Ed Davey's cold feet on fracking shows the lib dems are quite happy to make energy as expensive as possible for as many people as possible.
GE 2015: Vote LD - for a steep INCREASE in your fuel bills Vote Labour for a (short-term) FREEZE in your fuel bills Vote Conservative for a 'dunno what we're doing' approach to your fuel bills Vote UKIP for an end to fake 'Greenery' and an immediate CUT in your fuel bills!
Good luck to the LDs in selling 100% higher fuel costs now = happier polar bears (in 2060)
So which is it, is China so unstable that we need nuclear weapons to protect ourselves against that instability, Cameron's view.
Or so stable that we can sign 35 year high price nuclear energy deals with the current regime, Osbornes view.
Both, why not?
You seem to think that in the event of catastrophic political turmoil in China that they'd come here and carry the nuclear power station away from Hinkley and back to China.
I doubt the LibDems will do that well in the popular vote, although I suspect that a large chunk of the Lab-citers will either return or shift to DNV.
Why? Clegg won't stop being toxic. It's far too late to reverse that now. As for tactical labour voters who were persuaded to vote Clegg the last time to stop a tory government getting in.. well I can foresee one teeny tiny problem with repeating that strategy next time around. I suspect you can spot it as well.
With a new more labour friendly leader at the helm instead of Clegg? Possible but the longer Clegg taints the lib dem brand the less utility that move has and the shorter and less substantial the honeymoon period a new lib dem leader would enjoy.
It's more because I think they are kicking the Coalition, expressing frustration rather than a carefully thought out position on who they will support at the next election. A lot of them will actually vote for the LibDems because they like the local guy, many (tactical voters?) will stick with Labour and a bunch will be frustrated with the whole lot of them (or actually have a look at EdM and think Clegg ain't so bad)
Populus @PopulusPolls New Populus Voting Intention figures: Lab 39 (=); Cons 33 (-1); LD 12 (=); UKIP 9 (+1); Oth 7 (-1) Tables: http://popu.lu/s_vi181013
All very much of a muchness, despite PB Tory hysteria.
The PB Tory hysteria this week reached new heights of unspoofable hilarity when the Queen of the PB Tories told us that she had a "spring in her step" when the Tories were one behind on one day then chastised Mike for mentioning "what is just one poll" when they were five behind the next!
'vote UKIP for an end to fake 'Greenery' and an immediate CUT in your fuel bills!'
Even that's a false choice. If UKIP ever got to government they would find that the treaties and contracts previous politicians had signed would severely restrict their room to do anything.
That is what the current crop of politicos are anxious for you not to know. The astoundingly stupid decisions on energy they have already taken on your behalf, decisions driven by their personal dogmatic beliefs, and not practicality.
For me this debacle on energy is a very powerful illustration of why we need less government and not more.
Do I take that as gospel or think it will hold true everywhere? Nope. But it should caution anyone against believing the yearly Clegg spin that things aren't that bad. Yes they are though obviously in some places more than others.
I'm suggesting they lose 20%+ of their seats! That's clearly not in the 'not so bad' zone.
But, as I've said, I only really look at the headline poll numbers to give a vague sense. I'm interested in politics, but don't really bet on the details because I simply don't have time to monitor it all properly
"A modest return on investments" being robbery presumably? That of course is the view of the Tory government, we learn today.
No we don't. That is not the view of the UK government, as I pointed out upthread in quoting Greg Barker directly.
It is true, however, that the Conservatives should stop being frightened of the populist nonsense peddled by Miliband and be much more robust at telling voters about some basic economic facts of life - that the City is a fantastic asset for Britain, that bankers don't own banks, that companies are not owned by fat cats, that institutional investors are not rich individuals, that profits are a good thing, that we have the second-lowest energy prices in Western Europe, that dividends are an essential part of the economy, that the lights won't stay on of their own accord, etc etc etc. Pandering to the hatred and falsehoods that Labour spread in their cynical anti-business, anti-prosperity, anti-employment populism is a big strategic error IMHO. We can never out-snake an irresponsible snake-oil salesman and we shouldn't try.
Add on the LD's willingness to back higher petrol duties, speed restrictions in cities, congestion charges, parking permits for residents to make a difference to C02 emissions. Greenwash to justify higher taxes.
Do I take that as gospel or think it will hold true everywhere? Nope. But it should caution anyone against believing the yearly Clegg spin that things aren't that bad. Yes they are though obviously in some places more than others.
I'm suggesting they lose 20%+ of their seats! That's clearly not in the 'not so bad' zone.
You and I might think so but I suggest Clegg's spinners will paint an optimistic picture on anything that doesn't suggest a complete lib dem annihilation.
OMG I have to agree. Incredibly stupid comments like that show the whole political establishment is in a huge state of panic over this. Panic. Rabbits in the headlights.
And so they should be. It is their fault. They created this mess.
Populus @PopulusPolls New Populus Voting Intention figures: Lab 39 (=); Cons 33 (-1); LD 12 (=); UKIP 9 (+1); Oth 7 (-1) Tables: http://popu.lu/s_vi181013
All very much of a muchness, despite PB Tory hysteria.
The PB Tory hysteria this week reached new heights of unspoofable hilarity when the Queen of the PB Tories told us that she had a "spring in her step" when the Tories were one behind on one day then chastised Mike for mentioning "what is just one poll" when they were five behind the next!
Who'd a thunk it?
Plato said "I'd rather we talked about the main political story of the day than a single poll. Today its the fall out of Plebgate and May's perf/HASC - plus of course more Savile revelations."
