We do not know in what context the alleged remark was made.
Certainly there has been a lot of very tokenistic green policy about. I mean by this actions that are high profile but ineffective at actually protecting the environment. If I see another Chelsea Tractor pull up at the bottle bank....
Conservatives have a long tradition of protecting the environment by protecting the countryside. Some Green policies are very Blue. Others are less so. I think HS2 is an example. I have no problem with new rail lines, but high speed trains are less fuel efficient and as they do not stop along the way re of little benefit to the countryside communities that they despoil. A new line on the same route with a station every 20 miles would get a lot more support as it would increase the viability of rail commuters living along this line. It would both be more popular and more green.
Keep the good green policies, and dump the greenwash. That would play well to the prospective voters, and Cameron is a pragmatist not an idealogue, and always has been.
Also can we use the same units - 25p/KwHr looks good until you convert it to £250/MwHr.
I'm deliberately using different units, because photovoltaic panels on your roof are not competing with a coal plant in South Wales - they are competing with the price that EDF Energy sells you power out the plug.
The current (December 2013) baseload electricity price is (checks his Bloomberg...) £54.48/MWh, or 5.5p/KWh. You don't pay that. Your electricity distribution company has offered to sell you power at (give or take) 20p/KWh.
That includes:
The power they buy (which includes baseload at 5p/KWh, and some peaking power at prices as high at 35p/KWh), and also some wind farms which they are obligated to purchase irrespective of the prevailing power price (c. 10p/KWh). When it's a peaking market, the fixed price wind looks pretty good value. When it's a baseload one, then the wind looks pretty awful.
VAT and other taxes
The cost of distributing the power around the country. I.e the fees paid to National Grid, and the transmission losses associated with sending the power around.
The cost of maintaining the local connection and electricity substations.
The cost of measuring and billing your usage, and then charging you.
The cost of all their staff, and of marketing, etc.
Their own profit.
All in all, the cost of electricity generation is typically between 40 and 50% of your final bill.
For you as a consumer, if you can move your consumption from - say - 1,000KWh a week (making up numbers here), to 500KW/h, and it has cost you £3,000 to put the panels on your roof, then that's a pretty good deal. Don't confuse wholesale and retail prices.
If covering the country in wind turbines helps us to lose our dependence on despotic regimes in the middle-east I'm all in favour and I'm sure most people could be persuaded to take the same view.
Around me, the wind turbines are either still (no wind), stopped (too much wind) or stopped at night - electricity not needed. So on a cost per kwH produced they are mighty expensive.
That's not how the wind market works.
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.
Isn't there another aspect to this? If the wind is blowing and they are generating power, but the grid cannot take that power, they get paid anyway?
If so, this could be more disruptive to the market than the base price-per-MWh
P.s,: I utterly agree. CCS is stupid.
You are absolutely right - the electricity companies are obliged to buy wind first. However, it is worth remembering that paying wind to disconnect is very rare and is usually more a consequence of a lack of 'take-away capacity'. This happened in Scotland earlier this year, where there was more electric generated than the local grid was able to carry to areas which needed it. Wind turbine owners were therefore paid - as per their contracts - for the unwanted electricity.
The merit order of power generation in the UK is such that CCGTs will simply turn themselves off if the price falls below (say) £50/MWh (warning, made up number, but probably not very far from the truth). And coal will turn off below £40/MWh. Because those are the levels at which the cost of fuel exceeds what they'll get for the electricity they generate. So, if the wind blows a lot, it simply displaces other power generation.
IIRC the Chinese are responsible for the big drop in the cost of solar panels since they're installing them in vast numbers, which is a positive development for the rest of the world.
In China, a huge amount of plant was created for making solar panels. This has destroyed the European solar sector. But it does mean we get to buy cheap panels :-)
If you read the forecast of the expert the article is based on, a somewhat more nuanced position emerges.....we're well into Liberty Valence territory here, 'printing the legend':
Not sure I agree with this. If there is an impact, it will slightly enthuse the Tory core, and slightly harden the resolve of the anti-Tory 2010 Lib+Lab coalition. But only very slightly.
The NHS chaos did / is doing far more damage to Brand Cameron.
Not sure I agree with this. If there is an impact, it will slightly enthuse the Tory core, and slightly harden the resolve of the anti-Tory 2010 Lib+Lab coalition. But only very slightly.
The NHS chaos did / is doing far more damage to Brand Cameron.
Phil 'Us Blues' Roberts - you're a poor shadow of tim.
When can we expect you to parrot his, (well Ed Ball's) New Towns line?
Gerald Ratner may have trashed his product leading to the closure of his shop empire but for almost a decade he has been the biggest online jewellery retailer in the UK. Source of my information, Gerald Ratner in a speech he gave to an organisation I used to be Chief Executive off.
Few Tory voters will be remotely concerned if the Tories ditch the green crap. Far more potential Tory voters will be interested if it leads to a lasting cut in energy costs as opposed to an artificial 21 month freeze.
Meanwhile back in the real world, all the journalists who had England winning the Ashes before a wicket had fallen are now praying for 3 days of heavy rain.
Interesting. Currently we're relying on nearly 5% wind, and 5% imported power through the interconnectors.
I wouldn't think of the interconnects as 'relying on'. Basically, our interconnects with Ireland, the Netherlands and France, allow UK generators to sell abroad during peaking power periods, and to import during baseload times. (France has lots of baseload power from its nuclear plants, but only a modest amount of peaking gas plant.)
