I'm a bit surprised to see that UKIP was only in 3rd place in Thurrock ... but then again, 29% is usually good enough for 2nd place anyway. I met Malcolm Rifkind a few hours ago.
John, what was your impression of Malcolm Rifkind when you met him? I found it a bit sad, but not surprising that that your conversion from the Loony Party to the Conservative party was totally ignored on PB. And yet, Sean Fear's very belated conversion to UKIP warranted an announcement from him on PB.com, and of course an article from Mike Smithson. To be honest, your conversion from the Loony party to Conservatism was a far bigger step than Sean Fear's move to UKIP.
I'm a bit surprised to see that UKIP was only in 3rd place in Thurrock ... but then again, 29% is usually good enough for 2nd place anyway. I met Malcolm Rifkind a few hours ago.
Never seen this before.... Can you see Ed Miliband being this enthusiastic a salesman for the UK, or can you see him more as a negative doom laden domestic consumer watch dog? David Cameron and Barack Obama enjoy 'fast and furious' basket... - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09zL0Sz1IMg
Never seen this before.... Can you see Ed Miliband being this enthusiastic a salesman for the UK, or can you see him more as a negative doom laden domestic consumer watch dog? David Cameron and Barack Obama enjoy 'fast and furious' basket... - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09zL0Sz1IMg
So can you direct me to Ed Miliband naturally talking sports with Obama on TV, and then immediately moving into UK salesman pitch for the UK economy?
Can you imagine Mrs. Thatcher chatting about sports? Clearly Ed is not the best of media performers but so what? I imagine its easier to act the statesmen when you're in office, no doubt he could come up with some pro-Britain stuff when required.
I did not see Cameron making a salesman pitch for the UK economy in the clip. I saw him responding to a question from the interviewer about the Olympic games and encouraging people to come and see them.
It would be surprising if he had urged people to stay away.
Never seen this before.... Can you see Ed Miliband being this enthusiastic a salesman for the UK, or can you see him more as a negative doom laden domestic consumer watch dog? David Cameron and Barack Obama enjoy 'fast and furious' basket... - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09zL0Sz1IMg
Ed Miliband managed to make a speech on energy prices as LotO which immediately saw one of our major energy companies stock price fall like a stone in the aftermath. Not an indicator which bodes well for future investment, or his skills as a natural salesman for UKplc. Classic Thatcher on BA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78CqcbwFeBA
So can you direct me to Ed Miliband naturally talking sports with Obama on TV, and then immediately moving into UK salesman pitch for the UK economy?
Can you imagine Mrs. Thatcher chatting about sports? Clearly Ed is not the best of media performers but so what? I imagine its easier to act the statesmen when you're in office, no doubt he could come up with some pro-Britain stuff when required.
Ed Miliband managed to make a speech on energy prices as LotO which immediately saw one of our major energy companies stock price fall like a stone in the aftermath. Not an indicator which bodes well for future investment, or his skills as a natural salesman for UKplc.
perhaps in Ed's estimation, the stock prices of Centrica and SSE are not always aligned with the interests of the UK as a whole. (rather than the plc part of it)
but that's to move on from the "Ed is crap" trope to the "Ed is a dangerous socialist" one.
I'm disappointed that tim hasn't responded to the jibes at Miliband being "a consumer champion rather than a potential PM", with mention of the chocolate orange episode.
Clearly he is a bit under the weather and off his game. Go back to bed tim and get well soon.
We'll be being told soon that it's unpatriotic and left wing to criticise the Chinese Communist Party who Osborne wants to own the British nuclear power industry
heartily wish someone had the balls to cancel the trident replacement and spend the money on nuclear/renewable energy. swords into ploughshares and all that
Ed Miliband managed to make a speech on energy prices as LotO which immediately saw one of our major energy companies stock price fall like a stone in the aftermath. Not an indicator which bodes well for future investment, or his skills as a natural salesman for UKplc.
perhaps in Ed's estimation, the stock prices of Centrica and SSE are not always aligned with the interests of the UK as a whole. (rather than the plc part of it)
but that's to move on from the "Ed is crap" trope to the "Ed is a dangerous socialist" one.
