(*) In one case, Kingsnorth, he changed his mind a month after a luvvie handbagged him, threatening to hand in his OBE if the scheme went ahead. Either it was a coincidence, or that's the sort of weak-willed leader Labour have ...
The scarey thing is you probably believe it.
From Wiki:
In March 2009, while Secretary of State, Miliband attended the UK premiere of climate-change film The Age of Stupid, where he was ambushed by actor Pete Postlethwaite, who threatened to return his OBE and vote for any party other than Labour if the Kingsnorth coal-fired power station was given the go-ahead by the government.[36] A month later, Miliband announced to the House of Commons a change to the government's policy on coal-fired power stations, saying that any potential new coal-fired power stations would be unable to receive government consent unless they could demonstrate that they would be able to effectively capture and bury 25% of the emissions they produce immediately, with a view to seeing that rise to 100% of emissions by 2025. This, a government source told the Guardian, effectively represented "a complete rewrite of UK energy policy for the future".[37]
Several years ago Brown copped a lot of flak, rightly, for announcing something during the Conservative Party conference. During this season parties don't make significant announcements unless it's their conference.
Also, as I said before, fixed prices long predate the Marxist policies of Red Ed, and there is a yawning chasm between a voluntary act and an involuntary one.
''Can't leave it any longer surely, or he will look as if he has been outmaneuvered. If he waits until the conference, it will look weak. ''
You have a point but it very much depends on what the response is. If the response is weak then I agree that Cameron will look very weak.
It will be interesting to see who responds to it. Cameron or Osborne. I assume it would be Cameron as Osborne turns into a big tart and pulls that face of establishment when he is under pressure with questions.
@Polruan - That would all make sense in a normal business and a business which had been investing normally. But power generation is a very, very special case, for the following reasons:
It was one of the biggest failures of the Blair/Brown years that virtually nothing was done about investing in new capacity, despite the fact that there was a triple whammy on the horizon of nuclear stations coming to the end of their lives, coal stations having to close because of EU rules, and a political move towards renewables which meant even clean gas-powered stations were not being built. Basically Labour did nothing on building new capacity to replace the capacity we're losing. That meant that the problem was already very, very urgent in 2010 - the forecasts in 2008/9 were that there was a significant risk of blackouts by around 2014/15.
The economic crisis has given us a bit of a respite, in that consumption is less than previously forecast, but the problem still remains super-urgent. The coalition has also somewhat dragged its feet, which hasn't helped (this is one issue where the LibDems and Conservatives don't naturally see eye to eye). Still, we were getting to the point where some progress could finally be made. It is desperately urgent that we do make progress, but that is now looking very hard. Thanks Ed.
I hope that it is no more. Despite his 'posturing' I, as many know, know he does have other things to occupy his life than just providing our entertainment: I hope that he and his family are well....
Has @Tory Treasury tweeted anything about the Energy Price Fix - If not, why not?
It's made a couple of dozen tweets/retweets, although I'm still not sure if you were being sarcastic. Among them
Tory Treasury @ToryTreasury 25 Sep Ed Ms energy promise unravelling fast. Twigg admits Lab wd "have to address" cap if there's an oil price spike - so Ed wd hv 2 break promise
Tory Treasury @ToryTreasury 25 Sep Credit Suisse Utilities analysts: "the proposals do not appear workable without even more radical reforms (eg nationalisation)"
Edit: I must have misunderstood the point, I think.
Several years ago Brown copped a lot of flak, rightly, for announcing something during the Conservative Party conference. During this season parties don't make significant announcements unless it's their conference.
Also, as I said before, fixed prices long predate the Marxist policies of Red Ed, and there is a yawning chasm between a voluntary act and an involuntary one.
Mr Dance - Did @ToryTreasury not tweet before the speech?
I never thought I'd say this but awful as he who cannot be named is, he is infinitely superior to the second reserves who've being posting about fixed price energy deals for the last hour!
It's rather like watching playtime in one of our less academically strong comprehensives.
Mr. Scrapheap, now you mention that I think I know how the seemingly inexplicable typo happened. Homophonic dyslexia (even a very mild case) would explain confusing the O for an A, despite their significant difference on a keyboard.
@Polruan - That would all make sense in a normal business and a business which had been investing normally. But power generation is a very, very special case, for the following reasons:
It was one of the biggest failures of the Blair/Brown years that virtually nothing was done about investing in new capacity, despite the fact that there was a triple whammy on the horizon of nuclear stations coming to the end of their lives, coal stations having to close because of EU rules, and a political move towards renewables which meant even clean gas-powered stations were not being built. Basically Labour did nothing on building new capacity to replace the capacity we're losing. That meant that the problem was already very, very urgent in 2010 - the forecasts in 2008/9 were that there was a significant risk of blackouts by around 2014/15.
The economic crisis has given us a bit of a respite, in that consumption is less than previously forecast, but the problem still remains super-urgent. The coalition has also somewhat dragged its feet, which hasn't helped (this is one issue where the LibDems and Conservatives don't naturally see eye to eye). Still, we were getting to the point where some progress could finally be made. It is desperately urgent that we do make progress, but that is now looking very hard. Thanks Ed.
The good news is that, should Labour win in 2015, the government might collapse in 2016 if people can't watch Eastenders and Coronation Street for a week! :O
Don't think Ed supplying everyone with a copy of Karl Marx to read by candlelight will cut it...
... The economic crisis has given us a bit of a respite, in that consumption is less than previously forecast, but the problem still remains super-urgent. The coalition has also somewhat dragged its feet, which hasn't helped (this is one issue where the LibDems and Conservatives don't naturally see eye to eye). Still, we were getting to the point where some progress could finally be made. It is desperately urgent that we do make progress, but that is now looking very hard. Thanks Ed.
