Back in May 2015, the government started it’s war on green energy. The story that it came up with to cover for this ideological assault on the planet was that green energy subsidies were costing the average household a fortune. That fortune turned out to be about 0.7% of your bill – about £8 on average (far less than the subsidy on coal and gas). However, who wouldn’t want to save £8, even if it meant accelerating climate change, right?
Well, a parliamentary report published today says it may not have been such a good idea. In fact the report claims the government’s culling of green energy will cost us £3.18bn a year, or £116 per household on average.
The government has taken a number of steps to kill off green energy (despite it being cheaper than nuclear), and those steps are seen as so irrational by investors that no energy investors trust the Conservatives any more. As a result it is harder to find funding for new power schemes, pushing prices up.
Examples cited by the report are;
Highly successful carbon capture schemes were abandoned just weeks before the end of the 10 year £220m project
Solar subsidies were slashed, destroying a highly successful fledgling industry
Local people were given the power to block wind farms, but forbidden from stopping fracking
Scrapping the zero carbon homes initiative
Ending funding for the Green Deals company, which improved energy efficiency in homes
Having no energy policy at all beyond 2020
A complete lack of transparency in energy policy, with numerous contradictory rules seemingly being plucked out of thin air at random
The report also alludes that investors are concerned that the government is intentionally misleading the public about what they are doing.
The UK energy policy has left us with an expensive bill, benefiting no-one but the companies who sell oil, gas and coal. The only question is whether that is true evil, or just plain old incompetence.
David Cameron has been doing his best to clamp down on democracy. He is putting in place measures to cut funding to the Labour party by changing the rules on union funding. He’s also drastically cutting the funding that all opposition parties receive in a bid to stop them forming an effective opposition.
Now that the Left is taken out of the picture, Cameron’s next step is to take care of the other people who can stop his quest for unfettered power – the grass roots Conservative Associations. Mwhahaha.
At the moment there are 650 Conservative Associations throughout the country, and as can be seen in this photo from Ipswich Central Conservative Club, they are a dynamic hotbed of political debate, with grey haired members of all ages. Even women can join these days if they fancy a spot of Cribbage or Dominoes (Fives and Threes that is, not that foreign food).
The problem for David Cameron is that these 650 associations are responsible for selecting MPs and even the next PM. And rather than being in favour of whichever candidate will do the best to earn themselves a handful of non-executive directorships, or otherwise grease the way for their own profit at the expense of the poor, statistically the club members tend to be more of the view that whoever will increase their pension and send foreigners home is the right man for the job. Or lady for the job. But probably a man.
So, rather than leaving the future wealth of David and his friends is in the hands of people outside of his control, he is proposing to change the way these associations work, and merge them from 650 down to 90 associations, each of which will have less influence on politics. And with no accountability from the left or the right, David can do what he wants. Mwhahaha.
Iain Duncan Smith has come up with a brilliant plan to save money. He’s going to cut £29.05 a week from half a million people who are too sick to work – slashing their payments from £102.15 to £73.10. Why? To encourage them to get better and go back to work.
Unfortunately, these are people who his own work capability assessment process has already confirmed are not fit to work. But they have been judged as potentially being able to get a job one day, and for that little glimmer of hope he’s going to cut their income. Mwhahaha.
This policy is pretty universally applauded as evil. The Lords have already rejected it once, and even Tory back benchers have said it goes too far. None of that will stop IDS, who is determined to make sure that no unfortunates gets any help from his department.
Over the past 6 years, the government has been slashing local council funding. On average funding has been cut by 30% so far, and is due to be cut another 56% over the next 5 years. The cuts are so bad that even David Cameron’s own mother has been protesting against the cuts. Thankfully the cuts have not been equal though. In the five most deprived areas of the country, the cuts have been on average £336 a head, compared to £7 a head in the most deprived areas. It’s no coincidence that the deprived areas have Labour councils while the richest areas have Conservative councils. Mwhahaha.
The government has been getting a lot of heat from its back bench MPs about the funding cuts – presumably even nice middle class people have noticed that slashing funding for libraries, children’s centres, schools and elderly care is a bad thing. The MPs are in fear of losing their seats at the next election, so David Cameron had to find some money to stop that. And he certainly has targeted his funding at saving those MPs.
£300m has been found from somewhere to help the councils who are suffering due to the Tory cuts. But the funding isn’t going to the areas in the most need of financial help, but rather to the ones most in need of political help. The councils in the five most deprived areas – the Labour run Hull, Knowsley, Liverpool, Manchester and Middlesbrough councils will receive a grand total of zero pounds. At the same time, the councils in the five least deprived areas – the Conservative run Chiltern, Elmbridge, Hart, Waverley and Wokingham get a total of £5.3m. In total 83% of the funding is going to Tory councils. Mwhahaha.
As the recent floods have shown, you don’t have to have a house on a floodplain to be flooded, but it helps an awful lot. Because people tend to be averse to losing valued possessions and living in a B&B for months, the Environment Agency advises people not to build on floodplains. However, floodplains are generally cheap to buy, and because they are flat they are cheap to build on, so provide nice cheap housing for the masses (even if those masses will get wet on a regular basis).
Now the government has come out in direct contradiction to the Environment Agency, and said it is fine to build on floodplains, as long as the people who live there are told about the risk. As a result about half of all flagship “affordable” homes are planned to be built on floodplains. When the only houses people can buy are on a floodplain, warning them that they are going to flood and pretending that’s good enough is pure evil. It’s a bit like telling someone that there’s a real risk to health from asbestos, and by the way the only job available is in the asbestos crushing factory.
The government claims to be doing something about this – it will launch an insurance scheme later this year, called FloodRe which will insure older flood risk properties at a low price. But while this scheme is great for those with a riverside mansion, it excludes leasehold flats and homes that are let, as well as all of the new “affordable” homes. Not ideal for the poor then. Mwhahaha.
Like most other measures that aren’t actually flood prevention, the scheme simply amounts to a taxpayer funded subsidy to house builders. In fact a recent report calculated that we are all subsidising builders by two to six percent, simply to have them build homes that will be regularly flooded. Which possibly isn’t what everyone wants.