We'll be being told soon that it's unpatriotic and left wing to criticise the Chinese Communist Party who Osborne wants to own the British nuclear power industry
John, what was your impression of Malcolm Rifkind when you met him? I found it a bit sad, but not surprising that that your conversion from the Loony Party to the Conservative party was totally ignored on PB. And yet, Sean Fear's very belated conversion to UKIP warranted an announcement from him on PB.com, and of course an article from Mike Smithson. To be honest, your conversion from the Loony party to Conservatism was a far bigger step than Sean Fear's move to UKIP.
I'm a bit surprised to see that UKIP was only in 3rd place in Thurrock ... but then again, 29% is usually good enough for 2nd place anyway. I met Malcolm Rifkind a few hours ago.
I've met Rifkind a couple of times, plus he was my MP for many years.
In company, he is quite pleasant, clubbie even but that tends to hide a massive intellect and very sharp mind. I've watched him on the front bench give a very good important speech and then knock back questions from all sides with humour, politeness and a razor sharp stiletto to the questioner's dangly bitties. All with out written notes.
Unfortunately, the feud in the Scottish Office with Michael Forsyth damaged the reputation of both in Scotland and ultimately the Scottish Tories.
I'm glad that he got back in to Westminster but if he was still in Scotland, he would have been brilliant in the present debate because he would have taken our beloved FM to pieces when ever some interesting policy announcement issued forth from the scribblings on the back of the curry carry oot lid.
Wee-Timmy has a new Chinese meme. Shame he forgets Lord Taffy Prescott's "business-trips" to Chinkie-land. What about Gormless McBruin's "aid-for-trade" missions? Still senility is something we all can look forward to; our Tim sooner than others....
I am intrigued by the notion frequently expounded on here that it's the politicians' job to keep the share prices of energy companies as high as possible. More competitive markets, with more companies looking for customers would surely be good for consumers, ie us, while simultaneously challenging the current market incumbents - something that would inevitably put an initial downward pressure on stock movements.
Just heard a report on Sky regarding the armed forces. An obviously upset Lt Col says foreign officers are in control of British forces, Russian, etc then " Even French" LOL
I'm disappointed that tim hasn't responded to the jibes at Miliband being "a consumer champion rather than a potential PM", with mention of the chocolate orange episode.
Clearly he is a bit under the weather and off his game. Go back to bed tim and get well soon.
Here's the answer
Yougov
Is your leader in touch with ordinary people?
.
Nothing about that question strikes you as at all loaded, then, Tim-nice-but-dim?
I am intrigued by the notion frequently expounded on here that it's the politicians' job to keep the share prices of energy companies as high as possible. More competitive markets, with more companies looking for customers would surely be good for consumers, ie us, while simultaneously challenging the current market incumbents - something that would inevitably put an initial downward pressure on stock movements.
Except we desperately need investment in the hardware of energy production. Depressed share prices hardly help them invest.
Still, few (if any) Labour supporters on here have managed to grasp why we need that investment, or the stunning amounts of cash required.
Fitalass does seem to be developing some interesting ideas. Politicians should not champion the needs of consumers (that's voters, of course), but instead should focus on the needs of those who deliver the services. It's a fascinating notion, but may need a little more work.
Fitalass does seem to be developing some interesting ideas. Politicians should not champion the needs of consumers (that's voters, of course), but instead should focus on the needs of those who deliver the services. It's a fascinating notion, but may need a little more work.
You mean a bit like Labour being more interested in the NHS as an institution, rather than the patients?
Besides, the problem is we need massive amounts of immediate investment into our energy infrastructure. Labour have yet to outline how they'd do that, and how the price cap would help (or more importantly, hinders now).
I have kept my SSE shares. I think them a good longterm bet. Ed will need to protect their profit margin in order to maintain investment levels, by some sort of deal so that the price fix is not quite what the headlines say. The policy is one of smoke and mirrors rather than a real attempt to deal with fuel poverty. An electoral gimmick. If will keep out new competitors from getting established, and as a well run company SSE remains a good bet. Indeed I am considering topping up my holding during the current dip.
I am intrigued by the notion frequently expounded on here that it's the politicians' job to keep the share prices of energy companies as high as possible. More competitive markets, with more companies looking for customers would surely be good for consumers, ie us, while simultaneously challenging the current market incumbents - something that would inevitably put an initial downward pressure on stock movements.