If the interconnect were to be blown up this afternoon, our peaking plant would find itself used more during baseload times, and less during peak periods.
Which countries do we get most of the coal from these days?
IIRC, Russia is about 30-35%, Colombia is c 30%, and the US is about 25%. Importing from the US is a relatively new phenomenon caused by the fall in natural gas prices in the US.
Interesting. Currently we're relying on nearly 5% wind, and 5% imported power through the interconnectors.
If the interconnect were to be blown up this afternoon, our peaking plant would find itself used more during baseload times, and less during peak periods.
Interesting. Currently we're relying on nearly 5% wind, and 5% imported power through the interconnectors.
If the interconnect were to be blown up this afternoon, our peaking plant would find itself used more during baseload times, and less during peak periods.
Aggreko shares would go through the roof.
Aggreko is a great business, we used to own shares in it. But I suspect it would have little impact on Aggreko as we have quite a lot of peaking plant in the UK. And some of the gas plant that has been mothballed would simply be un-mothballed.
Much more of an issue for UK generating would be if Milford Haven LNG terminal was blown up.
Interesting. Currently we're relying on nearly 5% wind, and 5% imported power through the interconnectors.
If the interconnect were to be blown up this afternoon, our peaking plant would find itself used more during baseload times, and less during peak periods.
Aggreko shares would go through the roof.
Aggreko is a great business, we used to own shares in it. But I suspect it would have little impact on Aggreko as we have quite a lot of peaking plant in the UK. And some of the gas plant that has been mothballed would simply be un-mothballed.
Much more of an issue for UK generating would be if Milford Haven LNG terminal was blown up.
What percentage of the peaking plant is comprised of diesel generator 'farms', or privately owned stand-by sets with arrangements to supply at short notice with the Grid?
To consider that Boy George was number one and Michael Foot was leader of the Labour Party when these three women were first imprisoned in a house in Lambeth is a pretty sobering thought.
It may or may not be a good idea for the Tories to start running against green taxes and things, but David Cameron is the wrong person to do it. If the Tories have decided that's what they want to do, they need to pick a new leader.
What percentage of the peaking plant is comprised of diesel generator 'farms', or privately owned stand-by sets with arrangements to supply at short notice with the Grid?
Total UK electricity demand peaks at around 50-55GW. Baseload demand is 30-35GW. In theory, on a cold winter's day, you might see power demand as high as 60GW, but it's worth noting that we haven't seen anything like that level of demand for a long time. (In general, electricity demand is declining slightly, largely because we rarely heat domestic water and homes with electricity, and because we're moving away from incandecent light bulbs.)
Currently we have c. 7-8GW of nuclear (depends on how much is undergoing maintenance at any time, right now we're slightly below that range), and 15-20GW of coal. Adding those two, together with our most efficient gas plant, you cover your basic needs (before peaking and before bringing wind into the mix).
We have more than 20GW of available CCGT gas at any time, plus 5GW of super expensive (from a fuel perspective) single cycle gas. In addition, there is a couple of gig of old coal, and another couple of gig of oil. Regular hydro is c. 1GW, and pumped storage peaks out at 2GW (but can't go on for the entire day, obviously). In theory there is 5GW of wind available, but utilisation for that is typically around 30%.
Aggreko, as far as I'm aware, doesn't actually have anything feeding directly into the UK grid right now.
What percentage of the peaking plant is comprised of diesel generator 'farms', or privately owned stand-by sets with arrangements to supply at short notice with the Grid?
Total UK electricity demand peaks at around 50-55GW. Baseload demand is 30-35GW. In theory, on a cold winter's day, you might see power demand as high as 60GW, but it's worth noting that we haven't seen anything like that level of demand for a long time. (In general, electricity demand is declining slightly, largely because we rarely heat domestic water and homes with electricity, and because we're moving away from incandecent light bulbs.)
Currently we have c. 7-8GW of nuclear (depends on how much is undergoing maintenance at any time, right now we're slightly below that range), and 15-20GW of coal. Adding those two, together with our most efficient gas plant, you cover your basic needs (before peaking and before bringing wind into the mix).
We have more than 20GW of available CCGT gas at any time, plus 5GW of super expensive (from a fuel perspective) single cycle gas. In addition, there is a couple of gig of old coal, and another couple of gig of oil. Regular hydro is c. 1GW, and pumped storage peaks out at 2GW (but can't go on for the entire day, obviously). In theory there is 5GW of wind available, but utilisation for that is typically around 30%.
Aggreko, as far as I'm aware, doesn't actually have anything feeding directly into the UK grid right now.
Presumably as demand for electricity falls (less used for domestic heating/hot water) - domestic gas demand increases?
Any idea what sort of size this is (in particularly in comparison to the amount of gas used in electricity generation for example)
It may or may not be a good idea for the Tories to start running against green taxes and things, but David Cameron is the wrong person to do it. If the Tories have decided that's what they want to do, they need to pick a new leader.
Calm down dear - veering the ship slowly towards a more balanced approach on stifling taxes is hardly a reason for a new leader.
I see lefties are unhappy with this potential tax cut - suggests it is a good idea.
It may or may not be a good idea for the Tories to start running against green taxes and things, but David Cameron is the wrong person to do it. If the Tories have decided that's what they want to do, they need to pick a new leader.
Calm down dear - veering the ship slowly towards a more balanced approach on stifling taxes is hardly a reason for a new leader.
