Milliband and the IEA

[Gemmel]

http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/press-release/ed-miliband-fails-to-address-the-cause-of-rising-living-costs

 

Ouch!!

[bridge too far]

http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/press-release/ed-miliband-fails-to-address-the-cause-of-rising-living-costs

 

Ouch!!

 

You'd hardly expect a right-wing organisation like this to agree with Miliband, now would you?

[Weston Saint]

You'd hardly expect a right-wing organisation like this to agree with Miliband, now would you?

They are not right wing....they are right

[manji]

Totally unbiased report from a bunch of extreme libertarian lunatics who even think The Army and Police should be privatized.

[Saintandy666]

To really get cheap energy, we need to complete the green transition. Until then, everything else is simply delay.

[oracle saint]

What a great idea! The government controlling prices; why not wages as well?

 

Oh.... hang on; hasn't that already been tried? Anybody know how it worked out?

[CB Saint]

To really get cheap energy, we need to complete the green transition. Until then, everything else is simply delay.

 

So what happen on a dark windless day when the tide is out?

[OldNick]

So what happen on a dark windless day when the tide is out?

He may have shares in a candle company.

Anyone who recalls the power cuts in the 70s will be a tad concerned about the capping of power prices. I'm sure Mr Putin and the other gas suppliers will be shaking in their shoes, I assume they will just sell their goods to others. Power prices are down to worldwide demand, the British government will have trouble keeping the price down. Of course Mr BAlls will have helped plan this great idea, we announce a price cap 2years before they are to be put into place, of course the power companies would never think of inflated their prices in the 2years before to give them plenty of room, costing the poor old man in the street more money up til then. Just another mad cap idea by politicians

[Saintandy666]

So what happen on a dark windless day when the tide is out?

 

Obviously those three inferred energy types are part of the solution (although there are some very valid ecological concerns regarding tidal and wind), but there are also biofuels, geothermal and if we can get nuclear fusion down - which we will - that will effectively mean unlimited clean energy.

 

The fact of the matter is we can't keep polluting the earth as we are or one day in the future we'll find we won't have any need for energy anymore because we're all long gone. Finding clean sustainable energy is the most pressing problem facing mankind; especially if we intend to remain around in the kind of numbers we have at the moment.

[aintforever]

I did think there was a slight chance of labour winning the next election with the collapse of the Lib Dem vote and the tories losing votes to UKIP. In the last few days Milliband has ruined any idea of that.

 

The way he has been promising this and that reminds me of a 12 year old running badly for school president. The fact that he looks like a wallace and gromit character doesn't help either, you just can't take him seriously. What have labour done? The thought of being stuck with the tories for 5 more years is just depressing.

[Saintandy666]

I did think there was a slight chance of labour winning the next election with the collapse of the Lib Dem vote and the tories losing votes to UKIP. In the last few days Milliband has ruined any idea of that.

 

The way he has been promising this and that reminds me of a 12 year old running badly for school president. The fact that he looks like a wallace and gromit character doesn't help either, you just can't take him seriously. What have labour done? The thought of being stuck with the tories for 5 more years is just depressing.

 

I'm not sure. The tories are effectively facing a two pronged attack if they want to form a majority, and to do that they will need to increase their vote share. Problem is, Lib Dems will go to Labour more than the Tories and some Tories will go to UKIP squeezing their vote. The Lib Dems also are very good at hanging on where they are already in, so I expect to see 30+ Liberal Democrats in parliament next year. I can't see a conservative majority government at the moment.

[OldNick]

Obviously those three inferred energy types are part of the solution (although there are some very valid ecological concerns regarding tidal and wind), but there are also biofuels, geothermal and if we can get nuclear fusion down - which we will - that will effectively mean unlimited clean energy.

 

The fact of the matter is we can't keep polluting the earth as we are or one day in the future we'll find we won't have any need for energy anymore because we're all long gone. Finding clean sustainable energy is the most pressing problem facing mankind; especially if we intend to remain around in the kind of numbers we have at the moment.

biofuels use up more land that should be used for growing food for the increasing population. Wind farms are just a cosmetic way of making people think we are doing things. I read at one time that a wind generator uses up more energy in its manufacture and erection/building than it produces n it's lifetime. Nuclear energy is really the main way and water/tidal power.