'vote UKIP for an end to fake 'Greenery' and an immediate CUT in your fuel bills!'
Even that's a false choice. If UKIP ever got to government they would find that the treaties and contracts previous politicians had signed would severely restrict their room to do anything.
That is what the current crop of politicos are anxious for you not to know. The astoundingly stupid decisions on energy they have already taken on your behalf, decisions driven by their personal dogmatic beliefs, and not practicality.
For me this debacle on energy is a very powerful illustration of why we need less government and not more.
I agree - save that they're all tied up with EU membership, so a (hypothetical!) UKIP government would simply ignore them, pending our leaving a few months later.
It'd be a re-run of the Industrial Revolution, with the UK leading the rest of the world by 30-50 years until they, too, caught on to the most basic and fundamental rule of Life on Earth: energy is the currency of life.
The more you have and the cheaper it is, the more of 'you' there can be on Earth (in biological terms, more of your DNA; in economic terms, more goods/profit/money/growth). So, to deliberately INCREASE the cost of energy is the equivalent of going on hunger strike - and as certain to lead to eventual death.
Once again, the basic laws of science/biology are being ignored as UK politicians make the conscious decision to buy votes through Welfare, rather than future prosperity through buying infrastructure.
They're not fit to hold such power over our lives as them seem to think is their entitlement.
This view tends to make me very sceptical of building lots of new nuclear. Pretty much the only reasons I can see to spend the money on nuclear at £92/MWh is (a) because we worry about importing fuel from abroad (although uranium is imported too); or (b) because we want to put a big premium on diversity of supply.
c) To provide the plutonium needed for Trident warheads.
[That's been the reason we've had nuclear since 1950's, but politicians keep quiet about that UK design requirement. Other designs are/were available but which did not produce the plutonium needed, so we had designs with a higher down-time (and consequently higher cost per kw/hr) to produce our Cold War weaponry needs.
I don't knock or criticise any government, ever, for doing this - just for not being honest enough to say so!]
'Normal' power reactors (e.g. PWR or AGR) are not the most efficient way of producing weapons-grade plutonium. I believe most of our weapons-grade plutonium came from test reactors (e.g. Chapelcross) and the few Magnox reactors. Weapons-grade uranium came from test reactors and reprocessing.
The Magnox reactors we built, strangely enough, were much better at creating weapons-grade plutonium. I wonder why we built them? :-)
'vote UKIP for an end to fake 'Greenery' and an immediate CUT in your fuel bills!'
Even that's a false choice. If UKIP ever got to government they would find that the treaties and contracts previous politicians had signed would severely restrict their room to do anything.
That is what the current crop of politicos are anxious for you not to know. The astoundingly stupid decisions on energy they have already taken on your behalf, decisions driven by their personal dogmatic beliefs, and not practicality.
For me this debacle on energy is a very powerful illustration of why we need less government and not more.
Governments are not bound by their predecessors. But yes energy is not like cash, you can't quantitatively ease more capacity into the system overnight. So it is a good test of previous Govt's decision making processes.
UKIP ditching the green dogma nonsense of the 3 main parties would be a good thing though.
Vote UKIP for little say in Europe whilst still in ... Interesting article.
A Ukip spokesman says it does turn up to narrow votes but its central purpose in Parliament is to push for an EU exit so it has no intention of policy engagement.
He says: “The purpose of a Ukip MEP is not to marginally mitigate the legislative procedure, it is to get Britain out.
On this logic, this could be a problem if the one party promising an EU referendum is defeated in 2015, even more years for UKIP MEPs to miss the ongoing legislation?
With around three-quarters of financial services regulations emanating from the European Union and the UK’s unique intermediary landscape, advisers need a strong voice at the table.
Research in this week’s issue reveals Ukip MEPs turned up for only 65 per cent of parliamentary votes between 2009 and 2013, compared to an average of 80 per cent for all UK MEPs.
Ukip says it will participate in close votes but as its main purpose is to push for an EU exit it has no intention in engaging with policy matters.
The party refuses to attend trialogue meetings between the parliament, European Commission and council of ministers, where important policy details are decided.
With some predicting Ukip could win next year’s European elections the UK’s representation on important financial services is likely to weaken further.
While pushing for a European Union exit, Ukip may wish to reconsider the stonewalling tactics it is employing until, if ever, its dreams are realised.
''Governments are not bound by their predecessors.''
If the last three and half years in the UK have taught us anything, they have taught us that that principle no longer applies.
No, what is true of both Labour and Consrvative Gov'ts is that when a previous decision has been made then it is far easier to simply keep the status quo rather than say reversing it and taking some other tough decision. Because most of the time it is very politically convienient.
''So, to deliberately INCREASE the cost of energy is the equivalent of going on hunger strike - and as certain to lead to eventual death.''
It isn;t the decisions that have been taken that really get me, its the reasons they have been taken.
The ideal of preventing climate change. A completely impossible, unachievable and nebulous aim.
Soon politicians will have to explain that to an incredulous, shivering nation.
Mao, the foremost practitioner of this sort of government, never had to explain anything because the chinese press was silent.
It's no wonder to me that our politicians are trying to quiet ours.
The obligation that coal power stations must have CCS, as introduced by Miliband a month after he got harangued by a C-list star, was the nadir. "No new coal without CCS".
Good morning. I know I am specifically allowed to boast and gloat, as per my promise to John O to put £50 behind the bar at the next pb do (which I shall).
However these comments have become so exultant they start to embarrass even me, so this may well be the last.