So let's put it the other way. What's the point of David Cameron? What does he actually stand for that the voters will recognize?
Interesting. Currently we're relying on nearly 5% wind, and 5% imported power through the interconnectors.
I wouldn't think of the interconnects as 'relying on'. Basically, our interconnects with Ireland, the Netherlands and France, allow UK generators to sell abroad during peaking power periods, and to import during baseload times. (France has lots of baseload power from its nuclear plants, but only a modest amount of peaking gas plant.)
If the interconnect were to be blown up this afternoon, our peaking plant would find itself used more during baseload times, and less during peak periods.
Interestingly, wind contributed 40-50% of grid demand on Eirgrid overnight on the first day of the Test, and about 30% at 9am. If the Irish continue to build wind turbines then the interconnectors across the Irish Sea could see a lot of use in selling us their excess wind power.
It may or may not be a good idea for the Tories to start running against green taxes and things, but David Cameron is the wrong person to do it. If the Tories have decided that's what they want to do, they need to pick a new leader.
Calm down dear - veering the ship slowly towards a more balanced approach on stifling taxes is hardly a reason for a new leader.
So let's put it the other way. What's the point of David Cameron? What does he actually stand for that the voters will recognize?
What does Ed Miliband stand for? What does Nick Clegg stand for?
It may or may not be a good idea for the Tories to start running against green taxes and things, but David Cameron is the wrong person to do it. If the Tories have decided that's what they want to do, they need to pick a new leader.
Calm down dear - veering the ship slowly towards a more balanced approach on stifling taxes is hardly a reason for a new leader.
So let's put it the other way. What's the point of David Cameron? What does he actually stand for that the voters will recognize?
What does Ed Miliband stand for? What does Nick Clegg stand for?
Ed Miliband stands for a freeze on energy prices and an attempt to get some kind of grip on "predatory capitalism". Nick Clegg stands for a kind of softer toryism and closer integration with Europe. You may not like these positions but they are, at least, fairly clear.
It may or may not be a good idea for the Tories to start running against green taxes and things, but David Cameron is the wrong person to do it. If the Tories have decided that's what they want to do, they need to pick a new leader.
Calm down dear - veering the ship slowly towards a more balanced approach on stifling taxes is hardly a reason for a new leader.
So let's put it the other way. What's the point of David Cameron? What does he actually stand for that the voters will recognize?
He stands for sensible policies to fix the economy and reform the bloated blobs of education, health etc.
TSE sadly I just think it is more evidence of the fact the polls are bouncing around more than a Yoyo.
I was interested to see that across yesterday's council by-elections (excluding the one counting this morning) taken from a tweet this morning the Tories had a lead in vote share of almost 10%
4 of 5 council election results in
vote share so far
CON 31.8% LAB 22.2% UKIP 13.9% IOC 13.2% IND 11.3% LD 6.6% GREEN 1% (21 & 11 votes)
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.
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.
Pointless post. All leading politicians in all parties can be found to have said something at some point in the past that appears to contradict what they are saying now.
It may or may not be a good idea for the Tories to start running against green taxes and things, but David Cameron is the wrong person to do it. If the Tories have decided that's what they want to do, they need to pick a new leader.
Calm down dear - veering the ship slowly towards a more balanced approach on stifling taxes is hardly a reason for a new leader.
So let's put it the other way. What's the point of David Cameron? What does he actually stand for that the voters will recognize?
What does Ed Miliband stand for? What does Nick Clegg stand for?
Ed Miliband doesn't stand for much which is part of his problem. I think he's angling for integrity and being on your side, which works OK given favourable news cycles. Nick Clegg stands for not being one thing, or the other thing, but somewhere in between. Gordon Brown stood for wintery seriousness. Tony Blair stood for centrism and modernity. John Major stood for serious, classless, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps-ism. Margaret Thatcher stood for not turning.
David Cameron stood for liberal, inclusive conservatism, and concern for the environment. He worked very hard at this, and he got the message over very effectively. He's given it all up, and now he's all over the place. It may be hindsight playing tricks on me, but I can't think of any previous Prime Minister messing up their own brand the way the current Tory leadership have.
It may or may not be a good idea for the Tories to start running against green taxes and things, but David Cameron is the wrong person to do it. If the Tories have decided that's what they want to do, they need to pick a new leader.
Calm down dear - veering the ship slowly towards a more balanced approach on stifling taxes is hardly a reason for a new leader.
So let's put it the other way. What's the point of David Cameron? What does he actually stand for that the voters will recognize?
What does Ed Miliband stand for? What does Nick Clegg stand for?
Ed Miliband doesn't stand for much which is part of his problem. I think he's angling for integrity and being on your side, which works OK given favourable news cycles. Nick Clegg stands for not being one thing, or the other thing, but somewhere in between. Gordon Brown stood for wintery seriousness. Tony Blair stood for centrism and modernity. John Major stood for serious, classless, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps-ism. Margaret Thatcher stood for not turning.
David Cameron stood for liberal, inclusive conservatism, and concern for the environment. He worked very hard at this, and he got the message over very effectively. He's given it all up, and now he's all over the place. It may be hindsight playing tricks on me, but I can't think of any previous Prime Minister messing up their own brand the way the current Tory leadership have.
It may be hindsight playing tricks on me, but I can't think of any previous Prime Minister messing up their own brand the way the current Tory leadership have.
