Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Henry G Manson on Dave and green policy
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Henry G Manson on Dave and green policy
Gerald Ratner once famously described his jewellery as “total crap” in an after-dinner speech before seeing the remarks picked up in the press. He mocked his own products and in doing so he fatally undermined his relationship with his customers, which led to a collapse in the businesses’ fortunes.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
1. Ratners jewellery was crap
2. Green policy is crap too
Admitting 1 destroyed Ratners because they peddled crap but charged a non-crap price - and so their whole business model exploded.
Admitting 2 may have a very different dynamic for Dave. Most of his core vote, anyone struggling with energy bills and anyone with a mind to think can see that ruining your economic competitiveness on the altar of a false god which we in the UK have no ability to control is lunacy. Keynes famously said: 'when facts change I change my mind - what do you do sir?'.
If Dave has come to his senses I'm not sure most people will criticise him for it but rather think 'how come it took you so long'. It is the ongoing idiocy of the Greens and the Lib Dems that is hard to fathom.
I disagree, for two reasons.
Firstly, the public mood has shifted a lot from then. It's easy to forget that climate change was becoming more popular (as it were) when Cameron hugged the huskies and his move captured the mood of the time. Now, people are both more sceptical about climate change (unsurprising given the 2007 IPCC rated it as 90% likely, they got their temperature forecasts wrong and then increased the likelihood to 95%) and they're paying more due to higher energy prices, including green charges.
Secondly, it's worth recalling that Labour decided to stop attacking u-turns a few years ago because the Coalition was getting the public's support for them. Time has passed and perhaps the electorate are less likely to view changes that way, but I suspect Labour attacking the Coalition for reducing the cost of energy prices by axing green charges will not necessarily be to the reds' advantage.
Meanwhile, the PB Tories are running the Guardian again!
Ed Balls under pressure over links to Co-op Bank
Ed Balls is facing renewed pressure over his links to the Co-op Bank after it emerged that he attempted to woo voters in the Labour-affiliated Co-operative party during the 2010 leadership contest by claiming that he helped pave the way for the Britannia building society takeover.
As the Labour leadership accused the coalition of launching a smear campaign over the party's links with the disgraced former Co-op Bank chairman Paul Flowers, a transcript of an interview with Balls in 2010 showed that he highlighted his role in helping to create Britain's "first ever 'super-mutual'."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/22/ed-balls-links-to-co-op-bank
Aus +34.20
Eng +0
Draw -15.90
Switching my green to Aus when England were 20-0 before I went to bed last night wasn't the worst decision ever. Think 3-0 England as advised by TSE is dead though.
Won't win over any but the most gullible kippers as they are far more concerned with immigration at the moment. It's also likely why this particular piece of inept dog whistling was timed for right now by Crosby and Osbrowne as concerns about immigration among kippers and right wing tories are rising again.
It might calm down some of the more credulous backbench tory MPs for a month or two though and that's usually as long term as Cammie and Osbrowne can think. When gullible tories belatedly realise that Cameron is hardly about to do a u-turn on climate change they'll likely get upset again for believing the posturing. Which just means Cammie, Crosby and Osbrowne will dream up something else to posture on to shut them up yet again.
It is, as you say, possible that he's thought long and hard and decided that it's a mistake to effectively levy money on energy bills to improve household insulation and reduce our dependence on imported energy from Russia and the Middle East. But the wording doesn't suggest that. If you decided to abandon a sincerely-held belief, would you instantly dismiss your former views as crap? And if you did, would you expect your new stated views to be taken seriously?
"If Ed Miliband were in business he’d be in Research and Development..."
Yeah, right.
Paper clips and staples need lots of research. Ideal for Ed.
"reduce our dependence on imported energy from Russia and the Middle East."
Yeah, Ed really reduced our dependence on those sources when he essentially stopped the possibility of any new coal-fired power stations, a very short period after getting lambasted by a C-list celebrity.
In the meantime, Germany's building coal-fired stations.
You're right. But it was a necessary step. I genuinely don't know or care if he ever believed the crap. What's important for me is that NOW it is the right attitude. All politicians are biddable and changeable - incl you. Most Labour MPs seem to have been or still are socialists / marxists / commies / CND members etc. That's surely worse!