Suffice to say my agents persuaded me to REJECT the Quarter of a Million Dollars offered by one US publisher. REJECT. They said "there is a risk in this, but we think we can get more".
After my initial shrieks of anguish - how can anyone reject a quarter of a mill, for stuff you've already done? - I saw the logic, strapped myself to the mast, and let my agents steer past the island of sirens.
At 2 this morning, a new offer came in. It involved the words "HALF A MILLION".
I may not be posting for a few days, as I recover my composure/call tailors in Savile Row/drink vintage champagne/shift my allegiance to Labour like all guilty rich people.
That is truly great - congratulations!
I have always fancied doing Savile Row but have never got round to it. Can you report back if you do decide to partake.
Good morning. I know I am specifically allowed to boast and gloat, as per my promise to John O to put £50 behind the bar at the next pb do (which I shall).
However these comments have become so exultant they start to embarrass even me, so this may well be the last.
Suffice to say my agents persuaded me to REJECT the Quarter of a Million Dollars offered by one US publisher. REJECT. They said "there is a risk in this, but we think we can get more".
After my initial shrieks of anguish - how can anyone reject a quarter of a mill, for stuff you've already done? - I saw the logic, strapped myself to the mast, and let my agents steer past the island of sirens.
At 2 this morning, a new offer came in. It involved the words "HALF A MILLION".
I may not be posting for a few days, as I recover my composure/call tailors in Savile Row/drink vintage champagne/shift my allegiance to Labour like all guilty rich people.
Congratulations. On a similar note, today I've just 'sold' a photo of Win Hill trig pillar in the Peak District to an American university. It will be going in a book that will be on sale for $500, and I have received the princely sum of ... $0 .
Re the Syrian refugee issue below, I believe that the relevant Convention says that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country they come to. So those Syrian refugees based in France should be claiming asylum in France. The fact that they might like to live somewhere else is irrelevant.
This view tends to make me very sceptical of building lots of new nuclear. Pretty much the only reasons I can see to spend the money on nuclear at £92/MWh is (a) because we worry about importing fuel from abroad (although uranium is imported too); or (b) because we want to put a big premium on diversity of supply.
c) To provide the plutonium needed for Trident warheads.
[That's been the reason we've had nuclear since 1950's, but politicians keep quiet about that UK design requirement. Other designs are/were available but which did not produce the plutonium needed, so we had designs with a higher down-time (and consequently higher cost per kw/hr) to produce our Cold War weaponry needs.
I don't knock or criticise any government, ever, for doing this - just for not being honest enough to say so!]
The Magnox reactors we built, strangely enough, were much better at creating weapons-grade plutonium. I wonder why we built them? :-)
JJ - It was the Magnox reactors I had in mind when I wrote that and I assumed (naively?) Sizewell B was intended to provide the replacement isotopes in due course, once the Magnox were closed down.
I also thought Sizewell B was supposed to be the first of many, rather than a 'one-off' and that it was a Westinghouse design, so not designed from scratch (thus cheaper).
The deal with both motorways and nuclear power was that the UK consumer paid for what the Cold War demanded in terms of core essentials for our Armed Forces, with the consumer's immediate benefit being the by-product of the Cold War's long-term strategic requirement.
Not sure if anyone has answered my earlier point - the primary cost of nuclear is the unknowable cost of decommissioning, so nuclear owner/operators want vast profits for many years to build up a simply ginormous cash pile to cover potential law-suits by InjuryLawyers4U (in the event of a leak) and decommissioning (when supervised by Greenpeace/FotE).
A government which said to potential firms ignore the first (we'll pay) and ignore the second (bury at sea) would see generating costs plummet.
Good morning. I know I am specifically allowed to boast and gloat, as per my promise to John O to put £50 behind the bar at the next pb do (which I shall).
However these comments have become so exultant they start to embarrass even me, so this may well be the last.
Suffice to say my agents persuaded me to REJECT the Quarter of a Million Dollars offered by one US publisher. REJECT. They said "there is a risk in this, but we think we can get more".
After my initial shrieks of anguish - how can anyone reject a quarter of a mill, for stuff you've already done? - I saw the logic, strapped myself to the mast, and let my agents steer past the island of sirens.
At 2 this morning, a new offer came in. It involved the words "HALF A MILLION".
I may not be posting for a few days, as I recover my composure/call tailors in Savile Row/drink vintage champagne/shift my allegiance to Labour like all guilty rich people.
Guido's got the wrong end of the stick as usual. The case has nothing to do with Leveson and everything to do with contempt of court, criminal trials and the right of the accused to have a fair trial and to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Agreed. Nobody is arguing we should rely on dirty energy exclusively. Its the way this has been introduced, dogma first, that is the problem.
And the 'wear jumpers' thing has faint echoes of the slogans from the world's dreadful soviet past.........'Do this for the revolution, do that for the revolution'.
Which is why the Chinese and Russians will never come with us on this fool's quest. They have seen where that kind of government leads you. Misery, death and destruction on a vast scale.
'vote UKIP for an end to fake 'Greenery' and an immediate CUT in your fuel bills!'
Even that's a false choice. If UKIP ever got to government they would find that the treaties and contracts previous politicians had signed would severely restrict their room to do anything.
That is what the current crop of politicos are anxious for you not to know. The astoundingly stupid decisions on energy they have already taken on your behalf, decisions driven by their personal dogmatic beliefs, and not practicality.
For me this debacle on energy is a very powerful illustration of why we need less government and not more.
