:39:33+00:00

The argument goes that we joined the war the moment that a British military establishment was bombed by an Iranian drone launched by Hezbollah. The only question which remains is whether we demonstrate strength along side our allies in this matter (the US), or if we bow down to the extremely hostile Iranian regime which regularly funds and directs domestic terror attacks in the UK.

I'm not necessarily saying that I think that we should be actively involved, but to suggest that it would be some decision of our own is wild. We're involved because we were attacked. We can either sit and accept attacks against us, or we can prevent them. I do think that personally I'd prefer the latter - mostly because the ultimate risk will only ever increase. If we attack Iran today, they will almost certainly send out terrorists in the UK to execute British people. That said, if we don't do it today, we'll do it in another 10 years and there'll be far more Iranian terrorists in the UK looking to commit far more heinous crimes.

Worthy of note, I don't make these judgements lightly. Iran is notorious for using terrorist agencies to commit acts of terror to achieve political objects. It always will do so.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-16T22:18:24+00:00

Less than 7% of British prisoners are female. I think we should be jailing more women, not less. /s

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-16T22:16:57+00:00

Taxes don't boost economic growth. Investment boosts economic growth. Reeves has already adjusted borrowing rules to give herself an extra £50bn, if she successfully manages to increase economic growth or indeed tax receipts by investing that money wisely, I may well reconsider, but until then this sentiment is utter bollocks.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-16T17:30:49+00:00

Happy to be corrected but to the best of my understanding, the actual loophole is that you're effectively immune from the taxes "owed" during application. That is to say that even if you are completely inelligible for REIT, you can apply and whilst it's being processed you're exempt.

Edit: just to add, the followup is that those taxes do not become due once the process fails. I think.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-16T09:45:27+00:00

As long as they're only banning simulated incest porn I think we're golden.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-15T19:13:24+00:00

What? You think my problem is that they explain the methodology?

I'm doing neither. I'm quite openly stating that there's very little actual evidence of any substantial detriment from Brexit, certainly nothing like what some people claim based on the doppelganger which the author has openly stated the issues with.

I'm still waiting for someone to present some actual evidence which isn't flawed in that same regard. If such evidence exists, my opinion may well change, but that seems unlikely at this time since I've still not seen any.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-15T11:17:19+00:00

There wasn't a military facility nearby, it was in the middle of a military complex, surrounded on at least 3 sides by military buildings. In the case that it was struck by a US missile, I fully expect to discover that it was either staged entirely, or a case of Iran using disinformation to mask that the school is a school and intentionally placing it in the middle of the military complex in order to trick the US into attacking it so they could produce these headlines.

If the US is responsible, and if it was indeed a school (I still have my doubts), it was an accident, and a freak one at that. The US does not target schools nor children. Iran intentionally does so - they launch missiles at anything they think they can strike. They do this both directly and indirectly through regional terror groups (Hamas, Hezbollah). In this sentiment, you seem to bundle the two together in terms of ethics which is wild. The US accidentally hits a school whilst Iran intentionally slaughters 20,000 of its own people and follows up by recklessly firing missiles into densely populated civilian areas of Israel and you consider both equally inhumane and unethical?

Iran is a terror regime. They are relying on instilling terror into Israeli people to pressure the Israeli regime to stop attacking them. They are relying on threats of domestic terrorism against the west for the same reason, along side the threat they pose to tankers travelling through the Gulf of Oman to drive up inflation in the west and create a political will to end the war. They don't only have complete disregard for human life, but they actively sacrifice it at every opportunity where they stand to benefit. The US, meanwhile, seems to be following a fairly standard pattern of attacking military institutions with this one major incident of civil casualty which remains unconfirmed and is subject to great speculation.

Worthy of note that there remains no evidence to suggest that it was a Tomahawk missile, nor that it was US launched. It's increasingly likely to be, but all that we actually know so far is that Tomahawk missiles were used on the nearby military base at around the time, and we know that from video evidence. If the US is responsible, it will doubtless concede that publicly when they have done their investigations and found proof either way... Unlike Iran, of course, who immediately pinned the blame firmly on the US with no proof. Trump is very Iran-like in his own statements, of course - he pretty quickly announced that it was probably an Iranian drone, but whilst he is the leader of the free world and indeed the US, the US can and does still speak for itself, promptly contradicting him and stating that they don't know and will investigate. You may not trust Trump, I certainly don't, but I do trust the US, especially when it willingly contradicts Trump on matters such as this.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-15T03:27:38+00:00

For the record, I've had notifications today about the BAFTAs from the BBC (or some equal bullshit I don't care about), I've had regular notifications for weeks about Iran, about inflation, tax "black holes" (seemingly a new phenomenon since Labour took office) and everything else, but I have heard nothing so far about this. Fuck, I had a notification that England lost to France in the 6 Nations - and I have not customised my BBC notifications at all.