It may or may not be a good idea for the Tories to start running against green taxes and things, but David Cameron is the wrong person to do it. If the Tories have decided that's what they want to do, they need to pick a new leader.
Calm down dear - veering the ship slowly towards a more balanced approach on stifling taxes is hardly a reason for a new leader.
So let's put it the other way. What's the point of David Cameron? What does he actually stand for that the voters will recognize?
He stands for sensible policies to fix the economy and reform the bloated blobs of education, health etc.
Doesn't have to be a radical husky botherer.
He can't stand for reforming health, the main thing people remember about David Cameron and health is that he promised to leave it alone.
Mr. Jones, the issue with that is that neither of the other slaves (which is a bloody horrific thing to have to write...) are British. But I suppose you may be right. Either way, it suggests that this vile oppression is not an isolated, one-off instance of slavery.
It may or may not be a good idea for the Tories to start running against green taxes and things, but David Cameron is the wrong person to do it. If the Tories have decided that's what they want to do, they need to pick a new leader.
Calm down dear - veering the ship slowly towards a more balanced approach on stifling taxes is hardly a reason for a new leader.
So let's put it the other way. What's the point of David Cameron? What does he actually stand for that the voters will recognize?
What does Ed Miliband stand for? What does Nick Clegg stand for?
Ed Miliband doesn't stand for much which is part of his problem. I think he's angling for integrity and being on your side, which works OK given favourable news cycles. Nick Clegg stands for not being one thing, or the other thing, but somewhere in between. Gordon Brown stood for wintery seriousness. Tony Blair stood for centrism and modernity. John Major stood for serious, classless, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps-ism. Margaret Thatcher stood for not turning.
David Cameron stood for liberal, inclusive conservatism, and concern for the environment. He worked very hard at this, and he got the message over very effectively. He's given it all up, and now he's all over the place. It may be hindsight playing tricks on me, but I can't think of any previous Prime Minister messing up their own brand the way the current Tory leadership have.
He'll stand for the same thing all tory PMs have to... sorting out labours mess.
It may be hindsight playing tricks on me, but I can't think of any previous Prime Minister messing up their own brand the way the current Tory leadership have.
*cough*Gordon Brown*cough*
The anarchic smiley video?
Maybe you're right. Also the election that wasn't. The problem was that his brand was all about being serious and determined, so when the voters saw him playing political games with the election timing and running away, it did very serious damage that he never recovered from.
All leading politicians in all parties can be found to have said something at some point in the past that appears to contradict what they are saying now.
So your "what does he stand for" post was rubbish. All politicians can be shown to have stood for different things at different times.
Spectator: -"The Revd Paul Flowers ticked all the right 'progressive' boxes — that's why he could get away with anything
The real scandal, though, is not just that he was a staggeringly incompetent bank chief who knew next to nothing about banking and presided over a bank that somehow fell into a £1.5 billion black hole. It is not even his predilection for cocaine, crystal meth and the occasional ‘two-day, drug-fuelled gay orgy’ (to use his words). The scandal is that no one spotted that he was spectacularly unsuited to the jobs he was given — or if they did, they chose to do nothing about it. Yet again, a public figure with his ethics pinned to his sleeve somehow existed beyond proper scrutiny."
Flowers was a useful 'loyal' tool – I doubt any of those who hired him scrutinised his CV.
Cameron stands for the steely, determined safe pair of hands steering the ship through stormy waters.
The hope being that every, cough, "tough decision" the Tories take - from the bedroom tax to the cast-iron referendum pledge - is seen through that prism.
Mr. JS, the British woman is perhaps the most concerning. She spent her whole life in slavery, which must mean she was either bought or stolen.
Mr D , could she be a child of the people arrested perhaps and thus British
This sort of thing is very common in places like Saudi Arabia, with the victims being from countries like Bangladesh, ie. servants who are treated pretty much like slaves.
All leading politicians in all parties can be found to have said something at some point in the past that appears to contradict what they are saying now.
So your "what does he stand for" post was rubbish. All politicians can be shown to have stood for different things at different times.
But what a politician stands for is not defined by sticking by everything they ever said. Of course people change their stances on individual issues as time goes by. Cameron's problem is that he has changed his stance on almost everything and given the impression that these changes have come about not through his own choice but because they have been forced on him by his own party.
It may or may not be a good idea for the Tories to start running against green taxes and things, but David Cameron is the wrong person to do it. If the Tories have decided that's what they want to do, they need to pick a new leader.
Calm down dear - veering the ship slowly towards a more balanced approach on stifling taxes is hardly a reason for a new leader.
So let's put it the other way. What's the point of David Cameron? What does he actually stand for that the voters will recognize?
He stands for sensible policies to fix the economy and reform the bloated blobs of education, health etc.
Doesn't have to be a radical husky botherer.
He can't stand for reforming health, the main thing people remember about David Cameron and health is that he promised to leave it alone.
Outside the political bubble, how many people do you think remember any politicians promises?
Last weeks X Factor and Downton rank higher in the memory stakes.
But what a politician stands for is not defined by sticking by everything they ever said. Of course people change their stances on individual issues as time goes by. Cameron's problem is that he has changed his stance on almost everything and given the impression that these changes have come about not through his own choice but because they have been forced on him by his own party.
Cameron's Ed's problem is that he has changed his stance on almost everything and given the impression that these changes have come about not through his own choice but because they have been forced on him by his own party. Len McLuskey
It may or may not be a good idea for the Tories to start running against green taxes and things, but David Cameron is the wrong person to do it. If the Tories have decided that's what they want to do, they need to pick a new leader.