Except we desperately need investment in the hardware of energy production. Depressed share prices hardly help them invest.
Still, few (if any) Labour supporters on here have managed to grasp why we need that investment, or the stunning amounts of cash required.
Sadly, neither did (or does) Miliband.
I think we all understand that the investment is needed. I think some of us are a little more sanguine as to whether it will end up happening. A price freeze for 20 months followed by a reorganisation of the market is not going to reduce the long term attraction of operating in one of the world's richest economies and one whose population is set to grow. Bluster and threats are par for the course; but the profit motive will override all of that.
In the short term, there is possibly (hopefully) more good polling news to come for the Tories (depending on how Labour's messaging is playing out), but the 35% both parties got are probably at or near the peak for the Conservatives (because of Ukip) and at or near the nadir for Labour (because of LD2010 voters).
I'm disappointed that tim hasn't responded to the jibes at Miliband being "a consumer champion rather than a potential PM", with mention of the chocolate orange episode.
Clearly he is a bit under the weather and off his game. Go back to bed tim and get well soon.
Here's the answer
Yougov
Is your leader in touch with ordinary people?
.
Nothing about that question strikes you as at all loaded, then, Tim-nice-but-dim?
Yes start. Apparently talks with the greens have now irrevocably broken down. I find it odd how leisurely this all is. It makes the talks that created the Coalition here look like they were on speed.
Governments are less important than we think but I do not like the idea of the country drifting along without a clear majority in the HoC for extended periods. Unfortunately, given the ever higher probability of a hung Parliament we may well see this here. If Labour are the largest party it will be even messier.
I am intrigued by the notion frequently expounded on here that it's the politicians' job to keep the share prices of energy companies as high as possible. More competitive markets, with more companies looking for customers would surely be good for consumers, ie us, while simultaneously challenging the current market incumbents - something that would inevitably put an initial downward pressure on stock movements.
Except we desperately need investment in the hardware of energy production. Depressed share prices hardly help them invest.
Still, few (if any) Labour supporters on here have managed to grasp why we need that investment, or the stunning amounts of cash required.
Sadly, neither did (or does) Miliband.
I think we all understand that the investment is needed. I think some of us are a little more sanguine as to whether it will end up happening. A price freeze for 20 months followed by a reorganisation of the market is not going to reduce the long term attraction of operating in one of the world's richest economies and one whose population is set to grow. Bluster and threats are par for the course; but the profit motive will override all of that.
What profits will there be if the wholesale gas price increases during the cap? Answer: possibly none. And that uncertainty can kill investment. So whilst you *think* people understand investment is needed, you have f'all idea about how to get that investment.
Labour have yet to answer how energy prices can be meaningfully reduced if the price of the raw materials - mainly gas - continues to rise, and is out of their control.
Miliband's Canute trying to hold back the tide. Yet unlike Canute, he actually thinks he can do it.
And investment's much harder after Miliband decided any new coal-fired stations have to have CCS, a terribly untried and expensive technology at this scale. And now Germany's building new coal-fired stations without CCS...
Fitalass does seem to be developing some interesting ideas. Politicians should not champion the needs of consumers (that's voters, of course), but instead should focus on the needs of those who deliver the services. It's a fascinating notion, but may need a little more work.
You mean a bit like Labour being more interested in the NHS as an institution, rather than the patients?
Besides, the problem is we need massive amounts of immediate investment into our energy infrastructure. Labour have yet to outline how they'd do that, and how the price cap would help (or more importantly, hinders now).
Well, indeed. It's strange that Fitalass should advocate something she no doubt consistently criticises Labour for doing.
As for the price freeze, it will have little or no effect on investment decisions, though of course there will be squealing; there always is from entrenched vested interests when something happens they don't like. But for the private sector the profit motive conquers all and the UK is a great long-term market to be in.
@Milly 6:36 Interesting stuff Millsy. Sticking your neck out a little at the end. "So I wouldn't be surprised if we get Tory leads with Ipsos Mori for the rest of the year, unless Miliband's conference success is sustained nationally and filters through quickly. "
Broadly I agree. EdM has improved. He may nonetheless be unable to improve enough.