I'm struggling to follow the logic here, though: it seems that you're saying that it's primarily a government responsibility to ensure that generation capacity is sustained, presumably because it's an area which is difficult to co-ordinate in a wholly free market. Labour didn't take enough action here (i.e. they failed to interfere sufficently in the market). The coalition has failed in the same way, perhaps for different reasons. I'd absolutely agree with all of that though I suspect you and I would disagree on the impact of environmental policies in this area.
However, you then seem to argue that uncertainty about the future revenue levels of energy companies, as a result of government interference, will harm development of future capacity: something that the market, unassisted, has failed on, and for which the blame is laid at the door of successive governments. Surely the right analysis is that the government (whoever wins the next election) is going to have to prioritise generation capacity, correcting past mistakes, and that in that context, how much SSE and friends can charge for 20 months really isn't going to make a whole heap of difference. If government creates conditions in which private capital can earn a return on generation, private capital will turn up to do it. If government doesn't do that, either the state builds capacity, or the lights go out.
Hardcore Trotskyite Antony Nelson, otherwise known as Major's former minister, supporting Miiband's plan. May be the first of many unwelcome interventions for the energy companies. Bad news for them.
How illogical of the energy companies to suggest a blackout if their profits are capped.If there is a blackout they will not be able to charge customers for energy they don't receive.
Brownouts are more likely than blackouts.
Energy companies can only sell energy they have. If they can't generate enough, you'll get brown- or black- outs. If you want them to build more stations, you need to make it profitable for them to do so.
Hmn. 'Make it profitable for them', eh?
Honestly, leaving aside Ed's policy, don't you think this all highlights a horrible flaw in our energy sector? The "market" simply doesn't serve us very well. We need a new structure, public and private working in partnership (part renationalisation / heavier subsidies and regulation if necessary, like the railways).
Energy is one of those awkward natural monopolies where market forces will always fail us miserably.
The alternative might be to encourage more, healthier competition. This seems to be where Labour want to go. But I can't see that working. In fact, it might just encourage even more short-termism, and make matters worse.
Profitability isn't evil. Ideally, the power companies would be taking risks (*) in investing capital, and getting rewards for that risk.
The problem with competition in this market is that the sums are so great. You or I could not start a generating company without massive backing, even if we had the skills. The retail market is easier to enter, although one new entrant said yesterday that Miliband's plan would force him to shut up shop - sadly I cannot remember the name, although it was linked to on here.
This means the generation market is filled with large players, especially wrt baseload. When a plant costs a billion to build, and a planned shutdown can see £100 million spent, it is hard for people to enter the market.
(*) As I've said passim, I'm not certain the power companies are taking enough risk ...
@Polruan - That would all make sense in a normal business and a business which had been investing normally. But power generation is a very, very special case, for the following reasons:
It was one of the biggest failures of the Blair/Brown years that virtually nothing was done about investing in new capacity, despite the fact that there was a triple whammy on the horizon of nuclear stations coming to the end of their lives, coal stations having to close because of EU rules, and a political move towards renewables which meant even clean gas-powered stations were not being built. Basically Labour did nothing on building new capacity to replace the capacity we're losing. That meant that the problem was already very, very urgent in 2010 - the forecasts in 2008/9 were that there was a significant risk of blackouts by around 2014/15.
The economic crisis has given us a bit of a respite, in that consumption is less than previously forecast, but the problem still remains super-urgent. The coalition has also somewhat dragged its feet, which hasn't helped (this is one issue where the LibDems and Conservatives don't naturally see eye to eye). Still, we were getting to the point where some progress could finally be made. It is desperately urgent that we do make progress, but that is now looking very hard. Thanks Ed.
Apart from the last 3 sentences, which are mad, I agree with all of that.
Our energy "market" simply Does. Not. Work. Something pretty radical needs to happen, and soon.
I would think that, even in the absence of supposed government interference, building electricity generation plant was an inherently very risky thing to do, particularly when you compare it with other 30-year investment bets such as PFI.
Anyone investing in a gas power station today is taking a bet on gas supplies in 10-20 years. Maybe we will be able to extract vast quantities of shale gas, but it's still a much more uncertain climate then when North Sea Gas was coming on stream.
It looks as though all the power companies are following the same cautious line of not committing to any particular strategy until the government makes it a safer investment for them by providing various long-term guarantees.
Another thing is that you can't really have a truly free market unless you allow some of the companies in that market to fail. Woolworths can fail and it doesn't make much difference to the retail market - have an electricity generating company go bust and it's a bit more serious.
Indeed. And as we;re all clearly intrigued to find out what the tory response will be, perhaps there's something to be said for consideration before reply.
The dream response for ed would be if dave said, energy market? all very complicated and nothing for you to worry about. Everythings being taken care of by people much cleverer than you voters, so don't give it another thought.
Why? It seems perfectly sensible to suggest a connection. And due to that incredibly bad decision, we lost a very useful plant that would probably be on stream about now.
Indeed. And as we;re all clearly intrigued to find out what the tory response will be, perhaps there's something to be said for consideration before reply.
The dream response for ed would be if dave said, energy market? all very complicated and nothing for you to worry about. Everythings being taken care of by people much cleverer than you voters, so don't give it another thought.
I think we can rule that out.
Also the timing, do they go early and hope it kills of the popularity of the policy, or do they wait for the leaders speech. Either way, will be an interesting set of Sunday polls.
Now then, will @sunpolitics tweet the result again tonight if the polls continue in the same direction or will we need another intervention from Mr Smithson?
Indeed. And as we;re all clearly intrigued to find out what the tory response will be, perhaps there's something to be said for consideration before reply.
The dream response for ed would be if dave said, energy market? all very complicated and nothing for you to worry about. Everythings being taken care of by people much cleverer than you voters, so don't give it another thought.
I think we can rule that out.
It's good that Dave's chancellor would never take an approach like "Bankers' bonuses? Yes, we know they're slightly less popular than syphilis, but trust me, people much cleverer than you voters know they're important so I'm going to court to defend banks' rights to continue to pay them in their present sky-high form".
