Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The main impact of the energy cap issue will be to firm up
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The main impact of the energy cap issue will be to firm up the LAB vote rather than attract switchers
It is exactly four weeks since Ed made his conference speech and still Cameron hasn’t been able to find a response on energy prices that resonates. Today his attempts to portray Miliband as a “con-man” brought rebukes from the less than PM-friendly John Bercow.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Given how Milband's led the agenda, he should be further ahead, really.
But hope for cammers,reduce green taxes and this will put labour on the back foot.
Miliband's plan flies in the face of reality. The coalition have to deal with reality.
Which is exactly why Miliband did not bring in a cap when he was at DECC. He was having to deal with reality.
Beware politicians with unachievable promises.
(*) On DP after PMQ's, Andrew Neill was saying something would *only* lead to a 2 percent decrease in bills ...
And while people got very aerated by the "jumper" remark, taking steps to avoid loss of heat is very sensible: closing curtains, eliminating draughts, not going round dressed as if it were the height of summer etc etc. Regardless of whether we have "green" taxes or not, it makes sense to use less energy, use it wisely and do the sorts of things which our parents and grandparents did as a matter of course.
The real issue is that a lot of the poor/near poor (to use Major's remark) may be living in properties which are not well insulated and don't have the means to do the sort of simple steps which could make them more energy efficient. More resources directed there would be helpful.
Lib Dems attack PM pledge to roll back green taxes as "a panicky U turn"
If a bill rose from £80 to £100, there is a % change of 25%: but a reduction from £100 to £80, is 20%.
Unite must be so pleased to get a result in Grangemouth, job loses, plant closures, losses of income.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24631342
Blinkered confrontational union has hardly worked for its members. McCluskey went Forth and multiplied the job losses, the income loses, the suppliers' loses.
If Downing Street manage to turn the energy freeze debate into a green energy taxes debate by close of play they'll be well chuffed
BBC Democracy Live coverage :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/21006886
Senior LibDem source:"Evbody knows Tories getting cold feet on environment. They've put no properly worked up policies in front of us." #war
How strange that it should be Ed Milliband of all people that's started the ball rolling.
As with his game playing over Syria, Ed often seems to take short term popularity which eventually leads to bad long term consequences for himself - Really, only an idiot would fail to predict that by suggesting a "price freeze" Ed would force the Tory Party to start moving against the "green" consensus.
Trouble for Dave is that everyone knows he's been a husky loving tree hugger.
He has to turn slowly or it looks awful.
LibDem source re greentax:"PM took political decision to get himself out of a PMQs hole. I'll leave you to work out how well that went" Ouch
Dave is deploying the classic "rope-a-dope" strategy which saw Ali prevail over Foreman.
"Ali would lie back on the ropes, cover up to protect himself and conserve energy, and tempt opponents to punch themselves out"
As Ed jerks his neck forward in insolent disregard of danger, we await Dave's sucker punch.
It is coming soon.
Mark December 4th in your diaries and alert Sir John's Ambulance to prepare their stretcher bearers.
Jumpers Davey has a big majority in Kingston and Surbiton.
He's gonna need it.
Needless to say the heating went on the moment I walked through the door. : )
How much of a "properly worked out policy" to continue that do they want?
Whatever Cameron did back then would be criticised now. He was in the middle of a media storm - accentuated by Labour - that was beyond his control. If he had released the CCTV, you would have criticised it (and the liars would have had time to alter their stories).
Some Labour MPs have apologised. Do you not think Miliband should follow their lead?
Also: do you have a timeline for your claims, or is your timeline as flexible as Tim's?
Just look at those Unite members at Grangemouth. They'll be celebrating tonight because they've fought off the management over those planned pay freezes. The fact they no longer have a job is besides the point.
I've just read that Ineos were prepared to make a GBP300m investment in Grangemouth if the workers had played ball. Goodness me.
Seriously though, Ed Miliband has done a good opposition leader job over this energy stuff. The fact a freeze may not work in practice is neither here nor there. With winter coming the price hikes are gonna bite, Ed made a play over it and the Tories (sadly) have flailed in response. Managing to look like they are either a) powerless or b) on the side of the Big Six.