Governments are not bound by their predecessors. But yes energy is not like cash, you can't quantitatively ease more capacity into the system overnight. So it is a good test of previous Govt's decision making processes.
UKIP ditching the green dogma nonsense of the 3 main parties would be a good thing though.
Government is bound by contractual obligations. The government has signed a 35 year contract for energy supply. It cannot undo that. Nor can it eliminate the power purchase agreements signed with Scotting & Southern Energy, etc.
Guido's got the wrong end of the stick as usual. The case has nothing to do with Leveson and everything to do with contempt of court, criminal trials and the right of the accused to have a fair trial and to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
I don't think Guido said it was anything to do with Leveson.
Populus @PopulusPolls New Populus Voting Intention figures: Lab 39 (=); Cons 33 (-1); LD 12 (=); UKIP 9 (+1); Oth 7 (-1) Tables: http://popu.lu/s_vi181013
All very much of a muchness, despite PB Tory hysteria.
The PB Tory hysteria this week reached new heights of unspoofable hilarity when the Queen of the PB Tories told us that she had a "spring in her step" when the Tories were one behind on one day then chastised Mike for mentioning "what is just one poll" when they were five behind the next!
Who'd a thunk it?
Plato said "I'd rather we talked about the main political story of the day than a single poll. Today its the fall out of Plebgate and May's perf/HASC - plus of course more Savile revelations."
'vote UKIP for an end to fake 'Greenery' and an immediate CUT in your fuel bills!'
Even that's a false choice. If UKIP ever got to government they would find that the treaties and contracts previous politicians had signed would severely restrict their room to do anything.
That is what the current crop of politicos are anxious for you not to know. The astoundingly stupid decisions on energy they have already taken on your behalf, decisions driven by their personal dogmatic beliefs, and not practicality.
For me this debacle on energy is a very powerful illustration of why we need less government and not more.
Governments are not bound by their predecessors. But yes energy is not like cash, you can't quantitatively ease more capacity into the system overnight. So it is a good test of previous Govt's decision making processes.
UKIP ditching the green dogma nonsense of the 3 main parties would be a good thing though.
Government is bound by contractual obligations. The government has signed a 35 year contract for energy supply. It cannot undo that. Nor can it eliminate the power purchase agreements signed with Scotting & Southern Energy, etc.
Who has signed what 35 year deal ??! Bet it was Brown.
I asked my mates for a moaner or a screamer for my birthday.
Unfortunately they got me a sweater.
There's quite a lot of FFS, Grow Up on Twitter to journalists trying it make wearing a jumper *an issue*. It's blinking common sense and I really don't get the snobbery about it.
I'm looking forward to the lib dem campaign in the people's republic of Kingston and Surbiton in 2015.
A mass rally of jumper-wearing activists waving little green books to a huge picture of Chairman Davey.
should go down a treat.
The idealists in Kingston & Surbiton will follow the path of revolutionary common sense which, if translated in reactionary language, means if you can't get what you want, make sure you do not get what you don't want !
Populus @PopulusPolls New Populus Voting Intention figures: Lab 39 (=); Cons 33 (-1); LD 12 (=); UKIP 9 (+1); Oth 7 (-1) Tables: http://popu.lu/s_vi181013
All very much of a muchness, despite PB Tory hysteria.
The PB Tory hysteria this week reached new heights of unspoofable hilarity when the Queen of the PB Tories told us that she had a "spring in her step" when the Tories were one behind on one day then chastised Mike for mentioning "what is just one poll" when they were five behind the next!
Who'd a thunk it?
Plato said "I'd rather we talked about the main political story of the day than a single poll. Today its the fall out of Plebgate and May's perf/HASC - plus of course more Savile revelations."
How on earth is that 'chastising Mike'?
Don't just make things up...
I haven't made anything up.
So answer the question then. How on earth does saying 'I'd rather we talked about X' = 'chastising Mike'?
I asked my mates for a moaner or a screamer for my birthday.
Unfortunately they got me a sweater.
There's quite a lot of FFS, Grow Up on Twitter to journalists trying it make wearing a jumper *an issue*. It's blinking common sense and I really don't get the snobbery about it.
"Wear a jumper if you want to"
Shocking stuff - like North Korea meets pre Revolution France- no really.
The left love a bit of trivia - happy escape from the big issues.
So I just heard from someone in the energy sector that the government have agreed a guaranteed strike price of around £93/MWh which implies a massive subsidy to the Chinese (a 90% top up at current prices). Disappointing.
The money would be better spent on CCGT plants and investing in a longer term solution like molten salt reactors. Incorporating a new public company to invest and build MSRs which we could then sell to the rest of the world over a 50 year period is a better solution than subsidising the Chinese sovereign wealth fund. Even if it comes to nought after 10 years, it's still a better solution as CCGTs are incredibly cost efficient and replacing out coal plants with them would result in energy prices staying about the same, agreeing a £93/MWh strike price means energy prices are only ever heading upwards.
The deal also does nothing to solve the immediate issue of brown outs and rolling blackouts from 2014-2018 as plants being decommissioned and energy policy currently having it's head up its arse pushing all things green rather than all things efficient meaning we lose more energy from the grid than is being replaced, despite absolutely massive investment from the private sector and public sector. Losing high density power like coal, gas and nuclear and replacing it with a combination of onshore and offshore wind plus a minute amount of tidal will again lead to one thing, higher energy costs.