Why? It seems perfectly sensible to suggest a connection.
I can see why you might think so but in the real world Government energy policy isnt changed in order to placate actors threatening to return their honours. That you think it could be says more about you than anything else.
Indeed. And as we;re all clearly intrigued to find out what the tory response will be, perhaps there's something to be said for consideration before reply.
The dream response for ed would be if dave said, energy market? all very complicated and nothing for you to worry about. Everythings being taken care of by people much cleverer than you voters, so don't give it another thought.
I think we can rule that out.
Also the timing, do they go early and hope it kills of the popularity of the policy, or do they wait for the leaders speech. Either way, will be an interesting set of Sunday polls.
It won't be in the leader's speech. Expect Osborne to have something eye-catching to say about the cost of living in general, and either the energy market - or fuel duty as suggested by antifrank - in particular.
Indeed. And as we;re all clearly intrigued to find out what the tory response will be, perhaps there's something to be said for consideration before reply.
The dream response for ed would be if dave said, energy market? all very complicated and nothing for you to worry about. Everythings being taken care of by people much cleverer than you voters, so don't give it another thought.
I think we can rule that out.
Also the timing, do they go early and hope it kills of the popularity of the policy, or do they wait for the leaders speech. Either way, will be an interesting set of Sunday polls.
It won't be in the leader's speech. Expect Osborne to have something eye-catching to say about the cost of living in general, and either the energy market - or fuel duty as suggested by antifrank - in particular.
Bit risky leaving to Gideon, remember the Omnishambles.
''Also the timing, do they go early and hope it kills of the popularity of the policy, or do they wait for the leaders speech. Either way, will be an interesting set of Sunday polls.''
For the record, I think Ed's very good at identifying voters' beefs (it was he who coined the phrase 'squeezed middle I think). He has no solutions though
His basic policy is to fleece the rich and whatever the merits, it will raise the square root of f8ck all. At which point, faced with desperate finances because of increased spending, he will come after the only people with any money left - the squeezed middle.
He is right the middle is squeezed. But if Ed gets in, it will be throttled.
@Polruan - That would all make sense in a normal business and a business which had been investing normally. But power generation is a very, very special case, for the following reasons:
It was one of the biggest failures of the Blair/Brown years that virtually nothing was done about investing in new capacity, despite the fact that there was a triple whammy on the horizon of nuclear stations coming to the end of their lives, coal stations having to close because of EU rules, and a political move towards renewables which meant even clean gas-powered stations were not being built. Basically Labour did nothing on building new capacity to replace the capacity we're losing. That meant that the problem was already very, very urgent in 2010 - the forecasts in 2008/9 were that there was a significant risk of blackouts by around 2014/15.
The economic crisis has given us a bit of a respite, in that consumption is less than previously forecast, but the problem still remains super-urgent. The coalition has also somewhat dragged its feet, which hasn't helped (this is one issue where the LibDems and Conservatives don't naturally see eye to eye). Still, we were getting to the point where some progress could finally be made. It is desperately urgent that we do make progress, but that is now looking very hard. Thanks Ed.
Our energy "market" simply Does. Not. Work. Something pretty radical needs to happen, and soon.
We have one of the lowest energy costs in the EU and the G7 for both electricity and gas - that seems to be an effective market. Any reasons why you think the energy market in the UK doesn't work?
"In 2008, when there was another serious wave of food scarcity, most people blamed shop owners for hoarding food as a mechanism to exert pressure on the government's price controls, a measure that former president Hugo Chávez adopted as part of his self-styled socialist revolution.
This time, however, food shortages have gone on for almost a year and certain items long gone from the shelves are hitting a particular nerve with Venezuelans. Toilet paper, rice, coffee, and cornflour, used to make arepas, Venezuela's national dish, have become emblematic of more than just an economic crisis....
this recent bout of food shortages is the result of a series of elements coming to a head. From an over-reliance on imports to price controls and, quite simply, a lack of funds, food shortages in Venezuela have not only peaked but they have lasted longer than ever."
Why? It seems perfectly sensible to suggest a connection.
I can see why you might think so but in the real world Government energy policy isnt changed in order to placate actors threatening to return their honours. That you think it could be says more about you than anything else.
What about Lumley's campaign for the Gurkha's, at about the same time? In the end the right decision was reached (i.e. I agreed with the campaign), but do you seriously doubt it would have happened if Lumley had not handbagged Woolas?
A luvvie changed government policy.
I know you're a Green, and therefore coal-fired plants like Kingsnorth are anathema to you, but you'd be really naive not to wonder about a connection.
Besides, the change towards CCS was absolutely, hideously barmy.
@Richard_nabavi: "It was one of the biggest failures of the Blair/Brown years"
The villain will be seen to have been Brown. He'll be vilified by historians for a very long time to come. The belief that he somehow performed wisely in the banking crisis will disappear in the mists. Without Blair though there could have been no Brown.
What we really need is a politician who will be remembered kindly by history. Cameron won't fare too badly based on his role to date. Ed though is shaping up to be a calamity worthy of Barbara Tuchman's commentary. It won't really be his fault though. The left generally believe in what was appropriate in the early twentieth century.
It's noteworthy that even stuck with 100-year-old thinking that Labour can compete.
Now then, will @sunpolitics tweet the result again tonight if the polls continue in the same direction or will we need another intervention from Mr Smithson?
"In 2008, when there was another serious wave of food scarcity, most people blamed shop owners for hoarding food as a mechanism to exert pressure on the government's price controls, a measure that former president Hugo Chávez adopted as part of his self-styled socialist revolution.