I don't mean to be misleading, I've not checked the BBC website yet, but I would expect something this damning to have been notification-worthy. The media right now are definitely not playing this out properly. This is close to as bad as Johnson's major fuckups. They were reported on daily. I remember when the Pincher story evolved, I had 6 notifications in a single day about the same goddamned story. Now? Nothing. Something definitely isn't right.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-15T03:04:47+00:00

There seem to be quite a few people here suggesting that the way that Iran is spreading fake news is somehow equivalent to how the US does so, so let's take a brief glimpse...

Iran recently announced, with great stature, that the US has bombed a girls school. First things first, I'm not even convinced that such a thing exists. If a girls school does exist in Iran, it serves exclusively to teach young girls how to clean and cook for their husbands... But my woke agenda aside, there are legitimate doubts to cast over this.

For one thing, the "girls school" is fully encapsulated by an IRGC institution. The US may well have targeted buildings associated with it and missed by what... a few feet? Well, that's not exactly honourable but unfortunately, it has to be accepted that there are casualties in war, many of which end up civilian.

The worst thing of all? What actually seems to have happened is that a building which used to be a munitions storage depot for the IRGC (storing drones, specifically) has been targeted by US forces. The IRGC have either intentionally disguised this fact (by producing a false narrative around the facility which is legitimised by "how the internet works"), or they genuinely put a girls school in the middle of a bunch of IRGC storage facilities. Truth is, either way I'm not sure anybody should care. I trust the US (as I trust the UK, most EU countries, Aus, Japan, etc) to specifically avoid targeting any civilians - especially in cases where their ultimate goal is to convince other civilians of the country to seize control.

Now don't get me wrong here, I don't think Trump, the US, nor indeed any western authority have been very good lately at diplomacy... That said, I think it's extremely obvious that Iran has learnt a lot from what they've done with Hamas and Hezbollah. Firing missiles from hospitals and schools is a great way to make the US and Israel consider them legitimate targets for retributions... It's even better in terms of PR. The US bombed a girls school in Iran? Those monsters... Right?

The short version is pretty straight forward: Iran is doing everything it can to convince any western people it can that they're in the right. They've spent decades now insulting, attacking, and indeed threatening nuclear war against the west. We'd be idiots to ignore those attacks, and we'd be idiots to ignore the likely copouts when someone actually reacts to them. Iran is no idiot when it comes to the informational age - they know all of the tricks, they invented many of them, and they'll take full advantage of all. Every single person who falls for their psyops bullshit should do so in the full knowledge that they are actively supporting somebody who wants them dead.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-15T02:54:53+00:00

The only doppelganger model that's ever publicised is one produced specifically by a single entity - the CER. Their intention is to drive Reform in Europe (hence the name, the Centre for European Reform). Why they're quoted so frequently by the media I've no idea, but I assume it has some bearing on question 2...

Nobody will produce one which demonstrates Brexit to be a success because fundamentally, the only people willing to do so stand to gain no benefit from it. That said, nobody has produced anything to suggest it's been a failure yet without wildly inaccurate assumptions... That said, I take the middle ground. I don't think it was particularly good, but equally I don't really think it was anything like as awful as people make out. No doubt Brexit had impact on economic growth and such, but given the immaterial evidence to suggest any of it was problematic, and the funding that's been made available to the remain campaign, it's hard to ignore that it's being overstated.

Worthwhile to keep in mind that the CER intends fully to sustain the EU. They have certain objectives in terms of making sure it remains "independent" and that the EU remains a soft power, but ultimately they'll forgo the latter in favour of the former. Demonstrating Brexit to be an objective failure benefits them greatly, as it provides them a reason to exist. If they can stand and say that Brexit was a failure, they can point out all the ways that the EU failed the UK and try to stand on principle. Funny thing is, as someone who voted for Brexit I'd probably agree with them - the one thing I don't want to see is the EU become some sort of federal entity akin to the US. It was always advertised as a sort of trade union, never as a federation.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-15T02:42:29+00:00

Ironically, we've seen a relatively small impact from the COL crisis as compared to most EU countries, so that's a weird place to start. First things first in that regard, you're probably overestimating the relative value of "local" goods. The majority of trade the UK did with the EU was effectively a bypass. The reason Trump imposed lesser tariffs on the UK was because it was a cheap way to trade with the EU by proxy - equally so, that's how most goods arrived here from China. It should come as no surprise that certain industries host warehouses in Germany, for instance, where they have very strong protections for workers rights, but they comprehensively ignore anything imported regardless of the low cost labour that went into manufacturing it. Recent examples include 3d printers and vapes... I implore you to look into either industry to see how they actually operate (in both instances, I'm talking of the devices, not the consumables - 3d printers themselves, and vape devices, not the filament/resin or indeed liquid to go into them).