Not good. Any u-turns from govt (and there will be) and Ed Miliband will rightly take the political credit, whilst most of the public will just thank the party in power for reducing their bills.
I recall the doom and gloom the Tories prophesied would happen when Labour had proposed the Minimum Wage. Have the Tories abolished it yet ? They have in government for 3.5 years after all. Of course, without having won a majority.
Ordinarily we wouldn't get any child christened, but may change our minds if the AoC does it. ;-)
If there is one silver lining for the Cons is that they still retain the whip hand over the economy and, as, ahem, the Government, have the tools available to "do something" (eg. bribe the electorate).
In other news, I couldn't help thinking, watching Ed Davey at Special Questions, why ON EARTH the LibDems would want to change anything coalition-wise. They are in government, surely the apotheosis of the party's political ambition and should be thoroughly pleased with themselves and with what they have achieved.
Perhaps being in power they've caught Governing-Party-Self-Destructive-itis.
Absolutely. Dave is a counter puncher by nature, that much is certain.
It's not that Cameron's seen as a green tree-hugger which kills him but that he's seen as someone who has no understanding of the working poor, the people for whom Major went into bat yesterday. That's why he can sound so out of touch and/oror condescending - as if these are problems for other people, not him.
Cameron is - fundamentally - a PM for good times not for tough times. That's what the Tories saw in him and that's what he thought he would be and what he would have liked to be. For tough times you need a different sort of character and I think that while - on occasion - he's been good, generally he has not risen to the challenge in the way needed.
I don't think he's uniquely bad in this; very few politicians do have what it takes. And very few European countries have been lucky with their political class in recent years. Nor has the US done noticeably better.
I certainly don't think Milliband is such a politician - he is all about the getting of power and redistributing it to those he favours. It's all a self-referential process where the voters are simply the means for him to get power rather than the reason why he wants to be in power. But I get no sense from him that he has any sense of what he wants for Britain or the challenges which the country faces.
Is that so? I read they are losing 10 million quid a month and have been losing money for four years.
There's lots of spin and counter spin with these stories, I guess.
The truth is probably closest with the Tories - many of whom feel the whole huggy thing was a crock anyway and are now activly seeking to catch up with public opinion.
The truth is a bit further away from Labour - they still, I feel, want to hug trees - but not as much as they want to tax 'energy fat cats'. Watermelons are still green on the outside.
And, inevitably, furthest away are the wholemeal tofu munchers. They still worship the false idols of Gaia and genuinely want to crank up the costs so we can all enjoy a low carbon goji berry flavoured lentil bake for our Christmas lunch as we sit there in our sandals, our breath visible in the winter chill.
Cameron and the Cabinet Secretary obviously made a dreadful mistake. Of course, I don't want Cameron to resign over this unless Osborne or Gove takes over.
Today it's Cameron.
How could anyone misjudge the national mood so badly unless it's true that he doesn't have a clue either how the other half think or even care?
I think he should pay a Ronaldo sized fee to get Steve Hilton back pretty quickly. I'm sure his friends in the city and newspapers who must be shit*ing themselves will happily stump up the dosh
What they can't do is blame it all on green taxes and subsidies and run against those. The voters got Cameron's green branding. It was pretty much the whole point of Cameron. If he tries to reverse it they won't believe he's really doing it. You can't trust a brand that represents contradictory things like that.
Speaking of which, Fox Japan just ran an ad for "health insurance which also covers funerals!".
"The voters got Cameron's green branding. It was pretty much the whole point of Cameron. If he tries to reverse it they won't believe he's really doing it. You can't trust a brand that represents contradictory things like that."
Precisely. That's exactly why he needs Hilton back before the whole phony edifice gets washed away and Dave with it. I always thought Davis was a better choice if you really wanted a Tory.
I don't watch PMQs anymore, but from the vague remarks here I gather Cameron 'won' the last three or so. He won't win every session, especially when the Speaker, who seems about as neutral as red litmus paper, is intervening to help out Miliband.
As for a u-turn, it's worth recalling that early on in the Coalition there were various u-turns, and Labour stopped calling attention to them because the public rather liked them.