[aintforever]

I'm not sure. The tories are effectively facing a two pronged attack if they want to form a majority, and to do that they will need to increase their vote share. Problem is, Lib Dems will go to Labour more than the Tories and some Tories will go to UKIP squeezing their vote. The Lib Dems also are very good at hanging on where they are already in, so I expect to see 30+ Liberal Democrats in parliament next year. I can't see a conservative majority government at the moment.

 

Maybe, but I just can't help thinking Labour have messed up. They already had the left wing vote in the bag all they had to do is steal the middle ground and the tories would be screwed. Promising this and that with no thought for the maths behind it will just send alarm bells ringing in most voters.

[Saintandy666]

biofuels use up more land that should be used for growing food for the increasing population. Wind farms are just a cosmetic way of making people think we are doing things. I read at one time that a wind generator uses up more energy in its manufacture and erection/building than it produces n it's lifetime. Nuclear energy is really the main way and water/tidal power.

 

The land issue with biofuels is a good con; but not terminal. There is enough space for everything (especially with more adoption of GM crops), although I don't think anyone is suggesting using biofuels on their own - it's better to diversify. And I haven't heard that about wind farms, and it appears to be false - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/29/turbines-energy. The main problem that many cite to do with wind farms is their effect of bird wildlife in the area.

[Saintandy666]

Maybe, but I just can't help thinking Labour have messed up. They already had the left wing vote in the bag all they had to do is steal the middle ground and the tories would be screwed. Promising this and that with no thought for the maths behind it will just send alarm bells ringing in most voters.

 

The question here though is do people think that in depth as to the maths of things. Most electioneering is based on a few soundbites and policies as opposed to detailed analysis of the entire package a particular party would offer.

[buctootim]

Wind farms are just a cosmetic way of making people think we are doing things. I read at one time that a wind generator uses up more energy in its manufacture and erection/building than it produces n it's lifetime. Nuclear energy is really the main way and water/tidal power.

 

You should read stuff with facts in it, it will help your posting. Wind turbines are the fastest growing source of renewable worldwide for good reason - mainly their efficiency and short pay back time - far better than tidal. Nuclear is only economic with vast subsidies. We'd be better off with highly efficient homes, wind energy with gas fired power stations as back up and a bit of nuclear to spread the risk - which oddly enough is exactly what the government is doing.

[buctootim]

The main problem that many cite to do with wind farms is their effect of bird wildlife in the area.

 

Most turbines are being sited offshore, excatly where they should be not just for environmental and landscape reasons, but because thats where the reliable wind is.

http://www.forewind.co.uk/projects/dogger-bank-creyke-beck.html

[OldNick]

You should read stuff with facts in it, it will help your posting. Wind turbines are the fastest growing source of renewable worldwide for good reason - mainly their efficiency and short pay back time - far better than tidal. Nuclear is only economic with vast subsidies. We'd be better off with highly efficient homes, wind energy with gas fired power stations as back up and a bit of nuclear to spread the risk - which oddly enough is exactly what the government is doing.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk › Earth › Energy › Wind Power

15 Jun 2013 - Every job in Britain's wind farm industry is effectively subsidised to the extent of ... They employed 12,000 people, to produce an effective £100,000 ... tank that has criticised the cost of wind farms, it currently adds about £47 to ... Perhaps not the energy produced but the cost to each of us

[solentstars]

http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/press-release/ed-miliband-fails-to-address-the-cause-of-rising-living-costs

 

Ouch!!

just another bunch of free loading pigs who want to rip off ordinary joe public to benefit a few greedy self serving groups paid for by big business interests to convince us they are hard by.

[bridge too far]

just another bunch of free loading pigs who want to rip off ordinary joe public to benefit a few greedy self serving groups paid for by big business interests to convince us they are hard by.