It's time for the government and political parties get serious about lowering energy costs, this means reducing our reliance on foreign imports (get fracking, tell the EU to bollocks off), building a whole load of CCGTs, looking at big projects like the Thames and Severn barrages with investment paid for part private and partially out of general taxation (with the government taking a stake in the final ownership vehicle of said projects) and investing for the future with molten salt reactors and our own fusion project instead of the wasteful and painfully slow ITER.
This government and the previous one exacerbated rising energy prices by jumping on the green bandwagon, now it's time for Dave to go back to being a proper Tory and bring lower prices to the masses with CCGTs and no more feed in tariffs or guaranteed strike prices for low density power like onshore and offshore wind. Cutting VAT on energy is a short term solution to a long term problem.
I asked my mates for a moaner or a screamer for my birthday.
Unfortunately they got me a sweater.
There's quite a lot of FFS, Grow Up on Twitter to journalists trying it make wearing a jumper *an issue*. It's blinking common sense and I really don't get the snobbery about it.
The thing is, it sounds like "Can't afford to have your heating on this winter? Well, put a jumper on then!" Which is exactly the type of thing the Government don't want to be saying, when Ed Milliband is offering an energy price cap.
There's quite a lot of FFS, Grow Up on Twitter to journalists trying it make wearing a jumper *an issue*.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is a massive issue. The only reason that politicians are asking you to wear a jumper is their own folly, not because there's a shortage of energy. There is bucket loads of energy.
The fact is there's a shortage of the 'right' type of energy. The type of energy which they have arbitrarily decided it is good for you to use. So wear a jumper.
After 13 years of education under Labour, there's clearly a whole swathe of society too stupid to realise that if you're cold it makes sense to put some more clothes on rather than fire up the boiler. Pitiful.
"Back when he was Energy Secretary, the Labour leader gave the LSE Ralph Miliband lecture. On November 19th 2009, he explicitly confirmed that his policies would see energy bills rise:
“It needs a willingness to take the argument to people about the tough choices involved in tackling climate change. This is the starting point: a willingness to engage with people on, for example, the fact that to deal with the problem of climate change, energy bills are likely to rise.”
That same month Miliband told parliament:
“We need to be candid about the issue because it is a very big challenge. The pressures on energy prices will be upwards in the coming decade’”
Most damning of all, in January 2010:
“Yes, there are upward pressures on energy bills, and that makes life difficult for people, including those in fuel poverty, but it is right that we go down the low-carbon energy route.”
I see there is more selective geography on the other thread whereby a range of PB Tories attempt to prove that London is not in the south, despite it erm, being in the south.
No, just pointing out your gratuitous fatuity when misrepresenting what another poster had written.......
.......so how is our "£75k middle income household" bearing up - I expect you've seen the charts which show that the poorest have done best (or to be precise, 'least worst')under the coalition, while the top quintile has been hit hardest?
"the income of the poorest fifth of the population has fallen slightly since 2009/10, by 0.4 per cent, but it has fallen by less than that of all the better-off groups. (The average fall for all households is 5 per cent, and for the richest fifth 6.6 per cent.)"
Good morning. I know I am specifically allowed to boast and gloat, as per my promise to John O to put £50 behind the bar at the next pb do (which I shall).
However these comments have become so exultant they start to embarrass even me, so this may well be the last.
Suffice to say my agents persuaded me to REJECT the Quarter of a Million Dollars offered by one US publisher. REJECT. They said "there is a risk in this, but we think we can get more".
After my initial shrieks of anguish - how can anyone reject a quarter of a mill, for stuff you've already done? - I saw the logic, strapped myself to the mast, and let my agents steer past the island of sirens.
At 2 this morning, a new offer came in. It involved the words "HALF A MILLION".
I may not be posting for a few days, as I recover my composure/call tailors in Savile Row/drink vintage champagne/shift my allegiance to Labour like all guilty rich people.
Congratulations Sean. Always a nice call to get.
(I can recommend a great tailor, ex Henry Poole and quite a character if you want...)
Good morning. I know I am specifically allowed to boast and gloat, as per my promise to John O to put £50 behind the bar at the next pb do (which I shall).
However these comments have become so exultant they start to embarrass even me, so this may well be the last.
Suffice to say my agents persuaded me to REJECT the Quarter of a Million Dollars offered by one US publisher. REJECT. They said "there is a risk in this, but we think we can get more".
After my initial shrieks of anguish - how can anyone reject a quarter of a mill, for stuff you've already done? - I saw the logic, strapped myself to the mast, and let my agents steer past the island of sirens.
At 2 this morning, a new offer came in. It involved the words "HALF A MILLION".
I may not be posting for a few days, as I recover my composure/call tailors in Savile Row/drink vintage champagne/shift my allegiance to Labour like all guilty rich people.
Congratulations Sean. Always a nice call to get.
(I can recommend a great tailor, ex Henry Poole and quite a character if you want...)
Should people eat cake while wearing their jumpers?
Pasties, naturellement.
*chortle*
Raises the prospect of bored westminster journos asking Cammie when he last wore a jumper. Cam the memory man then thinks back and seems to remember he last wore one in Leeds station and that it was a "large one". ;^ )
So I just heard from someone in the energy sector that the government have agreed a guaranteed strike price of around £93/MWh which implies a massive subsidy to the Chinese (a 90% top up at current prices). Disappointing.
I'm paying isupply energy £105.53/MWh at the moment. Can I make a fix with the chinese at £93 ?
Good morning. I know I am specifically allowed to boast and gloat, as per my promise to John O to put £50 behind the bar at the next pb do (which I shall).
However these comments have become so exultant they start to embarrass even me, so this may well be the last.
