Bishop Hill Labour demand higher energy prices
Dec 2, 2013 Climate: Parliament Energy: grid 
Readers may remember that I mentioned the launch of Labour's green paper on energy last week. At the time, I made a cursory and ultimately fruitless attempt to find the document in question, and at least one BH reader reckons it is in fact illusory.
Having dug a bit further, I have come across mention of a "ten-point plan", for example this analysis at the Carbon Brief. So I wonder if the green paper is in fact simply ten soundbites jotted down on a napkin by Ed Miliband and Captain Flint. If so, then it's a pretty damning indictment the level of thought involved in Labour's thinking, although perhaps not overly surprising as one looks at the body count that has resulted from the party's last time in office.
And as you look at point 9 on the plan, you see that the party is quite determined that prices will go higher still:
Set a 2030 power sector decarbonisation target to boost investor confidence.
Winter deaths? What winter deaths?
Reader Comments (53)
PS. Positively my final word here:
The reason I was so p*ed off by His Grace’s commentary was his signng off line:
“Winter deaths? What winter deaths?” which is an obvious reference to the quote attributed to Prime Minister Jim Callaghan stepping off the plane from a summit meeting: “Crisis, what crisis?”
This quote was a lie, invented by the Sun, which no doubt contributed to the victory of Mrs Thatcher later that year.
We quote stuff. They quote stuff. It’s terribly important to get the quotes right if you’re going to be believed. I’m miles away from His Grace politically, but I want him to be credible.
The pre-war Austrian political journalist and stickler for correction in the use of the German language Karl Kraus was once challenged by a journalist who said: “How can you make such a fuss about people misplacing a comma, when the Japanese are burning Shanghai?”
to which he replied:
“Shanghai would not be burning if people made sure their commas were in the right place."
Replace “comma” by “temperature anomaly” and you get the idea.
There was a comment earlier this evening - on Radio 5, I think - that this Labour green paper is going to be formally launched tomorrow (Tuesday). If correct, that would explain the lack of visibility today.
On the broader issue, has there ever been a more cynical, callous display of political hypocrisy than Milliband's latest posturing?
He was part of the last government which left us with this unfolding train wreck and he has direct responsibility for the CCA. At the time it was clearly stated that prices would rise significantly. And now he tries to squirm away and blame it on the energy companies.
That is not to excuse the current crew who have failed to grasp the nettle until it became impossible to deny the problem. Now they are tinkering with some trifling cost issues while neglecting the factors which will continue to drive up the costs of generation and distribution.
Geoff,
Further to your comment Dec 2, 2013 at 8:49 PM
My interpretation of cock-up rather than conspiracy is not just based upon the mess they made of the links. It is also from reading the missing document. Spin doctors are focussed on obtaining the message that they wish to be perceived, so are not critical of output accords with this message. In this case the message is that electricity and gas price rises the blame of profiteering by the energy companies. The policy solution is greater regulation of the market.
I hope to post about this at manicbeancounter.com later this evening.
The pivotal claim in the report is the £3.6bn excess charges that the big six energy companies are alleged to make. The calculation is not cross-checked against actual profits. Further the calculation fails to understand the nature of a real world competitive markets - features in common with other competitive markets in the UK.