Calm down dear - veering the ship slowly towards a more balanced approach on stifling taxes is hardly a reason for a new leader.
So let's put it the other way. What's the point of David Cameron? What does he actually stand for that the voters will recognize?
He stands for sensible policies to fix the economy and reform the bloated blobs of education, health etc.
Doesn't have to be a radical husky botherer.
He can't stand for reforming health, the main thing people remember about David Cameron and health is that he promised to leave it alone.
Outside the political bubble, how many people do you think remember any politicians promises?
Last weeks X Factor and Downton rank higher in the memory stakes.
Yeah. No-one outside the bubble remembers Cameron's NHS promises, or Clegg's tuition fees, or Brown's boom and bust. Not a soul.
Mr. JS, the British woman is perhaps the most concerning. She spent her whole life in slavery, which must mean she was either bought or stolen.
Mr D , could she be a child of the people arrested perhaps and thus British
This sort of thing is very common in places like Saudi Arabia, with the victims being from countries like Bangladesh, ie. servants who are treated pretty much like slaves.
It is different in places like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, because there it is often in line with the law of those states - eg see for example the case of the footballer stranded in Qatar - this means the local police are on the other side of the problem.
@michaelsavage: Surely Afriyie will now lead the new Tory faction all the way to Downing St. Not sure 15 is enough to make up a Cabinet tho. Ukip coalition?
" Cameron is a pragmatist not an idealogue, and always has been."
I think there are plenty of voters who might have been fooled by the acres of news footage painting him as the new Ranolph Feinnes. I personally know several voters for whom this is THE defining issue.
Probably most wouldn't be Tory anyway but imagine how traitorous this is to the Lib Dems who thought they were getting into bed with Jonathan Porritt only to wake up with Nigel Lawson. I'd be curious to hear Steve Hilton's comments. He really meant it.
Those people who think Camerons inability to believe in or stick to anything for more than a few minutes while he's being shown some polling better hope there's no A&E crisis because that feeds back into his big personal NHS lie.
Ooooh look what I found (31 Jan 2010):
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.
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.
There should be loads of quotes like that. A few years ago they were all talking about driving energy prices up deliberately to drive down energy usage. None of them seemed to think what the consequences of that would be for business.
Spectator: -"The Revd Paul Flowers ticked all the right 'progressive' boxes — that's why he could get away with anything
The real scandal, though, is not just that he was a staggeringly incompetent bank chief who knew next to nothing about banking and presided over a bank that somehow fell into a £1.5 billion black hole. It is not even his predilection for cocaine, crystal meth and the occasional ‘two-day, drug-fuelled gay orgy’ (to use his words). The scandal is that no one spotted that he was spectacularly unsuited to the jobs he was given — or if they did, they chose to do nothing about it. Yet again, a public figure with his ethics pinned to his sleeve somehow existed beyond proper scrutiny."
Flowers was a useful 'loyal' tool – I doubt any of those who hired him scrutinised his CV.
Flowers misfortune was to get caught out. What's the betting he's only one of many?
‘Flowers misfortune was to get caught out’ – in just about every job or position of trust he held for 30 years. At least 3 investigations are being carried out on every aspect of his ‘career’ so far – and now the police are looking into his illegal drug abuse. Oh dear.
I’m sure there are many more like him, however I doubt they will ever be ‘caught out’ in quite so spectacular a fashion.
Daily Politics - Delingpole - "UKIP is like the Tea Party" - Andrew Neil points out a few electoral facts of life......and what an unqualified success that has been.....
" Cameron is a pragmatist not an idealogue, and always has been."
I think there are plenty of voters who might have been fooled by the acres of news footage painting him as the new Ranolph Feinnes. I personally know several voters for whom this is THE defining issue.
Probably most wouldn't be Tory anyway but imagine how traitorous this is to the Lib Dems who thought they were getting into bed with Jonathan Porritt only to wake up with Nigel Lawson. I'd be curious to hear Steve Hilton's comments. He really meant it.
The problem you're ignoring is that much has changed since 2007. Personally I voted for Cameron (joining the party because I was so disappointed IDS was chosen over Clarke) and environmentalism was a concern.
6 years ago.
So much has changed since then. We've had the recession, we've had economic struggles, we've got the eurozone crisis and we've got our international partners competing rather than co-operating. We've also had climate change melt away like a snow in springtime. Projections made by climate change scientists have all failed.
We should be efficient where we can but we shouldn't strangle ourselves to make no noticeable difference to the climate anyway. As Keynes said, when the facts change I change my mind - what do you do?
It may be that any sense of authenticity about Cameron has so completely disappeared that it hardly matters that he does this. Everyone now knows he's a phoney so there's not much point him trying to protect his image. Given that maybe he should just do all he can to protect his votes even if it's clear everything he says is about positioning and nothing to do with what he believes.
However you have to ask now whether any kind of agreement between the Tories and Lib Dems is conceivable after 2015 given the Crosbyisation of the Tories? Perhaps the Lib Dems could be forgiven for thinking in 2010 the Tories had modernised and Cameron was a liberal conservative they could do business with. Surely not anymore.
He's being questioned in connection with a "drugs supply investigation". If he bought drugs for other people that would make it far more serious than "illegal drug abuse".