I can't be sure, but if it did rain it might be the first time we've used wet tyres in a race this year. I can't recall the last time they were used this year. They were used at Interlagos last year.
The problem for Cameron was that he "embraced" greenism when it was fashionable and then it became "expensive".
The problem for Ed is that he is a green - no matter what the cost to the British public.
Let's get fracking, let's burn the polar bears.
It's bloody easy to be in favour of green charges when you can afford to pay them with the loose change from one month's pay packet. Most people aren't quite so well off.
Having a few extra charges on our power bills to subsidise windpower does nothing to save the planet. If older houses need insultation to help the older people who live in them that makes perfect sense without worrying about the rapidly expanding ice sheet.
The case for yet more wind power is a lot more problematic. Whilst some start up incentives were appropriate to encourage a new, not imported supply of energy we simply cannot tie ourselves to a very expensive energy source which needs continuous subsidy.
Yesterday we saw that manufacturing output in this country has finally recovered from a Labour government and reached the giddy heights last achieved in 1995. If we want to continue this very positive trend we must focus on cheaper energy and encouraging manufacturers to invest inew plant confident that their power is going to be readily available and cheap.
ISTR that Nigel Lawson once questioned whether we needed a department of energy (he was a minister there at the time). Given its' recent performance under Ed , Huhne and Davey that remains a legitimate question. It seems a positive hinderence.
Ed Balls was vehement he had no plans to return the donation because he said it legitimately came from the Co-op Group and had nothing to do with Mr Flowers. Although it seems a little hypocritical on the one hand, to suspend Mr Flowers from the Labour Party for bringing it into disrepute, but on the other to keep a donation that may or may not have had some link to the now disgraced banker.
http://blogs.channel4.com/siobhan-kennedy/proud-cooperator/650#sthash.kAmixHbN.dupe
Onshore wind 8.3/5.5
Nuclear 9.6/6
Geothermal 15.9/9
Offshore wind 16.9/8.5
Tidal stream 29.3/13
Solar photovoltaic 34.3/8
Tidal barrage 51.8/22
I'm just off to work so can't look up the link, but the ratios are interesting. Onshore wind remains the cheapest non-fossil alternative and if it wasn't strangled by NIMBY planning it wouldn't need much of a subsidy. Offshore does need subsidy. And you can see why the Severn Barrage hasn't been approved. The nuclear figure was on current pricing - presumably double it to get the recent Chinese deal - but is still cheaper than i expected.
On balance, the alleged quote in the Sun will have a positive effect for Cameron and the Tories. Yes, some middle class tofu munchers might feel a sense of betrayal but such people tend to feel such things easily and I doubt many voted Tory in 2010 anyway. That part of the C1/C2/D demographic that was so crucial to Margaret Thatcher's and John Major's election-winning coalition on the other hand ...
(Sorry if this sounds grumpy. I am deeply distressed about the cricket.)
We need to have an energy supply that we can control, or at the very least can be predicted. Otherwise we need sufficient capacity (in addition to wind) to supply all our energy needs (the alternatives is to have blackouts when it's not windy enough). If we have such energy generation capacity then what's the point of wind farms?
Nuclear is better, but we should have coal and gas as well.
The Chinese deal over nuclear has been widely criticised. If only we'd just had a prolonged period during which energy generation needs could have been addressed by new power stations instead of waiting until we're on the verge of an energy crisis...
But the yellow peril stand firmly in the way of sensible government of energy.
@MD
"Mr. Roger, not sure that the billionaire's son loudly disagreeing that energy prices should be reduced by cutting green charges will necessarily harm the Coalition's case."
I understand that but he is one of the more high profile Tory backbenchers and will have no problems spreading his important message in the media. I've just spent a few days in Aberdeen and if one subject was more exercising than independence it was climate change.
I love the passion of the Scots. I wish more Scottish lefties would post on here.
We have to remember that before 2008 we all thought there was so little to worry about we had to cook up pretendy worries like warmism. There is an almost universal tacit concensus that we will forget about all that; Miliband's fuel price freeze = artificially inflating demand for fossil fuels = baby-eating in warmist terms, but no one has said so (not even the Moonbat afaik but then I only read his stuff when someone links to it.)