If Cameron u-turns on green charges and Labour scream about him changing his mind they'll be essentially doing the PR for the Conservatives. The peak of climate hysteria amongst the general public has past, and they won't complain about lower energy prices.
An informed article about the pressures that face refineries like Grangemouth:
Europe faces new wave of oil refinery extinctions
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/16/europe-refinery-idUSL6N0I638T20131016
Unite should have taken the deal.
Germany 2011: Wind 8%, Biomass 6%, Solar 3.2%
UK 2011: Wind 4.2%, Biomass 3.6%, Solar 0.1%.
Solar, in particular, is pathetic. One particularly dim PBTory suggested there was not enough Sun in the UK. Where does he think Germany is situated ?
Perhaps Gin, our resident weather expert, might shed some light on the prospects?
If you want to pay German prices for your electricity, you can have all the green energy you want.
Are you saying that we should all get down to Ikea and take the 5 grand panels offer? I'm getting more and more tempted....
I've also read that a number of large German industrials are seriously unhappy with energy prices there and are threatening to relocate to the US.
Far from creating a million jobs, greenery promises to beggar developed economies.
Cameron is undoubtedly struggling now, but one day Miliband and Davey will have to decide if they support reductions in green taxes or not. Because the tories are going to moot them.
The public will be watching closely.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2013/trend
Britain's 'sunlight' is particularly shit.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Insolation.png
Low resolution map but we can see the wattage received through sunlight is lower than in Germany too.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SolarGIS-Solar-map-Europe-en.png
Lower peak points of irradiation than Germany too I'm afraid.
"Nonsense. Cameron never claimed to be an extremist or someone obsessed with one issue, like say Chris Huhne - indeed precisely the opposite."
That is such a barking post it's hardly conceivable that it was written by the same person who wrote yesterday's header.
The first thing he did was change the logo to a Green Oak tree followed by Vote Blue Go Green strap line.....followed by the infamous cycle trips round parliament square while he erected a wind turbine on his roof......... Then of course he went to Antartica to be filmed with Huskies......
sorry my fingers are starting to get fatigue. I preferred it when you swooned over "our near perfect chancellor at least then I could believe your tongue was at least part way in your cheek.
http://www.easternlandscapeservices.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tree.jpg
Cameron looked like a tired shell of a Prime Minister. He received the kind of battering that Brown used to receive in his dog days.
I wonder if it was one of those small, but pivotal political moments that we will remember in a few years time, when it became clearer that the times were changing. You were the future once.
I suspect the point I made is being deliberately ignored - solar is just fine on an industrial scale as long as you don't mind really really high power costs, ruining your industry's competitivenes, shafting consumers (esp the poor) and landing your country with a giant green tax bill. Apart from these minor issues big solar powergen rocks.
Another small point: The UK is a small and crowded island. Land is way more expensive here than Germany. Solar has to compete with farming, cities, nature reserves, etc for land.
According to the witness, the officers mislead, but did not lie...
@DPJHodges: Said it before, I'll say it again. Lying is now so endemic in the British police service it isn't even recognised as lying any more.
Apparently the reason the officers were not adjudged to have committed 'gross' misconduct (a sacking offence) was because their lies to the media were not 'premeditated'. Announcing the meeting, calling a press conference and stating beforehand they were prepared to call for Mitchell's resignation don't count.
No minutes were taken of the crucial meeting after which the report was watered down
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/23/mps-question-police-over-plebgate-politics-live-blog
A few humdingers in there (RW is Jerry Reakes-Williams, the Professional Standards officer for West Mercia Police):
Reakes-Williams (or RW as as will call him from now) confims that the final report did not include his original conclusion that there should be disciplinary action.
...
Q: Your report went to the officers before it went to the IPCC. That was illegal, wasn't it?
RW says he was acting under the directions of the IPCC. But clearly if you look at the regulations that is an irregularity.
...
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/pmqs-sketch-cameron-is-a-buffoon-who-might-as-well-eat-his-own-manifesto/
Bloody hell,Mr evans as really gone after Cameron ;-)
Embarrassing for the PM, absolutely knocked for six by Miliband.
But it's not quite that simple. It is all chipping away at what remaining trust, authority, credibility etc that David Cameron has.
