Bishop Hill Baling out? Probably not
Oct 12, 2013 Climate: Parliament ;)
After years of trying to load us with green taxes and beating their chests about saving the planet from global warming, politicians are rushing to tell us how worried they are about the cost of living (readers will probably want to be quite rude about this volte face, but let's try to maintain a little dignity, shall we?)
Today, The Mail is reporting that David Cameron has responded to Miliband's call for a government mandated price freeze by ordering a review into the cost of living, including green taxes.
The Coalition was riven by bitter infighting over green taxes last night after David Cameron ordered a review to stem the rise in energy bills.
Green taxes have been blamed for pushing energy prices to record levels, but the Prime Minister’s intervention met fierce opposition from the Lib Dems.
They insist the Government’s green energy targets are sacred.
Business Secretary Vince Cable said it would be ‘short-sighted and foolish’ to try to cut energy bills in the short term by tearing up the Government’s environmental policies.
I think it's fair to say that this is a case of tickling the tummies of swing voters rather than Cameron baling out from the green movement. The coalition agreement seems fairly clear that ever increasing energy costs are to be an inescapable part of life in the UK, at least until the next election.
No doubt the Liberal Democrats will go into the next election promising more of the same; the otherworldliness of the party never ceases to amaze, but their attachment to greenery will remain in place regardless. However, it will be interesting to see how the big two parties position themselves in 2015. Labour, free of the shackles of government, are able to set out their stall now, and their idea of a government-mandated price freeze may gain traction among the intellectually challenged. However, there are two years for the absurdities of the policy to be brought into the limelight, so the policy's lifetime will probably be short.
And what of the Conservatives? Will they jettison greenery, arguing that it was all those wicked LibDems that made them wreck the country? My guess is not. Greenery is part of brand Cameron, and the loss of face he would suffer if he u-turned would be immensely damaging, possibly terminally so. But if they stay on the path they are on, their core vote will split, with everyone worried about the cost of living heading for UKIP. The party therefore seems to have a choice between possible annihilation and certain annihilation. They will try to wriggle their way out of it of course, by coming up with some last minute eye-catching initiatives, and hope that the electorate will fall for it. To be frank the electorate may well do that.
It's hard to see a way for this to end well.
Bishop Hill
We should remember, in particular, Cameron's arguing last week of the necessity of green subsidies.
Reader Comments (81)
It's a farce anyway - if you go into Poundland you can packs of 3 golfball or candle 60w incandescents for a quid.
Only concession to the idiotic legislation is the words "heavy duty" in small print - although the filaments look absolutely standard gauge.
Like most green legislation - it was just futile gesture politics.
Retired Dave, the effect of compulsory voting on election outcomes is a hotly debated topic. Supporters of non-compulsory voting tend to always claim that it benefits the party they don't like, whichever one that may be.
It's practically impossible to say what effect compulsory voting would have in the UK. It would change the way parties campaign and their policies, and since you can't run a double blind study on it, who knows?
Smiffy, I didn't read it. The call centre for the scheme is nearby and I know someone who works there. A common centre for all participating companies, telling applicants whether they qualify. My contact had to turn down a 92-year-old but accept a 22-y-o who was entirely dependent on welfare.
I think it is this http://www.homeheathelpline.org.uk/
Roger Harrabin: Less than a fifth of the £360 rise was forced by green taxes, he said, and most of that went to help poor families insulate their homes.
Oct 12, 2013 at 1:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlex Cull
----------------------------------
Most of the poorest in the country are renting accommodation - usually from landlords who don't give a damn how high their tenant's bills are so aren't going to bother insulating. (Low cost rentals are usually all-electric too to avoid gas regulations) The poorest are also usually in flats, rather than houses, where insulation has little or no effect.
The people who are mainly benefiting from the insulation subsidies are home-owners, so not the poorest.
Incidentally, Bish, I think your headline should read "Bailing". Sorry. It's a pet spelling peeve of mine.
Oct 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM johanna
C.O.D.:
bale (or bail) out
1 (of a pilot etc.) make an emergency parachute descent from an aircraft (cf. bail).