I am intrigued by the notion frequently expounded on here that it's the politicians' job to keep the share prices of energy companies as high as possible. More competitive markets, with more companies looking for customers would surely be good for consumers, ie us, while simultaneously challenging the current market incumbents - something that would inevitably put an initial downward pressure on stock movements.
Except we desperately need investment in the hardware of energy production. Depressed share prices hardly help them invest.
Still, few (if any) Labour supporters on here have managed to grasp why we need that investment, or the stunning amounts of cash required.
Sadly, neither did (or does) Miliband.
I think we all understand that the investment is needed. I think some of us are a little more sanguine as to whether it will end up happening. A price freeze for 20 months followed by a reorganisation of the market is not going to reduce the long term attraction of operating in one of the world's richest economies and one whose population is set to grow. Bluster and threats are par for the course; but the profit motive will override all of that.
What profits will there be if the wholesale gas price increases during the cap? Answer: possibly none. And that uncertainty can kill investment. So whilst you *think* people understand investment is needed, you have f'all idea about how to get that investment.
Labour have yet to answer how energy prices can be meaningfully reduced if the price of the raw materials - mainly gas - continues to rise, and is out of their control.
Miliband's Canute trying to hold back the tide. Yet unlike Canute, he actually thinks he can do it.
And investment's much harder after Miliband decided any new coal-fired stations have to have CCS, a terribly untried and expensive technology at this scale. And now Germany's building new coal-fired stations without CCS...
There may be less profit for a temporary period. It happens. Companies that abandon investment plans on the basis of temporary pricing movements are never going to invest in the first place. The energy companies are not in it for the short term.
Since the UK produces ~0.2% of global CO2 (92% of which is entirely natural), whether we generate 100% of our electricity from coal or 100% from 'renewables' will not make one tiny iota of difference to global CO2 levels - and so, whether AGW is 100% right or 100% wrong, whatever the UK won't affect anyone's climate.
At all. Ever.
Which is rather hard for a scientifically-illiterate, egotistical political and Civil Service management class to accept (the UK does not matter) & the clear solution to our current energy needs (nationally and individually) is to declare that any suggestion of 'decarbonisation' is utter insanity; that new technologies must compete on price, not on subsidy; that 2050 'legally-binding requirements' are impossible as a legal concept, let alone as something we should seek to do, and so...
We're going to do what's best for the UK, best for UK industry, best for UK consumers and best for US, and everyone else on the planet who seeks to dictate what we do can get stuffed.
Re-open as many coal-fired stations as we can (coal is dirt cheap now); frack for all we're worth, using it to generate power from (say) 2020-2050+ and invest wisely in new nuclear technologies with a view to using that as our main generating capacity from (say) 2050.
There's no reason, either, why we should not set out to open one new nuclear station per year for the next 30 years (the first opening in 2020 at the latest) so hat we have 2 nuclear stations on every existing nuclear site and export the surplus power to Europe/Eire.
I am intrigued by the notion frequently expounded on here that it's the politicians' job to keep the share prices of energy companies as high as possible. More competitive markets, with more companies looking for customers would surely be good for consumers, ie us, while simultaneously challenging the current market incumbents - something that would inevitably put an initial downward pressure on stock movements.
Except we desperately need investment in the hardware of energy production. Depressed share prices hardly help them invest.
Still, few (if any) Labour supporters on here have managed to grasp why we need that investment, or the stunning amounts of cash required.
Sadly, neither did (or does) Miliband.
A price freeze for 20 months followed by a reorganisation of the market
Which companies will be best equipped to withstand a 20 month price freeze, the 6 current majors or the smaller start ups? Some of the latter have gone on the record as saying they will exit the market in the event of a 20 month price freeze. How, exactly, is this 'reorganisation' to be brought about? The '20 month freeze' may indeed produce a reorganisation - but not one that will benefit the consumer.....
Nice YouGov, but remember it's actually effectively the same as MORI's 5-point lead (taking out their "I am certain I will vote 18 months from now" filter). There's a modest Labour poll lead based on a very stable Labour share and the Tory-UKIP axis moving up and down. We've yet to see a poll for months that seriously contradicts that, apart from conference fluctuations.
