Good question, bad answer

From Hansard:

Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): Lord Stern, whose discredited report still forms the rationale for the Government’s energy policy, calculated in 2006 the amount by which the price of hydrocarbons needed to be increased in order to decarbonise the economy. Since then, the price of hydrocarbons has risen faster and further than either Lord Stern or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change thought sufficient, so why does my right hon. Friend propose to pile Pelion upon Ossa by burdening British industry and households with these tripled taxes?

Mr Davey: My right hon. Friend has been consistent: he voted against the Climate Change Act 2008 and he clearly does not like our low-carbon policies today. The fact that fossil fuel prices have gone up is yet another argument for our policies. We need to insulate our economy, our consumers and our businesses from those high prices. This country has to import far more fossil fuels than we used to because North sea resources are going down, and that is leaving our economy exposed. We need to tackle that issue for reasons of energy security and to ensure that we have competitive prices.

Comments

[James P]

SunGCR

"Are IoW residents aware of this"

I'm sure most of them are, but in a rather desultory way. The local council, which is spectacularly inept, endorses it, which probably doesn't help their cause. What we do have here are A-list NIMBYs (especially the recent arrivals), who have spiked every attempt to put windmills up, but I don't think it's for the right reasons!

I'm not sure I can bring myself to look at their website, but their daft self-sufficient aims appear in the local paper occasionally, which laps it up, as they love any free editorial. Little homilies about lagging your house or using low-energy bulbs appear on the backs of local buses, which is mildly toe-curling, but I comfort myself with the thought that it will put off as many people as it encourages...

[johanna]

As a long-term observer of politics in various countries, I must admit that this particular Q&A is right up there with, as someone upthread noted, the "we must destroy the village to liberate it" level of sheer, bloody-minded stupidity.

I do not know whether the Minister is so thick that he does not know what he is saying, or whether he does know and this is the pre-approved smokescreen for such questions. Either way, it is not a good look.

Let me take this opportunity to remind readers that Phil Davies would have voted against the legislation, had he not been a teller. I like Phil. His interrogation of James Murdoch over the phone-hacking scandal (available on You Tube - search philip davies) is one of the best parliamentary cross-examinations in recent years. As he is a Yorkshire former businessman, Phil's questions made me wonder if he is Andy Dalziel's long lost nephew.

[Peter Stroud]

Davey is just another Chris Huhne but with, perhaps, a slightly nicer personality.