This time, however, food shortages have gone on for almost a year and certain items long gone from the shelves are hitting a particular nerve with Venezuelans. Toilet paper, rice, coffee, and cornflour, used to make arepas, Venezuela's national dish, have become emblematic of more than just an economic crisis....
this recent bout of food shortages is the result of a series of elements coming to a head. From an over-reliance on imports to price controls and, quite simply, a lack of funds, food shortages in Venezuela have not only peaked but they have lasted longer than ever."
She did, and I think it'd be hard to find any critics of that change. I don't think it's fair to describe her as a 'luvvie' really though, in much the same way as I don't think it's fair to describe Woolas as a Minister.
To any thinking person it should be clear that the likes of Brown, Woolas, Dennis Murphy, and a whole host of others should be locked up rather than helped in their dotage.
Off topic - feel bloody sorry for Richard Barnes. Must be mortifying and the guy has done nothing wrong.
Public "flashing" is illegal.
You should worry where MILITWUNT will "compute" what is still private and what is public and "WE-OWN-IT:DO-AS-WE-SAY". But anyone, sans an eejit, would know that, no...?
Off topic - feel bloody sorry for Richard Barnes. Must be mortifying and the guy has done nothing wrong.
I'd feel sorry for him, except for the fact he's gone for the 'hacked' defence, which I have little time for. It seems to be becoming a stock excuse for user mistake or incompetence.
I must admit I checked my phone's settings (*) after the story broke. I bet I'm not the only one ...
(*) Galaxy S2, so fairly low-end. God, it's depressing to think that something so powerful could in any way be low-end ...
Off topic - feel bloody sorry for Richard Barnes. Must be mortifying and the guy has done nothing wrong.
I'd feel sorry for him, except for the fact he's gone for the 'hacked' defence, which I have little time for. It seems to be becoming a stock excuse for user mistake or incompetence.
I must admit I checked my phone's settings (*) after the story broke. I bet I'm not the only one ...
(*) Galaxy S2, so fairly low-end. God, it's depressing to think that something so powerful could in any way be low-end ...
Whatever, he probably panicked. I find this sort of stuff insidious, technology catching people out. I'd much rather attack the guy for his politics than for a silly mistake that could happen to anyone.
Off topic - feel bloody sorry for Richard Barnes. Must be mortifying and the guy has done nothing wrong.
Public "flashing" is illegal.
You should worry where MILITWUNT will "compute" what is still private and what is public and "WE-OWN-IT:DO-AS-WE-SAY". But anyone, sans an eejit, would know that, no...?
Is Facebook a public place? I don't think it fits that definition, despite how many people use it.
Off topic - feel bloody sorry for Richard Barnes. Must be mortifying and the guy has done nothing wrong.
I'd feel sorry for him, except for the fact he's gone for the 'hacked' defence, which I have little time for. It seems to be becoming a stock excuse for user mistake or incompetence.
I must admit I checked my phone's settings (*) after the story broke. I bet I'm not the only one ...
(*) Galaxy S2, so fairly low-end. God, it's depressing to think that something so powerful could in any way be low-end ...
Whatever, he probably panicked. I find this sort of stuff insidious, technology catching people out. I'd much rather attack the guy for his politics than for a silly mistake that could happen to anyone.
Could happen to anyone? Do we all take pictures like that? Come on, hands up...
I must admit I checked my phone's settings (*) after the story broke. I bet I'm not the only one ...
Hello...?
Correlation/Causation: The size of a camera is in no to relation to "false-advertisement" or "band-width".* Stupid people are as stupid is: No ifs, no surgery....
What is the point of a "Web-Cam" as it gives naff-pics? What is the point of a 1.4Mp camera on the front of the average Samsung or laptop?** The eight Mb camera may make sense but, - oh God - what is the point of explaining the traps/tribulations of IT to the-wallies-and-tedious. The amount of systems to prevent "attacks" and yet....
IT is complex; difficult and dangerous folks. And yee wonders why yee are mocked....
* Honest point: Why? ** The technology is so old as to be useless. Given an RGB for pixels a CCD offering 1.4 Mp.
Off topic - feel bloody sorry for Richard Barnes. Must be mortifying and the guy has done nothing wrong.
I'd feel sorry for him, except for the fact he's gone for the 'hacked' defence, which I have little time for. It seems to be becoming a stock excuse for user mistake or incompetence.
I must admit I checked my phone's settings (*) after the story broke. I bet I'm not the only one ...
(*) Galaxy S2, so fairly low-end. God, it's depressing to think that something so powerful could in any way be low-end ...
Whatever, he probably panicked. I find this sort of stuff insidious, technology catching people out. I'd much rather attack the guy for his politics than for a silly mistake that could happen to anyone.
Could happen to anyone? Do we all take pictures like that? Come on, hands up...
Off topic - feel bloody sorry for Richard Barnes. Must be mortifying and the guy has done nothing wrong.
Public "flashing" is illegal.
You should worry where MILITWUNT will "compute" what is still private and what is public and "WE-OWN-IT:DO-AS-WE-SAY". But anyone, sans an eejit, would know that, no...?
Is Facebook a public place? I don't think it fits that definition, despite how many people use it.
I believe it depends on whether your profile is set to be viewable by anyone, or restricted to friends. (A similar point has proved fairly important in twitter terms).
why are some people mocking others for asking the whereabouts of tim? he dominates the whole site, posts probably 10-15% of the whole output, and we are not meant to mention it when he doesn't?
if you turned up to a football match and there were no goalposts would you mention it?!
why are some people mocking others for asking the whereabouts of tim? he dominates the whole site, posts probably 10-15% of the whole output, and we are not meant to mention it when he doesn't?
if you turned up to a football match and there were no goalposts would you mention it?!
Surely the right analysis is that the government (whoever wins the next election) is going to have to prioritise generation capacity, correcting past mistakes, and that in that context, how much SSE and friends can charge for 20 months really isn't going to make a whole heap of difference. If government creates conditions in which private capital can earn a return on generation, private capital will turn up to do it. If government doesn't do that, either the state builds capacity, or the lights go out.