"Except we desperately need investment in the hardware of energy production. Depressed share prices hardly help them invest."
How exactly does a depressed share price stop an energy company investing?
I'll leave that statement as a symbol of Labour's problem.
You just don't get it.
It's about financing of the debt needed to pay for an investment, and confidence that debt will be repaid. Basically, a high share price is an indication of a healthy company. And lenders are likely to lend at more competitive rates to a healthy (i.e. less risky) company. If the rates are too high, the investment does not go ahead, as the burden of servicing the interest on the debt is too great.
nother main role of the stock market is to act as a barometer for financial health. Analysts are constantly scrutinizing companies and this information affects the companies' traded securities. Because of this, creditors tend to look favorably upon companies whose shares are performing strongly. This preferential treatment is in part due to the tie between a company's earnings and its share price. Over the long term, strong earnings are a good indication that the company will be able to meet debt requirements. As a result, the company will receive cheaper financing through a lower interest rate, which in turn increases the amount of value returned from a capital project.
I think we all understand that the investment is needed. I think some of us are a little more sanguine as to whether it will end up happening. A price freeze for 20 months followed by a reorganisation of the market is not going to reduce the long term attraction of operating in one of the world's richest economies and one whose population is set to grow. Bluster and threats are par for the course; but the profit motive will override all of that.
What profits will there be if the wholesale gas price increases during the cap? Answer: possibly none. And that uncertainty can kill investment. So whilst you *think* people understand investment is needed, you have f'all idea about how to get that investment.
Labour have yet to answer how energy prices can be meaningfully reduced if the price of the raw materials - mainly gas - continues to rise, and is out of their control.
Miliband's Canute trying to hold back the tide. Yet unlike Canute, he actually thinks he can do it.
And investment's much harder after Miliband decided any new coal-fired stations have to have CCS, a terribly untried and expensive technology at this scale. And now Germany's building new coal-fired stations without CCS...
There may be less profit for a temporary period. It happens. Companies that abandon investment plans on the basis of temporary pricing movements are never going to invest in the first place. The energy companies are not in it for the short term.
There may be *no* profit if (when?) the gas price increases. No-one can know, even Miliband. The energy companies headline profit figures may be large (although only akin to Tescos), but the actual margins are not that large, percentagewise. There is not a massive amount of fat to trim.
But it's worse than that. Miliband's madness has placed further insecurity into the energy market. If he does it once and it proves to be a vote winner, how do the markets know he won't do it again in the future? Why wouldn't they just pi** off to the countries that do not introduce such dangerous harebrained schemes?
Since the UK produces ~0.2% of global CO2 (92% of which is entirely natural), whether we generate 100% of our electricity from coal or 100% from 'renewables' will not make one tiny iota of difference to global CO2 levels - and so, whether AGW is 100% right or 100% wrong, whatever the UK won't affect anyone's climate.
At all. Ever.
Which is rather hard for a scientifically-illiterate, egotistical political and Civil Service management class to accept (the UK does not matter) & the clear solution to our current energy needs (nationally and individually) is to declare that any suggestion of 'decarbonisation' is utter insanity; that new technologies must compete on price, not on subsidy; that 2050 'legally-binding requirements' are impossible as a legal concept, let alone as something we should seek to do, and so...
We're going to do what's best for the UK, best for UK industry, best for UK consumers and best for US, and everyone else on the planet who seeks to dictate what we do can get stuffed.
Re-open as many coal-fired stations as we can (coal is dirt cheap now); frack for all we're worth, using it to generate power from (say) 2020-2050+ and invest wisely in new nuclear technologies with a view to using that as our main generating capacity from (say) 2050.
There's no reason, either, why we should not set out to open one new nuclear station per year for the next 30 years (the first opening in 2020 at the latest) so hat we have 2 nuclear stations on every existing nuclear site and export the surplus power to Europe/Eire.
Like, Like Like :-)
I'd also add, divert some of the money into practical fusion research not ITER etc.
Nothing about that question strikes you as at all loaded, then, Tim-nice-but-dim?