Suffice to say my agents persuaded me to REJECT the Quarter of a Million Dollars offered by one US publisher. REJECT. They said "there is a risk in this, but we think we can get more".
After my initial shrieks of anguish - how can anyone reject a quarter of a mill, for stuff you've already done? - I saw the logic, strapped myself to the mast, and let my agents steer past the island of sirens.
At 2 this morning, a new offer came in. It involved the words "HALF A MILLION".
I may not be posting for a few days, as I recover my composure/call tailors in Savile Row/drink vintage champagne/shift my allegiance to Labour like all guilty rich people.
Your plenary indulgence is extended indefinitely. You have done well.
And it would be entirely remiss of me not to doff my cap at your personalized offer of two days ago (while I was absent through i. singularly failing to burn down the Reichstag and ii. all-night monitoring (sic) of Elmbridge's dogging crisis) of a gin and tnic, albeit without lemon.
And thus, it is with most humble obeisance that I plead, that after that HALF A MILLION, you might consent to reward these, you most humble servants in Dirty Dicks assembled, with most gracious additional munificence to the sum of £75 (naturally including VAT and CGT and a space of your own on Oxshott Common)
(I blame Neil for this greed - he made me do it on pain of exile to Sheppey)
Congratulations. On a similar note, today I've just 'sold' a photo of Win Hill trig pillar in the Peak District to an American university. It will be going in a book that will be on sale for $500, and I have received the princely sum of ... $0 .
I don't charge to academia. ;-)
Good for SeanT. Good for you. As Einstein said, it's all relative.
Is this jumpers business part of the government's 'nudge' strategy? Getting them to do the ideal thing without forcing them? Is it about time Cameron defended hoodies again? At least the wearing of them inside the home.
Delighted to learn that SeanT has made a very large sum of money and might consider no longer supporting the Tories. Surely once you get to a certain level of wealth you no longer NEED the Tories?
On topic Alistair Carmichael has an astonishing record in elections in Orkney and Shetland. He got 41% of the vote in 2001, 51% in 2005 and 62% in 2010. I also have a vague memory of a survey ( can't source it at the moment) that he was the most left wing of the Lib Dem MPs on his parliamentary record.
Good morning. I know I am specifically allowed to boast and gloat, as per my promise to John O to put £50 behind the bar at the next pb do (which I shall).
However these comments have become so exultant they start to embarrass even me, so this may well be the last.
Suffice to say my agents persuaded me to REJECT the Quarter of a Million Dollars offered by one US publisher. REJECT. They said "there is a risk in this, but we think we can get more".
After my initial shrieks of anguish - how can anyone reject a quarter of a mill, for stuff you've already done? - I saw the logic, strapped myself to the mast, and let my agents steer past the island of sirens.
At 2 this morning, a new offer came in. It involved the words "HALF A MILLION".
I may not be posting for a few days, as I recover my composure/call tailors in Savile Row/drink vintage champagne/shift my allegiance to Labour like all guilty rich people.
Your plenary indulgence is extended indefinitely. You have done well.
And it would be entirely remiss of me not to doff my cap at your personalized offer of two days ago (while I was absent through i. singularly failing to burn down the Reichstag and ii. all-night monitoring (sic) of Elmbridge's dogging crisis) of a gin and tnic, albeit without lemon.
And thus, it is with most humble obeisance that I plead, that after that HALF A MILLION, you might consent to reward these, you most humble servants in Dirty Dicks assembled, with most gracious additional munificence to the sum of £75 (naturally including VAT and CGT and a space of your own on Oxshott Common)
(I blame Neil for this greed - he made me do it on pain of exile to Sheppey)
£75 at Dirty Dicks wouldn't even buy a round. SeanT can surely do better than that. He must be near as darn it a millionaire now.
Comments
Vote LD - for a steep INCREASE in your fuel bills
Vote Labour for a (short-term) FREEZE in your fuel bills
Vote Conservative for a 'dunno what we're doing' approach to your fuel bills
Vote UKIP for an end to fake 'Greenery' and an immediate CUT in your fuel bills!
Good luck to the LDs in selling 100% higher fuel costs now = happier polar bears (in 2060)
You seem to think that in the event of catastrophic political turmoil in China that they'd come here and carry the nuclear power station away from Hinkley and back to China.
Who'd a thunk it?
Even that's a false choice. If UKIP ever got to government they would find that the treaties and contracts previous politicians had signed would severely restrict their room to do anything.
That is what the current crop of politicos are anxious for you not to know. The astoundingly stupid decisions on energy they have already taken on your behalf, decisions driven by their personal dogmatic beliefs, and not practicality.
For me this debacle on energy is a very powerful illustration of why we need less government and not more.
But, as I've said, I only really look at the headline poll numbers to give a vague sense. I'm interested in politics, but don't really bet on the details because I simply don't have time to monitor it all properly
It is true, however, that the Conservatives should stop being frightened of the populist nonsense peddled by Miliband and be much more robust at telling voters about some basic economic facts of life - that the City is a fantastic asset for Britain, that bankers don't own banks, that companies are not owned by fat cats, that institutional investors are not rich individuals, that profits are a good thing, that we have the second-lowest energy prices in Western Europe, that dividends are an essential part of the economy, that the lights won't stay on of their own accord, etc etc etc. Pandering to the hatred and falsehoods that Labour spread in their cynical anti-business, anti-prosperity, anti-employment populism is a big strategic error IMHO. We can never out-snake an irresponsible snake-oil salesman and we shouldn't try.
OMG I have to agree. Incredibly stupid comments like that show the whole political establishment is in a huge state of panic over this. Panic. Rabbits in the headlights.