Whether Cameron will gain by saying what everyone is thinking is anyone's guess. The clever bit if there is one is his immunity to attacks from labour on the u turn because of ed's energy freeze.
Have a hospital appt this morning to see if and when they'll be taking all this metal out of my collarbone/shoulder. Tbh I hope it comes out as I'm fed up with doing the wan smile at the inevitable 'don't go abroad, you'll set off airport security, lol' jokes.
The first part of the policy is to use less energy and to use more efficiently the energy that we have to use. Under this comes insulation, energy efficient boilers, heat exchangers and heat recycling etc. As some buildings are less energy efficient than others then this should be part of general taxation.
The second part is security of energy supply (which includes fracking, new offshore and onshore discoveries, tertiary recovery) as well as renewable where they are economic or can be incorporated into new buildings. Onshore wind have proven to be uneconomic and unreliable. Also energy generation needs to be near its source of use as we require new and expensive transmission lines which are subject to energy losses). We have not explored the subterranean gasification of coal sufficiently.
Since 2006, the theories put forward by by the Climate Change enthusiasts have been shown to be just theories backed by scientists who had a lot of scientific capital on which their reputation rested. Projects such as carbon trading, carbon capture and storage etc are quietly dying.
Also countries like Germany have abandoned nuclear and are building new coal-fired power stations.
What has emerged is that the Green Taxes cannot be imposed on industries like high energy-use industries such as steel or these plants will be uneconomic and will close. The same applies to the rest of the UK's industry that remains, if it has to rely on uncompetitive energy costs then overseas competition will move into those markets and our unemployment will rise and balance of payments worsen.
So as circumstances change and events happen, so politicians have to adapt polices to meet these changes - stagnation or holding fast to outdated beliefs is not an option. However, HMG has to catch up as well on an energy stagnation policy from 1997 and it is hard to recover that lost ground in the face of dinosauric prevarication and opposition.
O/T - The Times (£) – “Labour engulfed by Co-op scandal”
“Ed Balls trumpeted his role in the deal that almost broke the Co-operative Bank, it has emerged, as questions mount over Labour’s links to the troubled institution”
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3928552.ece
This won't have much of an effect on the Tory vote, but it will reinforce many 2010 LibDems' decision never again to vote for a party that could go into coalition with the Tories. (Ex-)LibDems, unlike Tories, do care about that "green crap", often passionately so.
And that, of course, is good news for Labour.
El Capitano,welcome to pb.com.
while separately it emerged that he was forced to resign from the Co-op over concerns about the scale of his expense claims
First time I've heard of this.
There are a whole variety of people who are sceptical, but who they are is less important than what they are saying, and what they are saying is profoundly dangerous,' he said.
The danger of climate scepticism, he said, was that it would foster dissent against unpopular decisions such increases in energy bills and investment in wind turbines, which are essential to tackle environmental issues.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247459/Ed-Miliband-declares-war-climate-change-sceptics.html#ixzz2lMdBMp00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I'll repeat the best bit: and try to do the html thing:
The danger of climate scepticism, he [Ed Miliband] said, was that it would foster dissent against unpopular decisions such increases in energy bills and investment in wind turbines, which are essential to tackle environmental issues.
Comments please on Ed's superior ability to believe in or stick to anything for more than a few minutes while he's being shown some polling.
"Is this candlelight supper ancedoting again? '
'Fraid so. I know it's verboten but what can you do?
In 2009 he was happy to call for ever increasing energy prices to encourage consumer efficiency (eg go cold so that you can afford to eat) and say that this was part of having an adult discussion about the environment.
Come 2013 and with the whiff of power, he reverses all this with his energy price freeze policy.
Any Greens or exLDs tempted to vote Labour on the basis of their environmentalism should be aware that Ed will quite happily jettison the Climate Change policy if it stands in his way of power.
I wonder what EdM is planning to do with dissenters?
If this won't bring about however much energy we need then the state needs to get involved - with public ownership and so forth of energy supply.
Above all we need to do what won't work for Britain, whacking 5% onto everyone's bills for so called insulation (I don't know anyone who has this and alot of my friends are C2, Ds (I think)) & to save the polar bears will not wash. Whatever we do is pissing in the ocean next to China and the USA at any rate...