Foxgoose
The replacements for incandescent bulbs contain dangerous materials and need to be disposed of carefully. So much for green technology!
Artwest
You should know Roger Harrabin's reporting by now and what to expect!
Sherlock1
The light bulb ban is a result of an EU Directive, gleefully announced by that prize ass Hilary Benn.
It was alas not a knee-jerk reaction, it was the result of concerted lobbying by Philips, Siemens (Osram) and GE, whose market share in incandescent bulbs was being undercut by cheap Chinese imports.
It is the most ironic example that I can imagine. Big corporations tricked the EU into a move to protect their commercial interests by using Green pressure groups. It is heralded as a green victory and they are too stupid to realise or know full well and are too embarrassed to admit it.
This example tries to convince us that stumbling around in semi-darkness while the bulbs warm up is saving us money.
http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Media_room_2/Press_releases/NR_090112.pdf
And why have coal and gas prices gone up? Because they are liable to fuel duty and the Climate change levy.
These are "stealth" taxes over and above the visible "green tax".
And where does this money go to?
Rich landowners (e.g. Cameron's father in law) and City speculators.
Why can't cretins like Horrorbin, Stern, the Biased Bull**** Cartel (BBC) and their mates in the traitorous "Guardian" see this?
Just how many people to they want to die as a result of this insane obsession with "renewables"?
In the UK the obvious courses of action are:
[1] Write to your MP in blunt, but polite, terms about the misguided and idiotic energy policies pursued by the government; and point out the obvious remedy - repeal or suspend the Climate Change Act. The latter will not happen because, as John Redwood on his excellent blog keeps reminding his readers, there is no majority for this course of action. But the greater the volume of complaint, the greater influence it will have.
[2] In next year`s MEP elections, vote for candidates who want to end this idiocy. The only party that fulfills this criterion is UKIP and its outspoken leader. If the UKIP MEP vote is big enough it will effect thinking in the HoC and, probably may even produce some action. It has already done so with respect to the possibility of a referendum on UK membership of the EU.
[3]...and while you are at it, defend the media (including this blog) against the attempt by MPs to impose regulation in the form of a Royal Charter, however benign it may seem. (It would be illegal in the USA). Censorship of your opinions is what some very influential MPs want - as sundry comments on the need to suppress the opinions of climate sceptics so clearly reveal.
We live in very dngerous times.
Christopher Booker comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/10374005/Its-showdown-time-for-our-insane-green-energy-policy.html
The madness that is green energy policy continues unabated. Cuadrilla at Westby has been forced to close down in case an operational rig endangers migrating geese that over-winter in the area. To date there have been no known bird deaths due to fracking or constructing well heads. But you know, precautionary principle, yeah?
However, the wind turbines in the area, of various sizes - some of them monsters, are operational and killing birds indiscriminately. Surely, if the birds are such a sensitive ecological case and are most definitely endangered by turbines, many of which stand in, or adjacent to, fields where the geese regularly graze, shouldn't the eco-crucifixes be decommissioned until the birds depart next spring?
Let's demolish the electricity pylons too since the birds fly into them from time to time.
On second thoughts, maybe I shouldn't put any stupid ideas into the heads of the Frack Offers. They don't need my help in that department.
As Douglas Adams so wisely put it:
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
”You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No, nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd, I thought you said it was a democracy."
”I did. It is."
”So, why don‘t the people get rid of the lizards?"
”It honestly doesn‘t occur to them. They‘ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they‘ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
”You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
”Oh yes, of course."
”But, why?"
”Because if they didn‘t vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
I believe the time has come, metaphorically anyway, for the Clausewitz dictum: "Total war is more humane in the long run." I agree with Peter Hitchens here: the Tories must be destroyed. Stop voting for them.
The LibLabCon must go. The only viable party on the block is UKIP. It has a sane energy policy, and most of its other policies are manifestly sane. They could not possibly do worse than the current lot and are likely to manage government rather better.
Little eaton coward. Hasn't the guts to make the obvious decision and throw the greenies to the ruskies.
Somewhat O/T, but seems some good points in this
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/The-Anglosphere-miracle-7709#.UlBb0
Funny thing all this hoo hah with labour plebs telling us all it's all the fault of greedy energy companies and not green taxes.