Spectator: -"The Revd Paul Flowers ticked all the right 'progressive' boxes — that's why he could get away with anything
The real scandal, though, is not just that he was a staggeringly incompetent bank chief who knew next to nothing about banking and presided over a bank that somehow fell into a £1.5 billion black hole. It is not even his predilection for cocaine, crystal meth and the occasional ‘two-day, drug-fuelled gay orgy’ (to use his words). The scandal is that no one spotted that he was spectacularly unsuited to the jobs he was given — or if they did, they chose to do nothing about it. Yet again, a public figure with his ethics pinned to his sleeve somehow existed beyond proper scrutiny."
Flowers was a useful 'loyal' tool – I doubt any of those who hired him scrutinised his CV.
Flowers misfortune was to get caught out. What's the betting he's only one of many?
‘Flowers misfortune was to get caught out’ – in just about every job or position of trust he held for 30 years. At least 3 investigations are being carried out on every aspect of his ‘career’ so far – and now the police are looking into his illegal drug abuse. Oh dear.
I’m sure there are many more like him, however I doubt they will ever be ‘caught out’ in quite so spectacular a fashion.
He's being questioned in connection with a "drugs supply investigation". If he bought drugs for other people that would make it far more serious than "illegal drug abuse".
Spectator: -"The Revd Paul Flowers ticked all the right 'progressive' boxes — that's why he could get away with anything
The real scandal, though, is not just that he was a staggeringly incompetent bank chief who knew next to nothing about banking and presided over a bank that somehow fell into a £1.5 billion black hole. It is not even his predilection for cocaine, crystal meth and the occasional ‘two-day, drug-fuelled gay orgy’ (to use his words). The scandal is that no one spotted that he was spectacularly unsuited to the jobs he was given — or if they did, they chose to do nothing about it. Yet again, a public figure with his ethics pinned to his sleeve somehow existed beyond proper scrutiny."
Flowers was a useful 'loyal' tool – I doubt any of those who hired him scrutinised his CV.
Flowers misfortune was to get caught out. What's the betting he's only one of many?
‘Flowers misfortune was to get caught out’ – in just about every job or position of trust he held for 30 years. At least 3 investigations are being carried out on every aspect of his ‘career’ so far – and now the police are looking into his illegal drug abuse. Oh dear.
I’m sure there are many more like him, however I doubt they will ever be ‘caught out’ in quite so spectacular a fashion.
Rev. Flowers is a man of our time. Could one really imagine a senior figure in the Labour and Co-Operative movement behaving like this in, say, Attlee's time?
Daily Politics - Delingpole - "UKIP is like the Tea Party" - Andrew Neil points out a few electoral facts of life......and what an unqualified success that has been.....
There's a fundamental difference.The Tea Party works inside the republican party - UKIP stands against the tories and is very much against them.
I think that voters who believed him won't care that it's been dropped, and those that didn't, well... didn't anyway. And on its own not enough to change votes.
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.
On topic, I think it will firm up the vote of those who were 70%+ certain to vote Tory and reinvigorate Tory activists who were wondering whether to bother.
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 amazing thing about the Test from a betting perspective is that you could have had 5-1 on England and 4-1 on Australia, all pretty much in the first 4 sessions of the match...
That 5s about England must've been when Aus were 71-1? Seems big, but Harry Hindsight is always in the know!
He's being questioned in connection with a "drugs supply investigation". If he bought drugs for other people that would make it far more serious than "illegal drug abuse".
Spectator: -"The Revd Paul Flowers ticked all the right 'progressive' boxes — that's why he could get away with anything
The real scandal, though, is not just that he was a staggeringly incompetent bank chief who knew next to nothing about banking and presided over a bank that somehow fell into a £1.5 billion black hole. It is not even his predilection for cocaine, crystal meth and the occasional ‘two-day, drug-fuelled gay orgy’ (to use his words). The scandal is that no one spotted that he was spectacularly unsuited to the jobs he was given — or if they did, they chose to do nothing about it. Yet again, a public figure with his ethics pinned to his sleeve somehow existed beyond proper scrutiny."
Flowers was a useful 'loyal' tool – I doubt any of those who hired him scrutinised his CV.
Flowers misfortune was to get caught out. What's the betting he's only one of many?
‘Flowers misfortune was to get caught out’ – in just about every job or position of trust he held for 30 years. At least 3 investigations are being carried out on every aspect of his ‘career’ so far – and now the police are looking into his illegal drug abuse. Oh dear.
I’m sure there are many more like him, however I doubt they will ever be ‘caught out’ in quite so spectacular a fashion.
Rev. Flowers is a man of our time. Could one really imagine a senior figure in the Labour and Co-Operative movement behaving like this in, say, Attlee's time?
Oh, I don't know...theer was always Tom Driberg to add to the gayeity (sic) of Austerity Britain.
maybe he should just do all he can to protect his votes even if it's clear everything he says is about positioning and nothing to do with what he believes.
Is that Ed "Why should I marry the mother of the children I forgot to register" Miliband before or after he invited the press corp to his wedding?
He's being questioned in connection with a "drugs supply investigation". If he bought drugs for other people that would make it far more serious than "illegal drug abuse".
Spectator: -"The Revd Paul Flowers ticked all the right 'progressive' boxes — that's why he could get away with anything
The real scandal, though, is not just that he was a staggeringly incompetent bank chief who knew next to nothing about banking and presided over a bank that somehow fell into a £1.5 billion black hole. It is not even his predilection for cocaine, crystal meth and the occasional ‘two-day, drug-fuelled gay orgy’ (to use his words). The scandal is that no one spotted that he was spectacularly unsuited to the jobs he was given — or if they did, they chose to do nothing about it. Yet again, a public figure with his ethics pinned to his sleeve somehow existed beyond proper scrutiny."