Yeah, but we need to get building NOW. We can't afford to lose yet another 20 months till the election plus however long it takes Ed to discover that re-jigging the structure of the market isn't quite as simple as mouthing a few vacuous platitudes about 'being on the side of the consumer' or 'producers vs predators' - i.e. something like yet another 4 years of dithering, and then having the additional problem of persuading investors that you aren't after all going to confiscate any profits and leave them with any losses. Once that regulatory trust has been wrecked, it's going to be hard to recover.
The commentary by analysts at Barclays shows quite how barmy Miliband is:
We see tariff freeze proposals as flawed and having no EPS impact for two reasons: 1) they are likely to breach the EC Electricity/Gas Directives and so could be overturned by judicial review, and also the Government may be forced to use taxpayers’ money to repay utilities for tariff deficits as in Spain/France; 2) the utilities already offer fixed price tariffs and will simply hedge their wholesale price exposure during the tariff freeze, protecting margins and passing on any increases in prices after the freeze lapses.
So it won't actually work to save consumers any money (in fact will cost them more, because the price hedging won't be free), but the uncertainty will still be very damaging on investment:
Regarding generation, Miliband’s sabre rattling is likely to further delay investment decisions in new generation
This is one reason why I wouldn't mind the state building the nuclear reactors, and then attempting to sell them on the open market once they are operational. Maybe I am deluded, but surely that would be quicker than all this wrangling about minimum price tariffs which seems to be delaying everything.`
Off topic - feel bloody sorry for Richard Barnes. Must be mortifying and the guy has done nothing wrong.
I'd feel sorry for him, except for the fact he's gone for the 'hacked' defence, which I have little time for. It seems to be becoming a stock excuse for user mistake or incompetence.
I must admit I checked my phone's settings (*) after the story broke. I bet I'm not the only one ...
(*) Galaxy S2, so fairly low-end. God, it's depressing to think that something so powerful could in any way be low-end ...
Oh, this is the setting where any picture you take is automatically uploaded for all the public to see?
If it makes you feel any better, I'm fairly confident that the Galaxy S2 is at least 12 times more powerful than the supercomputer used by the Met Office at the time of the 1987 storm, and only slightly less powerful than the supercomputers bought for the Met Office shortly afterwards. Less than 25 years to go from a large room-sized behemoth to fitting inside the pockets of millions.
Though the pace of progress is such that the Galaxy S4 is more powerful than the supercomputer the Met Office had up until the year of Blair's election as PM. And they say the new iphone is faster...
I'm struggling to follow the logic here, though: it seems that you're saying that it's primarily a government responsibility to ensure that generation capacity is sustained, presumably because it's an area which is difficult to co-ordinate in a wholly free market. Labour didn't take enough action here (i.e. they failed to interfere sufficently in the market). The coalition has failed in the same way, perhaps for different reasons. I'd absolutely agree with all of that though I suspect you and I would disagree on the impact of environmental policies in this area.
However, you then seem to argue that uncertainty about the future revenue levels of energy companies, as a result of government interference, will harm development of future capacity: something that the market, unassisted, has failed on, and for which the blame is laid at the door of successive governments. Surely the right analysis is that the government (whoever wins the next election) is going to have to prioritise generation capacity, correcting past mistakes, and that in that context, how much SSE and friends can charge for 20 months really isn't going to make a whole heap of difference. If government creates conditions in which private capital can earn a return on generation, private capital will turn up to do it. If government doesn't do that, either the state builds capacity, or the lights go out.
For me the issue is more one of time. While IANAE, there is a need for significant investment in generation capacity in the immediate term. In creating uncertainty, Miliband has greatly reduced the likelihood of investment over the next 2 years: he has basically said "we are going to fix a price" without really giving much in the way of guidance about what they are *actually* going to do. In order to invest, companies need a market price (or a known price) which they can then hedge against and make rational decisions. In moving prices to the political arena Miliband has made this much much harder.
Most likely outcome? A 2-3 year delay to any significant investment in additional energy supply. Something I understand that we can ill afford as a country
This is one reason why I wouldn't mind the state building the nuclear reactors, and then attempting to sell them on the open market once they are operational. Maybe I am deluded, but surely that would be quicker than all this wrangling about minimum price tariffs which seems to be delaying everything.`
The immediate priority is to build gas-powered stations, which can be bought pretty much off the shelf and can be in operation in a fairly short time (from memory, something like 2-3 years). Building a nuclear power station is a much more protracted affair, so won't help with the immediate capacity crisis.
Very pleased to see Lord Rennard is not going to be prosecuted. Though he paints a rather pathetic figure the day a rebuffed sexual advance becomes a criminal offense is the day human relationships cease to exist
The immediate priority is to build gas-powered stations, which can be bought pretty much off the shelf and can be in operation in a fairly short time (from memory, something like 2-3 years). Building a nuclear power station is a much more protracted affair, so won't help with the immediate capacity crisis.
That's true -- maybe gas should be a short term measure while we build a new generation of nuclear plants.
@RobD - I believe there's also a huge capacity constraint in building nuclear power stations, in that the number of suppliers with the necessary expertise and technology is very limited (for example the special steel ultra-high-pressure tanks have to come from Japan). So, even if we went hell for leather on nuclear, and even without any planning delays, it simply wouldn't be possible to come up with a predominantly nuclear solution in a reasonable timescale.
@RobD - I believe there's also a huge capacity constraint in building nuclear power stations, in that the number of suppliers with the necessary expertise and technology is very limited (for example the special steel ultra-high-pressure tanks have to come from Japan). So, even if we went hell for leather on nuclear, and even without any planning delays, it simply wouldn't be possible to come up with a predominantly nuclear solution in a reasonable timescale.
That is a sorry state of affairs given we were the first to connect a commercially viable reactor to the grid.