Funnier thing is that green energy companies rank among the most expensive including ecotricity who vow that they will never use any fracked gas.
Evil ecotricity - something must be done.
BBC Radio 4's latest Any Questions is now on iPlayer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03c48m9
I haven't yet listened to the whole thing, but here's a snippet. David Aaronovitch of the Times (09:52 mark):
Might be best to avoid listening to this if you have high blood pressure.
I foolishly listened to the first 15 minutes of Any Answers, the programme which follows Any Questions, in which every single person who phoned or emailed during the time I listened was rabidly green and thought green taxes should definitely stay.The only exception was a bloke who said he didn't like windmills, at which point I cheered up until he said he thought the money would have been better invested in CC and S. I then turned the radio off before I blew a gasket.
The picture :-
http://www.ww2incolor.com/dramatic/SiM_147_2%23.html
is reputed to capture the moment the pilot of a German Messerschmitt Bf 109 ba(i)les out, recorded by the gun camera of a P-51 Mustang. It is not clear where when and who the combatants were, The Bf 109 was the mainstay fighter of the Luftwaffe, continuously upgraded during WW2, while the P-51, an American built aircraft manufactured to British specification, was used extensively by the WW2 Allied forces including USAAF bomber escort squadrons and RAF and Polish fighter squadrons.
I'm not hugely opposed to green taxes. The government needs tax to run the hospitals, schools etc. We've had tax on petrol virtually forever, after all.
It's green subsidies that are the danger. They are what distort the market and replace naturally cheap and reliable with expensive and unreliable -- and worst of all, cost the government money in doing so. Economists agree about very little, but almost all agree that subsidies do not work in the long term. About the only thing worse is centralised price fixing -- it didn't work in the 1970s and won't work now.
Governments that pose as free enterprise, which should mean ridding the markets of subsidies and cartels, suddenly go all weak at the knees over "green" projects.
While the terminalogically inexact Members in Westminster are scribbling energy charging policy on the back of fag packets, Ofgem have been quietly discussing transmission charges and connection arrangements with energy companies under Project TransmiT. The aim is to "have in place arrangements that facilitate the timely move to a low carbon energy sector...…."
It's commonly known that currently the energy companies pay three types of charges, connection to the grid, transmission, and balancing the grid, all payable to National Grid and included on consumers' bills. However in August Ofgem published an impact assessment of the industry’s proposals for changing the electricity transmission charging method, to be implemented in April 2014.
The projected charges are based on modelling. In the report it is admitted that the costs for all the modelled options will be higher than under the current system until 2020 because a "stronger, more resilient transmission network requires more investment, which imposes costs on present and future consumers…."
They also seemed to suggest that changes to the methods of charging would increase the number of power plants which are decommissioned and this "could negatively impact competition (and thus consumer bills)". They explain that all the models show that consumers' bills will increase between 2014 and 2024.
Although the models over-optimistically predict that consumers will benefit in the long term - between 2024 and 2050, it will be too late for many voters struggling to survive today.
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/82538/projecttransmitimpactassessmentofcmp213options.pdf
@Messenger - I wonder if there would be any mileage in obtaining an FoI from the BBC on how (and who) they chose to respond to subject matters. If the Beeb can fix a Blue Peter vote they can easily fix a phone-in.
It isn't necessary for the BBC to fix its phone-ins. The programmes are so loaded and objectionable that none but a Green or Trot can stand to listen to them and get 'get involved' by phone.Much the same is true of the audiences. So long as you choose your venues from the places the Left favours and ensure that the word goes out in the right circles, actual fixing doesn't need to be resorted to.
As for FOI requests, the BBC a history of rejecting such things under the provisions designed to protect journalism. Though quite what connection there is between journalism and the BBC escapes me.
@ Retired Dave
Compulsory voting completely distorts the political process by encouraging pork barreling because those who otherwise would not vote are happy to vote for the candidate offering them the best outcome personally. As MPs in Australia are still elected on a constituency basis, you are better off living in a marginal rather than a safe seat. Australian elections are characterised by the leaders of the political parties flying around the country visiting key marginal seats and making new spending commitments (bribes) that will benefit the electorate of the seat they are visiting. Sometimes these spending commitments are made on the hoof in response to the movement of the opinion polls and come as a surprise to even senior members of the leader's own party. It is a most unedifying and undignified spectacle.