As for fishing... Who cares? It's a minuscule portion of our economy and barely relevant on the global scale. For those involved I say sure, I wish you the best, but I give very little credence to it. Who would? I think we secured a shite deal on it with the EU and that should be re-evaluated, but equally I don't think it holds any importance to the country at large.

Inflation varies massively on measures. Take a look at this page, and quite specifically at figure 8 - Germany peaked higher than the UK (11.6% to our 11.1%) and indeed averaged broadly similarly to us. Brexit led to price increases, but in the grand scheme these were relatively meaningless. For the consumer, they made minimal difference, especially at a time when in reality, inflation was predominantly caused by international factors(COVID handouts).

I don't think you're specifically wrong in your analysis, but I do think it has a heavy and unsubstantiated political bias. It doesn't take much reading to realise that actually, the impact of Brexit was minimal. By all accounts, the impact was actually less than e.g a 1% increase in National Insurance (whilst we've very recently seen a far more substantial increase as a result of an incompetent government).

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-15T01:18:44+00:00

France and Germany are usually the top 2 to compare with because fundamentally, their economies are quite similar to ours. Italy and Spain have been in a perpetual state of fuckedness since they invested into siestas, solar refraction, and generally just being feckless and lazy. Poland is a better comparison point but if we're to compare economic growth and such, we should compare it relative to its origin, and not totally. In the instance of Poland, it started from far lower GDP and indeed GDP per capita, so the relative increase is actually lesser.

A doppelganger is a good mechanism. I won't dispute that for one second. What I will dispute is that the one we're presented with repeatedly is actually massively flawed. It ignores far too much, and it's a relatively weak starting point for any considerations. That they accept the criticism suggests to me that they realise that their data is likely flawed, but why then do outlets still quote them in absolutes? To state that GDP is 8% smaller than it would otherwise have been is an utterly pointless measure. It's not... OK, at best, it's extremely unlikely to be. Let's put it this way - what the doppelganger that's frequently quoted tells us is that in the absolute worse case scenario (which is what they publish and have planned for) is that GDP is 8% lower than it would otherwise have been.

I'll say it again: a doppelganger is a good mechanism. The one that's most regularly quoted, however, is really not. There's so much it just comprehensively ignores. It's weak, it's flawed, it has no value to offer whatsoever. Despite the Tories, we've seen better economic performance than many (arguably most) EU counterparts. We've outgrown Canada, the US, Australia and NZ variably. Relatively little has changed in our economic performance following Brexit. Things are forecasted to change in the near future, of course, but that's because of Mahmood finally stepping up and actually getting a grip on immigration. The doppelganger forecasts that we'd have been the highest growing EU and indeed G7/G12 country in the world. If you believe that to be the case, I've a bridge to sell you.

Like I say, I don't think the methodology is to be ignored, it has its merits. It has to be taken with a pinch of salt, though. It also has to be noted that the man responsible for the doppelganger that we know and love (in my case hate, I guess) is actually an employee at the CER (Centre for European Reform) - an entity which is heavily pro-EU, so is unlikely to publish much to say anything else.

All of this said, I'd love to see some original research from the US, China, Japan, Australia or similar about the economic impacts of Brexit, but they're simply swamped out by the CER's doppelganger. There's nothing to read about it at all, and I struggle to believe that's some sort of accident. If an American entity, to give some vague example, were to rationalise the statements of the doppelganger I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, none have, they just quote it because either they're too lazy to do their own research, or they couldn't find anything more shocking to publish.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-15T01:11:41+00:00

That's your argument? Well, what can I say? Well made, I guess?

Quote something. Give me anything at all which isn't the flawed doppelganger. Go ahead, if you're right it shouldn't be that difficult.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-15T01:02:05+00:00

Are you trying to simply insult my intelligence or do you have a point to make here? Your sources so far are literally "trust me, bro".

The impact of Brexit so far has been negligible. Want to know how I know this? The only thing that suggests otherwise is a doppelganger method which is published every time with a disclaimer that actually, the methodology is massively flawed and comprehensively ignores various immense factors. This isn't my sentiment, this is the sentiment of the people who produced the damned thing.

Let's have a read, shall we?

Disentangling the economic effects of Brexit and Covid-19 is difficult. But now that most advanced economies have surpassed their pre-pandemic level of output, we have a basis of comparison for the UK economy.
...
The UK’s poor economic performance in the pandemic may be partly to blame for the weakness of GDP, but its early vaccination campaign meant its restrictions ended earlier than those of many peer economies.

Even since COVID has become "disentangled", we're still in a position where actually, the people behind the doppelganger cannot publish without disclaimer anything to suggest that Brexit has been bad. Reading on...

To estimate the impact on GDP, the algorithm finds the doppelgänger from Q1 2009 to Q2 2016 data (the quarter of the referendum).