Very pleased to see Lord Rennard is not going to be prosecuted. Though he paints a rather pathetic figure the day a rebuffed sexual advance becomes a criminal offense is the day human relationships cease to exist
Ah yes, how well we remember your position on this - would you care to repeat it?
My first chance to comment for a few days and as always well done to Robert for keeping the show on the road and the off time to a minimum.
I've been puzzled by the scale and strength of the vitriolic response to Ed Miliband's speech which makes me think that many on the Conservative side think he may have struck a chord with the public.
The recovery of which some on here speak in such effusive terms still hasn't reached many people and another round of well above inflation rises on transport will go down like a lump of cold sick for those whose wages have effectively been frozen for years and whose living standards have declined accordingly.
I also think Miliband has uncovered a key paradox in the perception of service provision - nobody wants the Government to run things like transport or the utilities but at the same time nobody likes the private sector to make huge profits from so doing. The ideal would be for the private sector to provide the service but not to make any money from doing so.
Very pleased to see Lord Rennard is not going to be prosecuted. Though he paints a rather pathetic figure the day a rebuffed sexual advance becomes a criminal offense is the day human relationships cease to exist
Would that make sense with an effort of punctuation? Or a well-handled uplift...?
What are the downsides to a system of the government supplying gas, electricity and water free of charge to all up to an amount deemed necessary to live on, and the free market charging for the excess at any rate they like?
Would encourage poorer people to live within their means and only the careless and extravagant would pay extortionate prices
I've been puzzled by the scale and strength of the vitriolic response to Ed Miliband's speech which makes me think that many on the Conservative side think he may have struck a chord with the public.
And that was another ill-thought, psuedo paragraph from "The Left". Even the great Sid Barrett understood who to compose stanzas!
How can we structural-constructionists build composite-solutions when we have empty vessels making the most noise? A comma here, a colon there: Anything that will allow a breathe; a pause; just any moment to reflect.
Yet I was educated at Forest Hill Boys and the literative-miscreant only went to Dulwich. Maybe I should have taken St Dunstans' offer....
"They realise in their hearts of hearts that it's a major, major blunder and are casting around in the hope of finding scraps of evidence that it might not be such a disaster after all.
It is, of course, a disaster after all."
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.....you have now written endless posts on the cataclysmic effect of Ed's policy of which of course there are none. Your real problem is that you know it's an election winner. The public believe they've been ripped off and the Tories by allying themselves with the companies look like they're behind it
One or two of the more illiterate posters have been suggesting that a reduced share price will mean no more investment in infrastructure as though shareholders are paying for it when you and I know it's the customers. To my almost certain knowledge none of them have called on shareholders capital since privatization and one or two have actually bought shares back.
@RobD - I believe there's also a huge capacity constraint in building nuclear power stations, in that the number of suppliers with the necessary expertise and technology is very limited (for example the special steel ultra-high-pressure tanks have to come from Japan). So, even if we went hell for leather on nuclear, and even without any planning delays, it simply wouldn't be possible to come up with a predominantly nuclear solution in a reasonable timescale.
That is a sorry state of affairs given we were the first to connect a commercially viable reactor to the grid.
The UK Gas Cooled (C02) reactors mainly used concrete as a pressure vessel, its the alternative, and now ubiquitous, light water reactors that use steel pressure vessels, so its less that we lost the capability to manufacture very large pressure vessels and more that we never had it in the first place.
The UK government has been spending a lot of money training people and building nuclear manufacturing facilities over the past few years but the lack of actual build go ahead means that some of these newly trained people are leaving the industry and every year of delay means that the more experienced engineers and scientists who were involved in previous builds have retired. Further regulatory delay is not good for nuclear.
What are the downsides to a system of the government supplying gas, electricity and water free of charge to all up to an amount deemed necessary to live on, and the free market charging for the excess at any rate they like?
Would encourage poorer people to live within their means and only the careless and extravagant would pay extortionate prices
@RobD - I believe there's also a huge capacity constraint in building nuclear power stations, in that the number of suppliers with the necessary expertise and technology is very limited (for example the special steel ultra-high-pressure tanks have to come from Japan). So, even if we went hell for leather on nuclear, and even without any planning delays, it simply wouldn't be possible to come up with a predominantly nuclear solution in a reasonable timescale.
Without wishing to sound like a Brownite, wasn't that the stuff Forgemasters was going to build with its loan ?
@RobD - I believe there's also a huge capacity constraint in building nuclear power stations, in that the number of suppliers with the necessary expertise and technology is very limited (for example the special steel ultra-high-pressure tanks have to come from Japan). So, even if we went hell for leather on nuclear, and even without any planning delays, it simply wouldn't be possible to come up with a predominantly nuclear solution in a reasonable timescale.
Without wishing to sound like a Brownite, wasn't that the stuff Forgemasters was going to build with its loan ?
One or two of the more illiterate posters have been suggesting that a reduced share price will mean no more investment in infrastructure as though shareholders are paying for it when you and I know it's the customers.
:and-breathe:
Wodger,
Please, re-read your posts: Then read them again. And then think: You "can" be more lucid than this....
I'm on NPower's Fixed till April 2014 deal currently. Could consider switching to this one - it has a £30 switchless advantage over the other tarrifs as that is my exit fee and I assume they wouldn't levy it if I stuck with them till 2017 at any rate.
One or two of the more illiterate posters have been suggesting that a reduced share price will mean no more investment in infrastructure as though shareholders are paying for it when you and I know it's the customers. To my almost certain knowledge none of them have called on shareholders capital since privatization and one or two have actually bought shares back.
The utilities have raised huge amounts of capital in the form of bonds, which of course they can do in the relative certainty of a well-regulated market.
Comments
You have a point but it very much depends on what the response is. If the response is weak then I agree that Cameron will look very weak.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ethicallivingblog/2009/mar/16/the-age-of-stupid-renewableenergy
As I said, it might be a coincidence. But the timing does whiff slightly, does it not?