And so they should be. It is their fault. They created this mess.
How on earth is that 'chastising Mike'?
Don't just make things up...
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/2/18/1298049543747/Tristram-Hunt-007.jpg
I agree - save that they're all tied up with EU membership, so a (hypothetical!) UKIP government would simply ignore them, pending our leaving a few months later.
It'd be a re-run of the Industrial Revolution, with the UK leading the rest of the world by 30-50 years until they, too, caught on to the most basic and fundamental rule of Life on Earth: energy is the currency of life.
The more you have and the cheaper it is, the more of 'you' there can be on Earth (in biological terms, more of your DNA; in economic terms, more goods/profit/money/growth). So, to deliberately INCREASE the cost of energy is the equivalent of going on hunger strike - and as certain to lead to eventual death.
Once again, the basic laws of science/biology are being ignored as UK politicians make the conscious decision to buy votes through Welfare, rather than future prosperity through buying infrastructure.
They're not fit to hold such power over our lives as them seem to think is their entitlement.
"Pre-Offended"
Brilliant!
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 4m
No.10 spksman, asked if ppl shd wear jumpers to keep warm: "If people are giving that advice it is something they may wish to consider"
The Magnox reactors we built, strangely enough, were much better at creating weapons-grade plutonium. I wonder why we built them? :-)
If you want the boring details, Wiki's quite good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons-grade_plutonium
It isn;t the decisions that have been taken that really get me, its the reasons they have been taken.
The ideal of preventing climate change. A completely impossible, unachievable and nebulous aim.
Soon politicians will have to explain that to an incredulous, shivering nation.
Mao, the foremost practitioner of this sort of government, never had to explain anything because the chinese press was silent.
It's no wonder to me that our politicians are trying to quiet ours.
UKIP ditching the green dogma nonsense of the 3 main parties would be a good thing though.
If the last three and half years in the UK have taught us anything, they have taught us that that principle no longer applies.
A Ukip spokesman says it does turn up to narrow votes but its central purpose in Parliament is to push for an EU exit so it has no intention of policy engagement.
He says: “The purpose of a Ukip MEP is not to marginally mitigate the legislative procedure, it is to get Britain out.
On this logic, this could be a problem if the one party promising an EU referendum is defeated in 2015, even more years for UKIP MEPs to miss the ongoing legislation?
http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/2001354.article?cmptype=Fears over UK influence as Ukip MEPs miss one third of votes&cmpid=amalert_19418&cmptype=Fears over UK influence as Ukip MEPs miss one third of votes&cmpid=amalert_19418
Time for Ukip to fight UK’s corner?
With around three-quarters of financial services regulations emanating from the European Union and the UK’s unique intermediary landscape, advisers need a strong voice at the table.
Research in this week’s issue reveals Ukip MEPs turned up for only 65 per cent of parliamentary votes between 2009 and 2013, compared to an average of 80 per cent for all UK MEPs.
Ukip says it will participate in close votes but as its main purpose is to push for an EU exit it has no intention in engaging with policy matters.
The party refuses to attend trialogue meetings between the parliament, European Commission and council of ministers, where important policy details are decided.
With some predicting Ukip could win next year’s European elections the UK’s representation on important financial services is likely to weaken further.
While pushing for a European Union exit, Ukip may wish to reconsider the stonewalling tactics it is employing until, if ever, its dreams are realised.
Why is CCS such a bad idea? Just read the 'concerns' section of:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-for-the-new-parliament/green-growth/carbon-capture-and-storage/
It is untried at a large scale, potentially very dangerous, and massively reduces the efficiency of the plants.
Absolute insanity.
I see our leading poster is on about jumpers for some reason today.. shame no time to see what that's all about...
I have always fancied doing Savile Row but have never got round to it. Can you report back if you do decide to partake.
I don't charge to academia. ;-)
Thinking about it, you may be right. In some cases the knot is so Gordian, that untying it is as close to binding your successors as it gets.
I also thought Sizewell B was supposed to be the first of many, rather than a 'one-off' and that it was a Westinghouse design, so not designed from scratch (thus cheaper).
The deal with both motorways and nuclear power was that the UK consumer paid for what the Cold War demanded in terms of core essentials for our Armed Forces, with the consumer's immediate benefit being the by-product of the Cold War's long-term strategic requirement.
Not sure if anyone has answered my earlier point - the primary cost of nuclear is the unknowable cost of decommissioning, so nuclear owner/operators want vast profits for many years to build up a simply ginormous cash pile to cover potential law-suits by InjuryLawyers4U (in the event of a leak) and decommissioning (when supervised by Greenpeace/FotE).
A government which said to potential firms ignore the first (we'll pay) and ignore the second (bury at sea) would see generating costs plummet.
But they're too scared to do that.
Have several Thai young ladies on me ;^ )
Agreed. Nobody is arguing we should rely on dirty energy exclusively. Its the way this has been introduced, dogma first, that is the problem.
And the 'wear jumpers' thing has faint echoes of the slogans from the world's dreadful soviet past.........'Do this for the revolution, do that for the revolution'.
Which is why the Chinese and Russians will never come with us on this fool's quest. They have seen where that kind of government leads you. Misery, death and destruction on a vast scale.
As for the jumpers thing, stupid remark but do you agree that we should repeal Ed's ludicrous Climate Change Act?
A mass rally of jumper-wearing activists waving little green books to a huge picture of Chairman Davey.
should go down a treat.
Right wing press will be, too.
Unfortunately they got me a sweater.