Can't speak for tim, but (a) it's depressing that you can't make a point without a sneer and (b) no, the question doesn't look loaded to me. I think it's actually a paraphrase, though - IIRC the question is "Which of these do you think is true about ... [each name in turn]" and then a list of qualities, of which one is "In touch with ordinary people". There isn't really any dispute that Cameron scores low on that, though he does better on some others.
To be fair, I suspect that, just as it's hard for leaders of the opposition to score highly on "Looks like a prime minister", it's hard for PMs to score highly on this.
Miliband and Labour generally do not seem to get markets, at least since Tony Blair and Mandy left the scene. Every time they announce a policy like the energy price freeze or yesterday's bizarre idea of special tax rates for pay day lenders (who do they think is going to pay this extra tax by the way? Chuck another couple of hundred per cent on the barbie, the poor can wear it) they increase the risk of investing in that market in the UK.
SO may well be right that the UK energy market is so attractive long term that a short term freeze may not make that much difference but what potential investors see is a market in which the profits are not particularly notable, the rates charged for energy are rigged by a political class that does not want to take responsibility for their actions and where the risk of changes in international prices is being dumped on the suppliers because it is populist.
If we had lots of spare capacity we could be saying tough to all this and it might even be right to seek to reduce the rate of return that capacity. Unfortunately we are not. Due to the dithering of the last government and frankly the 2 Secretaries of State for energy in this one we have a pressing need for new capacity. This really is not the time to be raising extra questions about the attractiveness of our market.
It says something when it is once again Osborne who has sought to break the log jam by which we were being held to ransom by EDF in respect of nuclear. The French seem to have overplayed their hand. Oh well.
Comments
I met Malcolm Rifkind a few hours ago.
He'd have no problems talking about American sports on US TV because he follows them and understands their arcane rules.
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/01/ed-miliband-american-football/
It would be surprising if he had urged people to stay away.
Classic Thatcher on BA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78CqcbwFeBA
but that's to move on from the "Ed is crap" trope to the "Ed is a dangerous socialist" one.
Clearly he is a bit under the weather and off his game. Go back to bed tim and get well soon.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/0qnl9hlweu/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-171013.pdf
"BRITS WELCOME CHINESE WITH OPEN ARMS"
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/17/china-most-important-trade-partner/
In company, he is quite pleasant, clubbie even but that tends to hide a massive intellect and very sharp mind. I've watched him on the front bench give a very good important speech and then knock back questions from all sides with humour, politeness and a razor sharp stiletto to the questioner's dangly bitties. All with out written notes.
Unfortunately, the feud in the Scottish Office with Michael Forsyth damaged the reputation of both in Scotland and ultimately the Scottish Tories.
I'm glad that he got back in to Westminster but if he was still in Scotland, he would have been brilliant in the present debate because he would have taken our beloved FM to pieces when ever some interesting policy announcement issued forth from the scribblings on the back of the curry carry oot lid.
2 hours 2 minutes
"To be honest, your conversion from the Loony party to Conservatism was a far bigger step than Sean Fear's move to UKIP."
I'd say Monster Raving Loony to Tory is hardly a step at all
Just heard a report on Sky regarding the armed forces. An obviously upset Lt Col says foreign officers are in control of British forces, Russian, etc then " Even French" LOL
"Just heard a report on Sky regarding the armed forces. An obviously upset Lt Col says foreign officers are in control of British forces............"
Has Dave sold the army to China?
Andrea 3 : 2 Mark Senior
Levens ........ Chichester
Neath .......... Thurrock
Luton ........
Still, few (if any) Labour supporters on here have managed to grasp why we need that investment, or the stunning amounts of cash required.
Sadly, neither did (or does) Miliband.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2013/10/from-adrian_hilton-the-scandalous-story-of-sussex-polices-harrassment-of-timloughton.html
Besides, the problem is we need massive amounts of immediate investment into our energy infrastructure. Labour have yet to outline how they'd do that, and how the price cap would help (or more importantly, hinders now).
https://twitter.com/_Millsy/status/391079872807706624
In the short term, there is possibly (hopefully) more good polling news to come for the Tories (depending on how Labour's messaging is playing out), but the 35% both parties got are probably at or near the peak for the Conservatives (because of Ukip) and at or near the nadir for Labour (because of LD2010 voters).