The Lib Dems will cling onto it like some kind of religion though.
Lets cut the green nonsense, get fracking and stop shutting down all our coal power stations.
No wonder Cameron treats his backbenchers with such amused contempt if they are anything like as gullible as those putting all their faith in one throwaway spin line from Crosby.
It would seem all Cammie needs do to placate his gullible eurosceptic backbenchers (after the kippers do well at the EU elections) is spin it to the Sun that he thinks 'Europe is a bit crap'. Well it's worth a try since he obviously has no other solution for dealing with the kippers.
LOL
Does he just not care anymore ?
Aus could still collapse so 1.18 whilst it looks a good price is one of those shorties with some danger.
But the draw at 8.3, any reason not to lay it ?
Paul Flowers was a Labour Councillor. SMEAR
Paul Flowers was chairman of a bank that gave soft loans to the Labour Party. SMEAR
Paul Flowers was on the board that approved donation to Ed Balls. SMEAR
Paul Flowers was an adviser to Ed Miliband. SMEAR
@MrHarryCole: Just for a sec, as @iaindale points out, imagine if a coke snorting religious Tory donor had brought down a bank. Ed would cream his shorts.
Dumping on the green agenda is not really the story here - it's the broader impact on the Tory modernisation project that is more significant. It is becoming more and more obvious that this modernisation did not happen. Cameron has not stopped the party banging on about Europe, he is not really interested in the green agenda and was unable to get his party to back gay marriage. There has been no modernisation - they're still the same old Tories - a message that Labour - and more particularly the Lib Dems - will be hammering home as the election approaches.
My engagement ring ditto and that came from HSamuels. Both budget end high st jewellers. Gerald said a very stupid thing, but the product quality was tip-top in the 80s.
1. Germany's has tonnes (literally) of cheap, domestic brown coal (lignite). We do not.
2. Germany is committed to switch-off all its nuclear, and needs to replace this baseload electricity.
It's harder to make a case for us to make a big move to coal - excluding all green questions - as (1) we have next to no competitive domestic coal production; (2) we are now committed to nuclear to fulfil our core baseload demand; and (3) I would expect the price of coal out of the US to rise as US natural gas prices recover (which will be the inevitable consequence of LNG exports from North America).
Major never recovered from his cones hotline or his back to basics and neither will Cameron recover from the ridicule such a volte face would entail.
Quite simply it would wreck his personal credibility which is irrecoverable for Party leasers and in Cameron's case far more significant to Tory fortunes than any green tax reduction.
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/qld/brisbane/brisbane
Not enough to save England without some monster batting.
Have the Tories now moved from "vote blue get green" to "vote blue get real"? let's hope so....
Could be a winner.
You are right, Gold is gold and has to be stamped. Also gems are gemstones even though the quality due to inclusions or colour may vary the price.
There is a lot of snobbery in jewelry and although settings will have different qualities, the basics are the same.
BTW, have you washed only twice in the last 25 years?
The ring is in fine condition, but she no longer wears it for other reasons.
A long-standing politician has reached a senior position. A scandal has been broken in the sunday papers which causes outrage and scandal. Questions are asked at PMQs, this isn't just about the individual but a reflection of the whole party's judgement and character - turning the other cheek, sitting on evidence etc.
The political opponents go in to a frenzy, social media pundits cry foul.
I give you Plebgate -
So before the holier than thou Lefties cry smear. then like any bully they can give but not take it.
The numbers that Nick Palmer threw around for generation costs are broadly in line with those bandied around by (a) power companies in Europe and (b) US research institutions. There's no doubt that - intermittency aside - wind is fairly viable.
The issue is that the wind blows most strongly in the middle of the night, when demand is lowest, and that wind levels are fairly highly correlated across most of the UK. In other words, it doesn't make a great baseload power source. That said, if 10% of UK power was generated by wind, and we paid £80/MWh (i.e. 25% less than we're paying for new nuclear), then it would have a negligible effect on bills, while reducing our dependence on foreign energy imports. Above that level, it starts to displace baseload (rather than just peaking), and it it potentially starts disrupting the economics of the whole system.