Works on so many levels
If you can't, you're making things up.
Shocking stuff - like North Korea meets pre Revolution France- no really.
The left love a bit of trivia - happy escape from the big issues.
I'm not sure, given their track record, that labour will be able to make as much political capital out of this as you think.
The money would be better spent on CCGT plants and investing in a longer term solution like molten salt reactors. Incorporating a new public company to invest and build MSRs which we could then sell to the rest of the world over a 50 year period is a better solution than subsidising the Chinese sovereign wealth fund. Even if it comes to nought after 10 years, it's still a better solution as CCGTs are incredibly cost efficient and replacing out coal plants with them would result in energy prices staying about the same, agreeing a £93/MWh strike price means energy prices are only ever heading upwards.
The deal also does nothing to solve the immediate issue of brown outs and rolling blackouts from 2014-2018 as plants being decommissioned and energy policy currently having it's head up its arse pushing all things green rather than all things efficient meaning we lose more energy from the grid than is being replaced, despite absolutely massive investment from the private sector and public sector. Losing high density power like coal, gas and nuclear and replacing it with a combination of onshore and offshore wind plus a minute amount of tidal will again lead to one thing, higher energy costs.
It's time for the government and political parties get serious about lowering energy costs, this means reducing our reliance on foreign imports (get fracking, tell the EU to bollocks off), building a whole load of CCGTs, looking at big projects like the Thames and Severn barrages with investment paid for part private and partially out of general taxation (with the government taking a stake in the final ownership vehicle of said projects) and investing for the future with molten salt reactors and our own fusion project instead of the wasteful and painfully slow ITER.
This government and the previous one exacerbated rising energy prices by jumping on the green bandwagon, now it's time for Dave to go back to being a proper Tory and bring lower prices to the masses with CCGTs and no more feed in tariffs or guaranteed strike prices for low density power like onshore and offshore wind. Cutting VAT on energy is a short term solution to a long term problem.
The thing is, it sounds like "Can't afford to have your heating on this winter? Well, put a jumper on then!"
Which is exactly the type of thing the Government don't want to be saying, when Ed Milliband is offering an energy price cap.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is a massive issue. The only reason that politicians are asking you to wear a jumper is their own folly, not because there's a shortage of energy. There is bucket loads of energy.
The fact is there's a shortage of the 'right' type of energy. The type of energy which they have arbitrarily decided it is good for you to use. So wear a jumper.
“It needs a willingness to take the argument to people about the tough choices involved in tackling climate change. This is the starting point: a willingness to engage with people on, for example, the fact that to deal with the problem of climate change, energy bills are likely to rise.”
That same month Miliband told parliament:
“We need to be candid about the issue because it is a very big challenge. The pressures on energy prices will be upwards in the coming decade’”
Most damning of all, in January 2010:
“Yes, there are upward pressures on energy bills, and that makes life difficult for people, including those in fuel poverty, but it is right that we go down the low-carbon energy route.”
http://order-order.com/2013/10/10/green-eds-cost-of-living-crisis-admits-your-bills-would-rise/
Wow, that's a big chopper ....
Oh er Missus ....
.......so how is our "£75k middle income household" bearing up - I expect you've seen the charts which show that the poorest have done best (or to be precise, 'least worst')under the coalition, while the top quintile has been hit hardest?
"the income of the poorest fifth of the population has fallen slightly since 2009/10, by 0.4 per cent, but it has fallen by less than that of all the better-off groups. (The average fall for all households is 5 per cent, and for the richest fifth 6.6 per cent.)"
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/09/29/the-poorest-fifth/
boo hoo.....
(I can recommend a great tailor, ex Henry Poole and quite a character if you want...)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2081146/Ed-Miliband-I-m-sex-symbol-I-prefer-baggy-jumpers-smart-suits.html
Raises the prospect of bored westminster journos asking Cammie when he last wore a jumper. Cam the memory man then thinks back and seems to remember he last wore one in Leeds station and that it was a "large one". ;^ )
And it would be entirely remiss of me not to doff my cap at your personalized offer of two days ago (while I was absent through i. singularly failing to burn down the Reichstag and ii. all-night monitoring (sic) of Elmbridge's dogging crisis) of a gin and tnic, albeit without lemon.
And thus, it is with most humble obeisance that I plead, that after that HALF A MILLION, you might consent to reward these, you most humble servants in Dirty Dicks assembled, with most gracious additional munificence to the sum of £75 (naturally including VAT and CGT and a space of your own on Oxshott Common)
(I blame Neil for this greed - he made me do it on pain of exile to Sheppey)
Spotted 3 or 4 stories in the papers and online today that appear to have been proactively generated by Labour HQ. Bit of a gear change
Labour upping they game.
Up there with birkenstocks...
there's even a cracking pun...
'Fleece them back....!!''
Things are going well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24578574
Up there with birkenstocks...
Surely the beards provide ample warmth?
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/release-calendar/index.html?newquery=*&lday=0&lmonth=0&lyear=0&title=Gross+Domestic+Product:+Preliminary+Estimate&pagetype=calendar-entry&uday=&umonth=&uyear=
If you say, want to bookmark it...
...
..
.
depends on length and shape
Time to employ the Ruud Gullit gambit on these green yankees, surely?
"No, netto. I always talk netto."
PS Well done.
Michael Portillo has withdrawn a claim that he heard Andrew Mitchell use the word "pleb" in private - claiming he got "carried away"
By mentioning it the way he did on this week,he must have known he was dropping Mitchell in it and make himself look silly.