Trying to do something, no matter how reactive and embarrasing , is certainly better than doing nothing (like Labour's reaction to Osborne's politically astute Inheritance Tax move back in the day). But there's probably no damage-free way forward for the Tories now - Miliband has simply got them on the ropes.
London / 3:59 / 33(67)
Berlin / 4:45 / 40(60)
Munich / 5:05 / 42(58)
Do they use gas in Saudi, coal in Morocco and nuclear in Egypt? We should be told.
163 years of data is probably still too small a sample, 13 definitely.
As it is, Cameron stood by Mitchell for a fair period before Mitchell resigned. Perhaps the tapes played a part, perhaps not. But given the shitstorm that people like you were kicking up, it's surprising Cameron stuck by him for so long.
So all in all, you're just another idiot who is desperately flailing around to divert attention away from the police and Labour.
Some left-leaning posters on here apologised to Mitchell the night the tapes came out. Some Labour MPs have apologised in the last couple of weeks.
How long will it take Miliband?
And again, I ask for your timeline into events. Or are you just following Tim's lead?
This reduces energy bills, keeps the Lib Dems happy, does not contradict Cameron's green positioning, and it will come up as fairly redistributive in the distributional analysis. Job done.
I'm sure Osborne would be narked by it, as he would have wanted to use the money for other electoral bribes, but given the kicking Cameron is taking there's not much option.
Here is a snap summary,
• Keith Vaz has said that David Shaw, the West Mercia chief constable, has now changed his mind about whether the three officers should face disciplinary action.
• Jerry Reakes-Williams, the Professional Standards officer who investigated the three officers, has confirmed that he originally concluded the officers were guilty of misconduct, but that he was overruled.
• Reakes-Williams has said that he did not think the officers deliberately lied about their meeting with Andrew Mitchell.
We are now on to the IPCC witnesses.
Courtesy of Mr Sparrow.
...
If Cameron is Muhammed Ali then you are Comical Ali
Fenster
Every sane onlooker knows that the government is neither powerless nor on the side of the "Big Six".
Miliband has found a rare issue to champion for which he can gain widespread and sustained media support. As Opposition Leader, Ed is truly powerless to implement any change, but, with the press behind him, he does have an opportunity to influence government policy.
But however hard won this press support is, the media is utterly fickle. The press sees itself as the people's champion not Ed. At present there is a coalition of interests between the two, but as soon as a solution to high energy price rises is found, the common interests will diverge. The laurels of victory will be granted to whoever provides the solution: Sir John, Dave, Davey, The Sun wot did it or, most likely of all, the Master Strategist.
Meanwhile Dave has to run a government and solve a complex problem. He should not and will not be hurried or bullied. All governments in recent memory have pursued a strategy of allowing energy prices to rise above the rate of inflation principally as a means of squeezing demand and enforcing energy efficiency on consumers.
This policy has worked: fuel and space heating energy consumption has fallen as consumers have bought more fuel efficient cars and have installed new boilers and improved property insulation, or, simply put on woolly jumpers rather then the central heating. All governments will want this driver of efficiency to persist.
And because it worked, the politicians have become complacent and assumed that energy pricing can also drive other desired changes in consumer and industry behaviour. In effect energy prices have become the conduit for enforcing a green agenda and its associated investment policies.
But the recession has now placed this political consensus under strain. There is a limit to the burdens consumers are prepared to bear directly. The press currently believe this limit has been exceeded.and the public is sympathetic to their cause being taken up.
[to be continued ...]
[... continued]
What Dave and George need to do is to relieve the short term burden of above inflationary price rises by moving some of the burden of green subsidies out of direct imposition on energy prices.
They also need to subject the energy supply industry to a rigorous inquiry on competition grounds through referral to the Competition Commission.
The tax jigging George will do in the Autumn statement when he will not so much abandon green subsidies but move them out of direct energy pricing. Household price levels will fall as a consequence. The press will claim victory first for themselves and then for George. Ed's interventions will have long been forgotten.
And we will all benefit from apparent lower prices for two years before they resume rising at a rate well above inflation. Which is what should happen.
Job done.