I remember some Baroness being interviewed on the ABC about a study in the UK into the disconnect between the electorate and the politicians. She was asked if compulsory voting was considered and replied that it was but had been dismissed because it was considered that the British would show mass defiance if told they had to vote. Australians, by contrast, despite trying to foster the lovable larrakin image, are supinely conformist when it comes to political authority (maybe because they have too much of it (federal, state and local) and have largely been accepting of reduced freedoms. Many take it personally if you dare to criticise compulsory voting and the STV as, just like sport, they need to believe they are the best in the world. The reality is very different, we've just endured six years of the most horribly dysfunctional and incompetent government imaginable in which the Greens and a handful of independents wielded disproportionate power over prime ministers for whom staying in power was far more important than ideals or dignity.
DocBud, while I agree with much of what you say, pork-barrelling is not exactly unknown in voluntary voting countries, including the US and the UK. It should also be noted that in Australia Senate seats are not constituency based, and are crucial to the electoral outcome.
There are good arguments on both sides, IMO.
Johanna, Mike Jackson ref bailed/baled out. The old man's log book shows -
Nov 25 (1943) Mosquito1X MM244 Self Sgt Barron 30,000 Base - Evanton - Wick - Stornaway - Bailed Out - NW Inverness.
As an Australian flying with the RAF and not the RAAF, I have no idea whether he used the Australian spelling or the RAF approved spelling. Whichever it was, he just missed landing in Loch Ness.
More revealing articles
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10375121/Wind-farm-subsidies-generate-900m-for-Britains-big-six-energy-suppliers.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/10375167/Number-of-planned-new-onshore-wind-farms-has-doubled-since-2011.html
You were right! The Quad has reportedly ruled out a relaxation of green taxes after LibDems dug their claws in. I assume this means there won't be any Government-inspired amendments to the Energy Bill as it goes through the Lords.
But what's to stop the Tories from making permanent repeal of Miliband's energy taxes a part of their next election platform – in response to Labour's promised price freeze? And they could start promoting it now.
Retired Dave - 12 Oct 3:43 -
My grandmother was a suffragette and my mother drummed it into me that I always had to vote (up to me for whom) because otherwise electoral apathy could one day lead to that right being taken away. Many years ago, as a young bank clerk, I was recruited to help in the count at a General Election. Any vote that wasn't completed exactly correctly (x in box) was put to one side and shown to the representatives of all candidates. They could either agree among themselves that the vote had been intended for a particular candidate, or that it was genuinely spoiled. Since then, in the knowledge that a spoiled vote receives far more attention from the politicians than a "correct" vote, I've several times written "none of the above deserves my vote" across the voting slip. There's nothing stopping anyone expressing more extreme views. I definitely recommend it. Far more satisfying than a traditional vote. If it was practised in sufficient numbers the politicians might begin to get the message.
I'd suspect ending the Green madness in the UK will take two terms of parliament. The only hope is a Conservative outright win, or Conservative/UKIP coalition - which no one seems to think plausible. If that actually did happen, a backbench revolt driven by power bills and windfarms would soon end this idiocy.
Another Conservative/Liberal coalition means the policies continue because it is literally a religion to the Lib Dims.
A Labour, or Labour/Liberal government means even worse policies, but Cameron would be gone, the Conservatives would abandon the madness in opposition, and easily win the next election.
Down here in OZ the voters have inflicted very serious injuries to the Green Dragon, it just takes time until one of the major parties bails out, after that it is quite soon history.
You may well be right, Bill. Unfortunately for UK residents, their electoral cycle is 5 years, unlike our 3 years. A decade of suffering is a long time to wait, not to mention the damage that can be done over a decade.
I think three years is too short, Johanna. The parties are in almost permanent electioneering mode with virtually every action dictated by how it will influence the next election. At least with four or five years there is a chance that unpopular decisions made early in a government's life will start to bear fruit towards its end.