One thing that is 'wrong' in the numbers is photovoltaic. The price of panels is coming down a lot quicker than anyone had forecast. Within two years it will probably be worth you, as a consumer, putting panels on your roof, solely to lower your own electricity bill. The price of solar - in the south of England - could be down to as low as 25p/KWh by 2015 or so. (And it's worth remembering that, on a tax adjusted basis - i.e. that reducing your costs by £1 is the same as increasing your income by, say, £1.50 - it will look very attractive indeed. This means the amount of electricity sold by generators is likely to fall quite sharply. Not good news for the electricity companies.)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-green-energy
Suggests there are subsidies to fossil fuels but Paul_K2 nails it:
This article is bizarre. According to UK government accounts, subsidies to the fossil fuel industry in 2012 was zero. Direct subsidy to the renewables industry was close to 2 billion pounds.
The ODI seems to not recognise the difference between a reduction in tax levels and a subsidy. The bulk of the "subsidy" to the fossil fuel industry calculated by the ODI comes from VAT reductions applied to the energy supply chain, and applied to all energy sources. Because fossil fuels have a far larger share of the energy market than renewables the "subsidy" looks higher
So a) There is no actual subsidy.
b) Any 'as good as a' subsidy is given equally to it's competing forms of energy
c) Hence there is no actual, or effective subsidy.
Also can we use the same units - 25p/KwHr looks good until you convert it to £250/MwHr.
Just burn stuff - will encourage plant growth..
Where's @SouthamObserver? He must be coming in off a Bob Willis style run up to deliver an "I told you so" about England's batting line up!
The government has not paid for those turbines.
Private companies (wind farmers) have committed their own money, and borrowed from banks, to pay for turbines. Those turbines are not guaranteed a rate-of-return, but instead a price-per-megawatt hour for 15 years. Historically, that number will have been around £120/MWh; now it is about £90/MWh. If the wind isn't blowing, you - the consumer - isn't paying.
If the wind generating company chose to build the farm in a place where there is very little wind, it will not generate enough money to pay the interest on the loans, then it will go bust.
Solar prices are coming down for three reasons, two of which are hilarious unintended consequences of socialism.
1) Over-prodcution - China is dumping its excess capacity on europe, dirven by state subsidy they have massviely over-produced panels. these are now being flogged off cheaply and yet to keep jobs, china is mainting high level of production. Panels appear cheap, but actually this is mis-allocation of resources by a communist state (of course, you and I can potentially expolit this for our own gain as you suggest).
2) European Subsidies Collapse - In Spain and Germany the governments have reneged on their loopy solar subsidies which were due to near bankrupt the governments. the whole solar industry built up in both countries is now collapsing - throwing off under-priced panels and solar services as it does so and desperate companies seek to do anything to generate revenues to keep them going. Again, a form of dumping artificially lowering prices.
3) better panels - yes, finally, a real reason for a reduction in costs. new panels are more efficient and with so much money ecessively thrown at the industry in the recent past some good gains have been made. However, the likleihood that you or i can power our houses in rainy UK is still decades away. It is firmly in the I'll believe when I see category.
So, truth is if you think our numpty government will manage to create brown-outs (a slight possibility if our energy policy continues to be so bad for another few years yet0, then your best bet is to buy a diesel generator.
Also, if you want to see what the markets think, check out share prices of solar companies over the lest 2-3 years versus the odd company that makes diesel generators or temporary power supplies. Actually, that is quite hard, many of the solar listed companies are no longer in business across Europe...
If so, this could be more disruptive to the market than the base price-per-MWh
P.s,: I utterly agree. CCS is stupid.
Remember, I've backed Australia to win the First test.
The Aussies cannot win with that monkey on their back.
It updates every few minutes.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Cam doesn't treat his backbenchers with anything other than bewilderment because he has not asserted his authority.
The coalition thing knocked the stuffing out of him or rather, made him subordinate his inner Maggie to such a depth that many backbenchers now wonder if it exists at all.
If it does, the mouse has to start roaring pretty soon. A Cons majority will of course help this but many wonder if it is too late, to say nothing of the relatively small chances of a Cons OM.
He is not at the "bastards" stage yet but he must act to assert authority.
Come on Mick surely you can help to devise a strategy that will help him to take control of his party and sweep into power for a glorious second term?
Something at PMQs, like "Green Taxes, are like Ed Miliband, utterly crap"