 

Something like these guys do you think?

 

http://mikesivier.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/are-these-the-men-who-would-be-king/

[Jonnyboy]

Thought that was his best speech today.

 

The entire pricing structure of the energy companies needs complete reform. Even Cameron agrees with that.

[buctootim]

Its a fraction of the cost of nuclear, the construction costs alone are a staggering £8,000 per kw. The main economic point about wind is that you don't have to import expensive and cost volatile hydrocarbons. The cost per MW is higher in the UK than gas or coal, but the money is retained in the UK economy, not exported away.

http://www.windenergyfoundation.org/about-wind-energy/economics

 

Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimate that wind will have the lowest unit cost of any electricity generation by 2030. 17 years from now may seem a long way off but will only be the half way point in the life of any coal or gas or nuclear facility commissioned in 2013. Over the whole life of the installation wind is likely to be cheaper than any other source.

http://about.bnef.com/markets/renewable-energy/wind/

Edited 24 September, 2013 by buctootim

[solentstars]

Something like these guys do you think? http://mikesivier.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/are-these-the-men-who-would-be-king/

no surprise to me but you still have people swallowing all the rubbish these groups promote .

[solentstars]

Its a fraction of the cost of nuclear, the construction costs alone are a staggering £8,000 per kw. The main economic point about wind is that you don't have to import expensive and cost volatile hydrocarbons. The cost per MW is higher in the UK than gas or coal, but the money is retained in the UK economy, not exported away. http://www.windenergyfoundation.org/about-wind-energy/economics

and the usa and china and germany are investing big money in these technology s and exporting and manufacturing green industry's products and know how to sale to the rest of the world.

[Lord Duckhunter]

WOW, Just WOW. Has there ever been a period with so many political pygmies and illiterate economic arguments. Does anybody in the establishment realise how much debt we have and why do all 3 establishment parties seem to think more Government intervention is the answer.

 

In the past 7 days we've had free kids meals for middle class and rich parents, "wrap around child care" , more bank taxes and now Government interference with private companies prices. Does Ed think he's hitting their profits, as Andrew Neil pointed out to Caroline Flint, in California the energy companies just cut investment in infrastructure which led to power cuts following a pricing policy. This is not going to come out of their margin, and it's telling that some energy companies share price went up following Milliband's announcement.

 

Where on earth are these clowns going to get the money from for these pre election bribes, that's right, our money. OH no, of course, it's going to be a bank levy, a mansion tax and increasing the top rate of tax. Surely they can see that if you take more capital out of the banks, it comes at the expense of lending, lending that we need to boost the economy. Mansion tax, who decides the value of a house, are they basing it on existing council tax levels, or will there need to be an expensive revaluation of every property? When will this money start coming in, because the spending commitments start from day one.It's easy to throw around talk of a "mansion tax", but it's really not as simple as saying "you live in a posh house, pay up". Somebody needs to value these properties, which takes time and money. And of course the old Labour favourite from the 70's , raising of the top rate of tax, the answer to all our prayers. Money that the Labour party has spent about 6 times over.

 

We've had 2 conferences and all I can think is "do they really think we're that stupid". I've no doubt the Tory one will follow a similar vain. I just hope that somewhere in my children's generation, there's a politician who can sort this mess out, because what we're handing down to them is a bloody Portsmouth FC style economy.

[trousers]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10281034/Labour-and-Lib-Dems-got-mansion-tax-sums-wrong.html

[buctootim]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10281034/Labour-and-Lib-Dems-got-mansion-tax-sums-wrong.html

 

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/09/fisking-george-osbornes-speech/

[Polaroid Saint]

Written in plain English, with easy to follow maths, this is a must read for anyone really interested in looking at the present and future of energy supply and demand. A stunning piece of work that really 'cuts the cr@p.'

 

http://www.withouthotair.com

[Ex Lion Tamer]

I did think there was a slight chance of labour winning the next election with the collapse of the Lib Dem vote and the tories losing votes to UKIP. In the last few days Milliband has ruined any idea of that.