Yes start. Apparently talks with the greens have now irrevocably broken down. I find it odd how leisurely this all is. It makes the talks that created the Coalition here look like they were on speed.
Governments are less important than we think but I do not like the idea of the country drifting along without a clear majority in the HoC for extended periods. Unfortunately, given the ever higher probability of a hung Parliament we may well see this here. If Labour are the largest party it will be even messier.
"Except we desperately need investment in the hardware of energy production. Depressed share prices hardly help them invest."
How exactly does a depressed share price stop an energy company investing?
Labour have yet to answer how energy prices can be meaningfully reduced if the price of the raw materials - mainly gas - continues to rise, and is out of their control.
Miliband's Canute trying to hold back the tide. Yet unlike Canute, he actually thinks he can do it.
And investment's much harder after Miliband decided any new coal-fired stations have to have CCS, a terribly untried and expensive technology at this scale. And now Germany's building new coal-fired stations without CCS...
As for the price freeze, it will have little or no effect on investment decisions, though of course there will be squealing; there always is from entrenched vested interests when something happens they don't like. But for the private sector the profit motive conquers all and the UK is a great long-term market to be in.
"Nothing about that question strikes you as at all loaded, then, Tim-nice-but-dim?"
Give us a clue
Interesting stuff Millsy.
Sticking your neck out a little at the end.
"So I wouldn't be surprised if we get Tory leads with Ipsos Mori for the rest of the year, unless Miliband's conference success is sustained nationally and filters through quickly. "
Broadly I agree.
EdM has improved. He may nonetheless be unable to improve enough.
At all. Ever.
Which is rather hard for a scientifically-illiterate, egotistical political and Civil Service management class to accept (the UK does not matter) & the clear solution to our current energy needs (nationally and individually) is to declare that any suggestion of 'decarbonisation' is utter insanity; that new technologies must compete on price, not on subsidy; that 2050 'legally-binding requirements' are impossible as a legal concept, let alone as something we should seek to do, and so...
We're going to do what's best for the UK, best for UK industry, best for UK consumers and best for US, and everyone else on the planet who seeks to dictate what we do can get stuffed.
Re-open as many coal-fired stations as we can (coal is dirt cheap now); frack for all we're worth, using it to generate power from (say) 2020-2050+ and invest wisely in new nuclear technologies with a view to using that as our main generating capacity from (say) 2050.
There's no reason, either, why we should not set out to open one new nuclear station per year for the next 30 years (the first opening in 2020 at the latest) so hat we have 2 nuclear stations on every existing nuclear site and export the surplus power to Europe/Eire.
You just don't get it.
It's about financing of the debt needed to pay for an investment, and confidence that debt will be repaid. Basically, a high share price is an indication of a healthy company. And lenders are likely to lend at more competitive rates to a healthy (i.e. less risky) company. If the rates are too high, the investment does not go ahead, as the burden of servicing the interest on the debt is too great.
From http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/03/020703.asp:
But it's worse than that. Miliband's madness has placed further insecurity into the energy market. If he does it once and it proves to be a vote winner, how do the markets know he won't do it again in the future? Why wouldn't they just pi** off to the countries that do not introduce such dangerous harebrained schemes?
I'd also add, divert some of the money into practical fusion research not ITER etc.
To be fair, I suspect that, just as it's hard for leaders of the opposition to score highly on "Looks like a prime minister", it's hard for PMs to score highly on this.
1 hour 1 minute 1 second
SO may well be right that the UK energy market is so attractive long term that a short term freeze may not make that much difference but what potential investors see is a market in which the profits are not particularly notable, the rates charged for energy are rigged by a political class that does not want to take responsibility for their actions and where the risk of changes in international prices is being dumped on the suppliers because it is populist.
If we had lots of spare capacity we could be saying tough to all this and it might even be right to seek to reduce the rate of return that capacity. Unfortunately we are not. Due to the dithering of the last government and frankly the 2 Secretaries of State for energy in this one we have a pressing need for new capacity. This really is not the time to be raising extra questions about the attractiveness of our market.
It says something when it is once again Osborne who has sought to break the log jam by which we were being held to ransom by EDF in respect of nuclear. The French seem to have overplayed their hand. Oh well.
http://edinburghflipside.com/badgers-to-cull-britains-tories/