Several years ago Brown copped a lot of flak, rightly, for announcing something during the Conservative Party conference. During this season parties don't make significant announcements unless it's their conference.
Also, as I said before, fixed prices long predate the Marxist policies of Red Ed, and there is a yawning chasm between a voluntary act and an involuntary one.
It was one of the biggest failures of the Blair/Brown years that virtually nothing was done about investing in new capacity, despite the fact that there was a triple whammy on the horizon of nuclear stations coming to the end of their lives, coal stations having to close because of EU rules, and a political move towards renewables which meant even clean gas-powered stations were not being built. Basically Labour did nothing on building new capacity to replace the capacity we're losing. That meant that the problem was already very, very urgent in 2010 - the forecasts in 2008/9 were that there was a significant risk of blackouts by around 2014/15.
The economic crisis has given us a bit of a respite, in that consumption is less than previously forecast, but the problem still remains super-urgent. The coalition has also somewhat dragged its feet, which hasn't helped (this is one issue where the LibDems and Conservatives don't naturally see eye to eye). Still, we were getting to the point where some progress could finally be made. It is desperately urgent that we do make progress, but that is now looking very hard. Thanks Ed.
I hope that it is no more. Despite his 'posturing' I, as many know, know he does have other things to occupy his life than just providing our entertainment: I hope that he and his family are well....
Very interested to see albeit irrelevant in a bigger picture whilst still in conference season.
Tory Treasury @ToryTreasury 25 Sep
Ed Ms energy promise unravelling fast. Twigg admits Lab wd "have to address" cap if there's an oil price spike - so Ed wd hv 2 break promise
Tory Treasury @ToryTreasury 25 Sep
Credit Suisse Utilities analysts: "the proposals do not appear workable without even more radical reforms (eg nationalisation)"
Edit: I must have misunderstood the point, I think.
It's rather like watching playtime in one of our less academically strong comprehensives.
No: Grow-up! Tim exists within "Time". Therefore Skunk-n-Ansiewill wait....
Hi Tim!
Don't think Ed supplying everyone with a copy of Karl Marx to read by candlelight will cut it...
However, you then seem to argue that uncertainty about the future revenue levels of energy companies, as a result of government interference, will harm development of future capacity: something that the market, unassisted, has failed on, and for which the blame is laid at the door of successive governments. Surely the right analysis is that the government (whoever wins the next election) is going to have to prioritise generation capacity, correcting past mistakes, and that in that context, how much SSE and friends can charge for 20 months really isn't going to make a whole heap of difference. If government creates conditions in which private capital can earn a return on generation, private capital will turn up to do it. If government doesn't do that, either the state builds capacity, or the lights go out.
The problem with competition in this market is that the sums are so great. You or I could not start a generating company without massive backing, even if we had the skills. The retail market is easier to enter, although one new entrant said yesterday that Miliband's plan would force him to shut up shop - sadly I cannot remember the name, although it was linked to on here.
This means the generation market is filled with large players, especially wrt baseload. When a plant costs a billion to build, and a planned shutdown can see £100 million spent, it is hard for people to enter the market.
(*) As I've said passim, I'm not certain the power companies are taking enough risk ...
Our energy "market" simply Does. Not. Work. Something pretty radical needs to happen, and soon.
Anyone investing in a gas power station today is taking a bet on gas supplies in 10-20 years. Maybe we will be able to extract vast quantities of shale gas, but it's still a much more uncertain climate then when North Sea Gas was coming on stream.
It looks as though all the power companies are following the same cautious line of not committing to any particular strategy until the government makes it a safer investment for them by providing various long-term guarantees.
Another thing is that you can't really have a truly free market unless you allow some of the companies in that market to fail. Woolworths can fail and it doesn't make much difference to the retail market - have an electricity generating company go bust and it's a bit more serious.
Indeed. And as we;re all clearly intrigued to find out what the tory response will be, perhaps there's something to be said for consideration before reply.
The dream response for ed would be if dave said, energy market? all very complicated and nothing for you to worry about. Everythings being taken care of by people much cleverer than you voters, so don't give it another thought.
I think we can rule that out.
We could call it 'lobbying by luvvies'.
Here is my humble proposal....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24290804
For the record, I think Ed's very good at identifying voters' beefs (it was he who coined the phrase 'squeezed middle I think). He has no solutions though
His basic policy is to fleece the rich and whatever the merits, it will raise the square root of f8ck all.
At which point, faced with desperate finances because of increased spending, he will come after the only people with any money left - the squeezed middle.
He is right the middle is squeezed. But if Ed gets in, it will be throttled.
We have one of the lowest energy costs in the EU and the G7 for both electricity and gas - that seems to be an effective market. Any reasons why you think the energy market in the UK doesn't work?
This time, however, food shortages have gone on for almost a year and certain items long gone from the shelves are hitting a particular nerve with Venezuelans. Toilet paper, rice, coffee, and cornflour, used to make arepas, Venezuela's national dish, have become emblematic of more than just an economic crisis....
this recent bout of food shortages is the result of a series of elements coming to a head. From an over-reliance on imports to price controls and, quite simply, a lack of funds, food shortages in Venezuela have not only peaked but they have lasted longer than ever."
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/sep/26/venezuela-food-shortages-rich-country-cia
Or is it all down to some CIA plot?
RT @GeneralBoles: Hope @MyStephanomics doesn't get Tony Blair in JP Morgan's Secret Santa.....he's very difficult to buy for.
A luvvie changed government policy.
I know you're a Green, and therefore coal-fired plants like Kingsnorth are anathema to you, but you'd be really naive not to wonder about a connection.
Besides, the change towards CCS was absolutely, hideously barmy.
The villain will be seen to have been Brown. He'll be vilified by historians for a very long time to come. The belief that he somehow performed wisely in the banking crisis will disappear in the mists. Without Blair though there could have been no Brown.