 

The way he has been promising this and that reminds me of a 12 year old running badly for school president. The fact that he looks like a wallace and gromit character doesn't help either, you just can't take him seriously. What have labour done? The thought of being stuck with the tories for 5 more years is just depressing.

 

For three years he's been criticised for not having any policies. I think it's great that he's now got some. And ones that will help the ordinary public too.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10281034/Labour-and-Lib-Dems-got-mansion-tax-sums-wrong.html

Surely you can see that the people who did that research and who are quoted have a massive vested interest in trying to discredit the mansion tax?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

So what happen on a dark windless day when the tide is out?

 

errr the tide always comes back in...

[Whitey Grandad]

Its a fraction of the cost of nuclear, the construction costs alone are a staggering £8,000 per kw. The main economic point about wind is that you don't have to import expensive and cost volatile hydrocarbons. The cost per MW is higher in the UK than gas or coal, but the money is retained in the UK economy, not exported away./QUOTE]

Aren't all the turbines manufactured outside the UK?

[eurosaint]

For three years he's been criticised for not having any policies. I think it's great that he's now got some. And ones that will help the ordinary public too.

 

Yeah wonderful, he's managed to find a couple, pity that they are idiotic, unworkable and intended only to gain votes rather than benefit the country !

The guy has never had a proper job in his life and by God, it shows !

Sadly the other tw*ts are not much better but at least they are not quite so unsubtle !!

[Lord Duckhunter]

Surely you can see that the people who did that research and who are quoted have a massive vested interest in trying to discredit the mansion tax?

 

That's because its easy to discredit. Like all of labour's new eye catching voter friendly bribes, they're built on sand. You only had to watch Andrew Neil monster twigg and Mrs balls on the daily politics today to see that.

 

Twigg,banging on about energy companies profits was challenged by Neil "what were their profits". Twigg, didn't know, just kept repeating it. Then said " everybody knows centrica made vast profits" , " what were they?" Neil asked. "I don't have that to hand" replied the education spokesman, do some homework before coming on and moralising on energy profits suggested Neil helpfully. Neil then pointed out that tesco made more profit than them, "why not a pricing policy for food, as the big supermarkets are making massive profits".

 

As for Mrs balls asked about firemen and their strike, kept answering about policemen. Does anybody seriously vote for these clowns?

[buctootim]

Aren't all the turbines manufactured outside the UK?

 

They are, but then so are the coal and gas fired turbines. At least with wind you only import the equipment, not the fuel as well.

Edited 25 September, 2013 by buctootim

[trousers]

Surely you can see that the people who did that research and who are quoted have a massive vested interest in trying to discredit the mansion tax?

 

Maybe list the things they got wrong then we can talk it through...

[buctootim]

Maybe list the things they got wrong then we can talk it through...

 

Good idea Trousers. Off you go, start with Lib Dems and then Labour.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Maybe list the things they got wrong then we can talk it through...

 

The story is a bit unclear in explaining the methodology, but as far as I can tell they had to estimate the number of houses covered and relied on "contradictory" and "incomplete" data to guess their values. And yet their results are held up as a really reliable figure.

 

There will have been multiple points where they will have had to make decisions which could have made the end figure higher or lower. And of course they would choose the ones that make it lower.

 

When it comes to working with that sort of in-depth data work I would only trust independent policy researchers with substantial research qualifications, not a bunch of estate agents.

 

I would admit Labour has an incentive to over-estimate, but they will at least be held to account if they fail to reach their target.

 

And the point I probably should have made in the first place was even if it only makes £1bn, that's still worthwhile.

Edited 25 September, 2013 by Ex Lion Tamer

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Twigg,banging on about energy companies profits was challenged by Neil "what were their profits". Twigg, didn't know, just kept repeating it. Then said " everybody knows centrica made vast profits" , " what were they?" Neil asked. "I don't have that to hand" replied the education spokesman, do some homework before coming on and moralising on energy profits suggested Neil helpfully. Neil then pointed out that tesco made more profit than them, "why not a pricing policy for food, as the big supermarkets are making massive profits".