Flowers was a useful 'loyal' tool – I doubt any of those who hired him scrutinised his CV.
Flowers misfortune was to get caught out. What's the betting he's only one of many?
‘Flowers misfortune was to get caught out’ – in just about every job or position of trust he held for 30 years. At least 3 investigations are being carried out on every aspect of his ‘career’ so far – and now the police are looking into his illegal drug abuse. Oh dear.
I’m sure there are many more like him, however I doubt they will ever be ‘caught out’ in quite so spectacular a fashion.
Rev. Flowers is a man of our time. Could one really imagine a senior figure in the Labour and Co-Operative movement behaving like this in, say, Attlee's time?
Yes, but the Press would never have done anything so unseemly as to investigate the goings on in a politicians private life.
Comments
Certainly there has been a lot of very tokenistic green policy about. I mean by this actions that are high profile but ineffective at actually protecting the environment. If I see another Chelsea Tractor pull up at the bottle bank....
Conservatives have a long tradition of protecting the environment by protecting the countryside. Some Green policies are very Blue. Others are less so. I think HS2 is an example. I have no problem with new rail lines, but high speed trains are less fuel efficient and as they do not stop along the way re of little benefit to the countryside communities that they despoil. A new line on the same route with a station every 20 miles would get a lot more support as it would increase the viability of rail commuters living along this line. It would both be more popular and more green.
Keep the good green policies, and dump the greenwash. That would play well to the prospective voters, and Cameron is a pragmatist not an idealogue, and always has been.
The current (December 2013) baseload electricity price is (checks his Bloomberg...) £54.48/MWh, or 5.5p/KWh. You don't pay that. Your electricity distribution company has offered to sell you power at (give or take) 20p/KWh.
That includes:
The power they buy (which includes baseload at 5p/KWh, and some peaking power at prices as high at 35p/KWh), and also some wind farms which they are obligated to purchase irrespective of the prevailing power price (c. 10p/KWh). When it's a peaking market, the fixed price wind looks pretty good value. When it's a baseload one, then the wind looks pretty awful.
VAT and other taxes
The cost of distributing the power around the country. I.e the fees paid to National Grid, and the transmission losses associated with sending the power around.
The cost of maintaining the local connection and electricity substations.
The cost of measuring and billing your usage, and then charging you.
The cost of all their staff, and of marketing, etc.
Their own profit.
All in all, the cost of electricity generation is typically between 40 and 50% of your final bill.
For you as a consumer, if you can move your consumption from - say - 1,000KWh a week (making up numbers here), to 500KW/h, and it has cost you £3,000 to put the panels on your roof, then that's a pretty good deal. Don't confuse wholesale and retail prices.
I'm impressed that Biomass is as high as 1.33%
(37.16%)
Coal - winning here.
The merit order of power generation in the UK is such that CCGTs will simply turn themselves off if the price falls below (say) £50/MWh (warning, made up number, but probably not very far from the truth). And coal will turn off below £40/MWh. Because those are the levels at which the cost of fuel exceeds what they'll get for the electricity they generate. So, if the wind blows a lot, it simply displaces other power generation.
http://www.vantageweatherservices.co.uk/3.html
He used to wear one of those funky cycling style ones - is that still the case ?
The NHS chaos did / is doing far more damage to Brand Cameron.
When can we expect you to parrot his, (well Ed Ball's) New Towns line?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24991843
Few Tory voters will be remotely concerned if the Tories ditch the green crap. Far more potential Tory voters will be interested if it leads to a lasting cut in energy costs as opposed to an artificial 21 month freeze.
Meanwhile back in the real world, all the journalists who had England winning the Ashes before a wicket had fallen are now praying for 3 days of heavy rain.
If the interconnect were to be blown up this afternoon, our peaking plant would find itself used more during baseload times, and less during peak periods.
Could reduce various private and Gov't pension commitments.
But I suspect it would have little impact on Aggreko as we have quite a lot of peaking plant in the UK. And some of the gas plant that has been mothballed would simply be un-mothballed.
Much more of an issue for UK generating would be if Milford Haven LNG terminal was blown up.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/22/latvia-supermarket-collapse-feared-dead-trapped
It may or may not be a good idea for the Tories to start running against green taxes and things, but David Cameron is the wrong person to do it. If the Tories have decided that's what they want to do, they need to pick a new leader.
Currently we have c. 7-8GW of nuclear (depends on how much is undergoing maintenance at any time, right now we're slightly below that range), and 15-20GW of coal. Adding those two, together with our most efficient gas plant, you cover your basic needs (before peaking and before bringing wind into the mix).
We have more than 20GW of available CCGT gas at any time, plus 5GW of super expensive (from a fuel perspective) single cycle gas. In addition, there is a couple of gig of old coal, and another couple of gig of oil. Regular hydro is c. 1GW, and pumped storage peaks out at 2GW (but can't go on for the entire day, obviously). In theory there is 5GW of wind available, but utilisation for that is typically around 30%.
Aggreko, as far as I'm aware, doesn't actually have anything feeding directly into the UK grid right now.
Any idea what sort of size this is (in particularly in comparison to the amount of gas used in electricity generation for example)
I see lefties are unhappy with this potential tax cut - suggests it is a good idea.