What we really need is a politician who will be remembered kindly by history. Cameron won't fare too badly based on his role to date. Ed though is shaping up to be a calamity worthy of Barbara Tuchman's commentary. It won't really be his fault though. The left generally believe in what was appropriate in the early twentieth century.
It's noteworthy that even stuck with 100-year-old thinking that Labour can compete.
IS
FOOHN
FUNNY!
"Venezuela seizes toilet paper factory to avoid shortage"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-24185342
To any thinking person it should be clear that the likes of Brown, Woolas, Dennis Murphy, and a whole host of others should be locked up rather than helped in their dotage.
You should worry where MILITWUNT will "compute" what is still private and what is public and "WE-OWN-IT:DO-AS-WE-SAY". But anyone, sans an eejit, would know that, no...?
I must admit I checked my phone's settings (*) after the story broke. I bet I'm not the only one ...
(*) Galaxy S2, so fairly low-end. God, it's depressing to think that something so powerful could in any way be low-end ...
They are secret admirers surely. All suffering from withdrawl symptons.
Correlation/Causation: The size of a camera is in no to relation to "false-advertisement" or "band-width".* Stupid people are as stupid is: No ifs, no surgery....
What is the point of a "Web-Cam" as it gives naff-pics? What is the point of a 1.4Mp camera on the front of the average Samsung or laptop?** The eight Mb camera may make sense but, - oh God - what is the point of explaining the traps/tribulations of IT to the-wallies-and-tedious. The amount of systems to prevent "attacks" and yet....
IT is complex; difficult and dangerous folks. And yee wonders why yee are mocked....
* Honest point: Why?
** The technology is so old as to be useless. Given an RGB for pixels a CCD offering 1.4 Mp.
I'm more worried that if I venture outside he could now be out there too...
if you turned up to a football match and there were no goalposts would you mention it?!
The commentary by analysts at Barclays shows quite how barmy Miliband is:
We see tariff freeze proposals as flawed and having no EPS impact for two reasons: 1) they are likely to breach the EC Electricity/Gas Directives and so could be overturned by judicial review, and also the Government may be forced to use taxpayers’ money to repay utilities for tariff deficits as in Spain/France; 2) the utilities already offer fixed price tariffs and will simply hedge their wholesale price exposure during the tariff freeze, protecting margins and passing on any increases in prices after the freeze lapses.
So it won't actually work to save consumers any money (in fact will cost them more, because the price hedging won't be free), but the uncertainty will still be very damaging on investment:
Regarding generation, Miliband’s sabre rattling is likely to further delay investment decisions in new generation
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/marketslive/2013-09-25/
If it makes you feel any better, I'm fairly confident that the Galaxy S2 is at least 12 times more powerful than the supercomputer used by the Met Office at the time of the 1987 storm, and only slightly less powerful than the supercomputers bought for the Met Office shortly afterwards. Less than 25 years to go from a large room-sized behemoth to fitting inside the pockets of millions.
Though the pace of progress is such that the Galaxy S4 is more powerful than the supercomputer the Met Office had up until the year of Blair's election as PM. And they say the new iphone is faster...
Most likely outcome? A 2-3 year delay to any significant investment in additional energy supply. Something I understand that we can ill afford as a country
At his best he's one of the best and brightest on here.
That he attracted so many parasites speaks for itself
My first chance to comment for a few days and as always well done to Robert for keeping the show on the road and the off time to a minimum.
I've been puzzled by the scale and strength of the vitriolic response to Ed Miliband's speech which makes me think that many on the Conservative side think he may have struck a chord with the public.
The recovery of which some on here speak in such effusive terms still hasn't reached many people and another round of well above inflation rises on transport will go down like a lump of cold sick for those whose wages have effectively been frozen for years and whose living standards have declined accordingly.
I also think Miliband has uncovered a key paradox in the perception of service provision - nobody wants the Government to run things like transport or the utilities but at the same time nobody likes the private sector to make huge profits from so doing. The ideal would be for the private sector to provide the service but not to make any money from doing so.
Would encourage poorer people to live within their means and only the careless and extravagant would pay extortionate prices
How can we structural-constructionists build composite-solutions when we have empty vessels making the most noise? A comma here, a colon there: Anything that will allow a breathe; a pause; just any moment to reflect.
Yet I was educated at Forest Hill Boys and the literative-miscreant only went to Dulwich. Maybe I should have taken St Dunstans' offer....
"They realise in their hearts of hearts that it's a major, major blunder and are casting around in the hope of finding scraps of evidence that it might not be such a disaster after all.
It is, of course, a disaster after all."
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.....you have now written endless posts on the cataclysmic effect of Ed's policy of which of course there are none. Your real problem is that you know it's an election winner. The public believe they've been ripped off and the Tories by allying themselves with the companies look like they're behind it
One or two of the more illiterate posters have been suggesting that a reduced share price will mean no more investment in infrastructure as though shareholders are paying for it when you and I know it's the customers. To my almost certain knowledge none of them have called on shareholders capital since privatization and one or two have actually bought shares back.
The leader of the Kenyan mall attackers was a former Kenyan Special Forces member.
The UK Gas Cooled (C02) reactors mainly used concrete as a pressure vessel, its the alternative, and now ubiquitous, light water reactors that use steel pressure vessels, so its less that we lost the capability to manufacture very large pressure vessels and more that we never had it in the first place.
The UK government has been spending a lot of money training people and building nuclear manufacturing facilities over the past few years but the lack of actual build go ahead means that some of these newly trained people are leaving the industry and every year of delay means that the more experienced engineers and scientists who were involved in previous builds have retired. Further regulatory delay is not good for nuclear.
http://www.npower.com/home/index.htm
Wodger,
Please, re-read your posts: Then read them again. And then think: You "can" be more lucid than this....