 

So he didn't know the exact figure, big deal. If thats the criterion we should appoint the Grandmaster of Memory as PM and be done with it. His overall point is right - everyone knows Centrica made big profits, thanks to big price rises and poor investment levels.

 

The point about Tesco is that if food prices are too high, it is easy for people to shop elsewhere. With energy, people find it a hassle to switch all the time (especially if they need their landlord's permission). The market is dominated by the big 6, who are slow to reduce prices when wholesale prices fall, and who bamboozle people with a range of tariffs and misselling practices.

 

Its a failing market that needs better regulation. Dont forget that this is just a temporary freeze to protect people's living standards until Labour can put in place a framework to properly regulate the market. They're not bringing back price controls on everything.

 

The is a good article:

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/09/labours-plan-reform-our-broken-energy-market-deserves-cross-party-support

 

This is also good:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/25/ed-miliband-resetting-energy-market

 

Also, Andrew Neil is a Tory who wear a ridiculous wig.

Edited 25 September, 2013 by Ex Lion Tamer

[solentstars]

They need to split up the big 6 with more players in the energy market and a strong regulator to stop ripping of Joe public .

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[trousers]

uSwitch.com ‏@uSwitchUK

Why wait until a change in government to freeze your energy bills when you can fix it now until 2017? Switch today: http://bit.ly/freezeitnow

[trousers]

And the point I probably should have made in the first place was even if it only makes £1bn, that's still worthwhile.

 

Why do we want to take even more from "the rich" when they already pay a disproportionately large amount of tax?

 

[bridge too far]

Why do we want to take even more from "the rich" when they already pay a disproportionately large amount of tax?

 

 

Probably because they've had huge pay rises above the rate of inflation compared to the rest of us

 

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/all-in-it-together-fallacy.html

[solentstars]

Why do we want to take even more from "the rich" when they already pay a disproportionately large amount of tax?yes your right they had it so bad since the 80s .let put more tax on the ordinary punters who have it so easy:)

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[Johnny Bognor]

Probably because they've had huge pay rises above the rate of inflation compared to the rest of us

 

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/all-in-it-together-fallacy.html

 

BTF that bloke is a complete nutjob. Do you honestly think shareholders would sanction 49% pay rises? I know in cloud cuckoo land, the firefighters are now after a 40% rise (and there was me thinking that their strike was a stand on principle and protecting pensions), but in the real world, it doesn't happen.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9556254/FTSE-100-director-pay-rises-ease.html

 

Edited 25 September, 2013 by Johnny Bognor

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Why do we want to take even more from "the rich" when they already pay a disproportionately large amount of tax?

 

Because taking money from a rich person will impact on their lifestyle less than if you do so to someone who is struggling to pay their heating bill each month? Isn't that obvious?

 

'The rich' pay a disproportionate amount of tax to make up for the fact that they're fabulously wealthy compared to everyone else. :

 

 

Edited 25 September, 2013 by Ex Lion Tamer

[Whitey Grandad]

Probably because they've had huge pay rises above the rate of inflation compared to the rest of us

 

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/all-in-it-together-fallacy.html

 

That's to help pay for all their extra tax.

[bridge too far]

That's to help pay for all their extra tax.

 

Nah - it's to invest in property so that Joe Public is increasingly priced out of the housing market.

[trousers]

Because taking money from a rich person will impact on their lifestyle less than if you do so to someone who is struggling to pay their heating bill each month? Isn't that obvious?

 

'The rich' pay a disproportionate amount of tax to make up for the fact that they're fabulously wealthy compared to everyone

 

Sounds like we should raise the upper tax band to 80+ % in that case. Squeeze as much as we can out of them so they end up with as much money as an ordinary person...

[Whitey Grandad]

Sounds like we should raise the upper tax band to 80+ % in that case. Squeeze as much as we can out of them so they end up with as much money as an ordinary person...

 

It's been tried and failed dismally, but you knew that already.