Flowers effect?
Probably just a reversion to the mean, as recent Populus polls have shown higher than usual Labour shares of the vote/leads
Populus @PopulusPolls 1m
New Populus Voting Intention figures: Lab 38 (-3); Cons 33 (+1); LD 11 (+1); UKIP 11 (+2); Oth 7 (-1) Tables here: http://popu.lu/s_vi221113
LD 1591 Lab 901 UKIP 450 Green 210 Con 189
Cameron's positions are completely unclear.
Doesn't have to be a radical husky botherer.
I was interested to see that across yesterday's council by-elections (excluding the one counting this morning) taken from a tweet this morning the Tories had a lead in vote share of almost 10%
4 of 5 council election results in
vote share so far
CON 31.8%
LAB 22.2%
UKIP 13.9%
IOC 13.2%
IND 11.3%
LD 6.6%
GREEN 1% (21 & 11 votes)
Nick Clegg stands for not being one thing, or the other thing, but somewhere in between.
Gordon Brown stood for wintery seriousness.
Tony Blair stood for centrism and modernity.
John Major stood for serious, classless, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps-ism.
Margaret Thatcher stood for not turning.
David Cameron stood for liberal, inclusive conservatism, and concern for the environment. He worked very hard at this, and he got the message over very effectively. He's given it all up, and now he's all over the place. It may be hindsight playing tricks on me, but I can't think of any previous Prime Minister messing up their own brand the way the current Tory leadership have.
The anarchic smiley video?
I wonder if Vettel will end up building a massive castle at Lake Geneva...
http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/labours-paul-salveson-resigns-kirklees-6192787
Mind you Labour councillors 'stepping down due to outside commitments' may raise the odd eyebrow......
www.youtube.com/watch?v=n19-iAuLwQo
Cameron could have stood for that last time if he'd seen the mess coming in time, but he can't run on it again after five years in office.
The real scandal, though, is not just that he was a staggeringly incompetent bank chief who knew next to nothing about banking and presided over a bank that somehow fell into a £1.5 billion black hole. It is not even his predilection for cocaine, crystal meth and the occasional ‘two-day, drug-fuelled gay orgy’ (to use his words). The scandal is that no one spotted that he was spectacularly unsuited to the jobs he was given — or if they did, they chose to do nothing about it. Yet again, a public figure with his ethics pinned to his sleeve somehow existed beyond proper scrutiny."
Flowers was a useful 'loyal' tool – I doubt any of those who hired him scrutinised his CV.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9082571/an-icon-of-our-time/
Quite. imagine marketing yourself on the basis of 'just pipped at the post to head up co-op bank'
The hope being that every, cough, "tough decision" the Tories take - from the bedroom tax to the cast-iron referendum pledge - is seen through that prism.
PB is watching you! Let's hope Jack Dromey doesn't visit the site...
Last weeks X Factor and Downton rank higher in the memory stakes.
@nicholaswatt: @jameswhartonmp so that's how many letters Graham Brady has in his safe
@michaelsavage: Surely Afriyie will now lead the new Tory faction all the way to Downing St. Not sure 15 is enough to make up a Cabinet tho. Ukip coalition?
Lee Godfrey selected as Labour candidate in Kingston & Surbiton:
mobile.twitter.com/Godfrey_Lee
George Freeman reselected by Conservatives in Mid Norfolk:
http://www.georgefreeman.co.uk/content/george-re-adopted-mid-norfolk-conservatives-candidate-2015-election
I think there are plenty of voters who might have been fooled by the acres of news footage painting him as the new Ranolph Feinnes. I personally know several voters for whom this is THE defining issue.
Probably most wouldn't be Tory anyway but imagine how traitorous this is to the Lib Dems who thought they were getting into bed with Jonathan Porritt only to wake up with Nigel Lawson. I'd be curious to hear Steve Hilton's comments. He really meant it.
I’m sure there are many more like him, however I doubt they will ever be ‘caught out’ in quite so spectacular a fashion.
"Father of 2 children whose future I feel responsible for."
https://mobile.twitter.com/Freeman_George
Maybe I'm a bit old-fashioned in finding this statement both redundant and sentimental.
6 years ago.
So much has changed since then. We've had the recession, we've had economic struggles, we've got the eurozone crisis and we've got our international partners competing rather than co-operating. We've also had climate change melt away like a snow in springtime. Projections made by climate change scientists have all failed.
We should be efficient where we can but we shouldn't strangle ourselves to make no noticeable difference to the climate anyway. As Keynes said, when the facts change I change my mind - what do you do?
However you have to ask now whether any kind of agreement between the Tories and Lib Dems is conceivable after 2015 given the Crosbyisation of the Tories? Perhaps the Lib Dems could be forgiven for thinking in 2010 the Tories had modernised and Cameron was a liberal conservative they could do business with. Surely not anymore.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25047376
There's a fundamental difference.The Tea Party works inside the republican party - UKIP stands against the tories and is very much against them.
In that sense Tea is more like Militant than UKIP
Better this than boring 590-4 after 2 days
common sense and brokeness vs 20 years of school and media brainwashing
my guess would be brokeness will win in the end but only after a bit of a tussle
(unless it is a really bad winter and we get blackouts or some kind of noticeable rationing in which case not much tussle)
http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/black_and_white_council_staff_won_t_be_able_to_work_together_says_rainham_councillor_as_havering_and_newham_councils_to_merge_services_1_3028478