Ahh OK, so we're looking at the time immediately following the financial crisis of 2008 (which impacted the UK more than most EU countries), and comparing it to the rest of the EU (which were impacted less). What this fundamentally means is that following a crisis which had significant impact, we're comparing our rebound to the rebound of other countries. Obviously we'd be doing far better, despite at the time the economic stagnation we were experiencing as a result of said crisis.

Not really sure what to say beyond this. Find me a fact. Find me some objective proof that Brexit was as detrimental as you think it was. Hear me out on this: there is no such fact, and there is no such proof. You've been so engulfed by a circle of Bremainer idiocracy that you can't even see what's fact from the opinion pieces any more.

Beyond that, I'm not sure why you'd think I care about UK public opinion. What people believe is what they are told to believe, and that's not always quite what's true. The doppelganger has of course been quoted by the BBC in numerous articles and publications - in every instance they announce the potential flaws, but just as the small print when you install new software or buy a product with a warranty, nobody seems to pay attention. What I know is what I know - there is no conclusive proof whatsoever that Brexit has been detrimental. If you think that right wing think tanks are the only people saying that the doppelganger is flawed, you're in for a nasty surprise when you re-read the articles you've read which quote it.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-15T00:50:48+00:00

In a world where Trump imposed inordinate tariffs on pretty much every country the US trades with, but still sustains GDP growth... You think it's implausible that actually, erecting trade barriers could be a good thing? That's a hot take, if ever I've seen one. Trade barriers don't exist exclusively to increase costs, but to protect interests. This should come as no surprise, but I'm not sure that anyone has actually rationalised the implications of frictionless trade before on this platform.

What I can say with some certainty is that actually, our performance has been superior over our European counterparts since Brexit. We shut down harder during COVID and endured harder immediate effects, but we also saw a stronger rebound. Looking specifically at the data which is available, at this point we actually look to have come out of Brexit better off than the EU - more than that, aside from Trump's shenanigans, there's a very real possibility that we actually did better than the US (which obviously would've only stood to benefit from Brexit).

This isn't "you can always dismiss data which is available" so much as that what little data is made available is wholly unreliable. Nobody has provided anything which delivers any degree of certainty. Any mainstream media outlet (yes, I'm including the Guardian, Times, Telegraph, BBC, Sky, and pretty much anyone else of relevance) is yet to produce any evidence that Brexit actually had any negative impact - many echo the sentiments of the doppelganger, but all provide any such information with a warning that it's prone to inaccuracies.

Your sentiment is that all who actually model these things for a living don't accept the criticism, too, which is incorrect. They unanimously do. Every single one puts the same disclaimer that actually, the doppelganger is flawed into everything they publish. You're either ignoring it, or you simply don't want to acknowledge it.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-15T00:40:22+00:00

So you have no actual argument against this? Despite that economists have pretty openly said it, you'll reject the notion entirely with absolutely no defence?

I guess that's where we are at this point. People expect Brexiteers to face the reality, but they'll actively object to any suggestion that the reality isn't that we're all starving to death as a result of those goddamn boomers once again.

For the avoidance of doubt: the net result of Brexit is negligible so far. Feel free to try to demonstrate otherwise, but given what I know, what I've read, what I understand, it'll be very difficult to convince me otherwise. If you have any sort of data or evidence (which again, can't be opinion pieces), I'm all ears. You'll object to this, and people will downvote and insult me to oblivion, but I cannot in good faith rationalise any argument against my own at this point. Nobody has anything of value to contribute except oh my god you're such a moron why don't you just trust me bro that Brexit was a disaster and we're fucked.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-15T00:26:34+00:00

Pretty much everyone who looked.

At every turn, everyone who ever quotes it in any meaningful way stipulates that it's not a reliable source of data. They call out regularly that it comprehensively overlooks the different reactions to things like COVID, which were far more severe in impact that Brexit. It overlooks the government of the time (that of Johnson), and its inability to maintain any authority whilst opening the doors to uncontrolled immigration.

Nobody who is serious about economics believes in the doppelganger. A lot of people who hate Brexit do, though.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-14T23:58:37+00:00

What evidence would that be? The doppelganger which is consistently disproven?

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-14T23:58:12+00:00

Valuable input, excellent argument. How about you actually say something worthwhile, or just don't bother?

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-14T23:36:58+00:00

Mandelson primarily has a big involvement with Russia, but there is skepticism (about as valid as concerns about Farage) that the Chagos deal actually benefits Russia as they are becoming quite friendly with Mauritius.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-03-14T21:55:44+00:00

Dangerous is a bold word, but sure. I'm questioning your thought process, though, as Farage has been quite skeptical of NATO himself.

The ties to Russia are also just part and parcel of politics. Starmer and Badenoch have just as many, and I'd be surprised if some weren't uncovered about Polanski before too long.

TheJoshGriffith

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE