Far from gaining the much advertised lower cost energy advantage from all the solar and wind power the U.K. has put in, the U.K. now has some of the dearest energy in the world. It lowers our living standards as we burn gas and electricity to heat our homes and to cook. It drives the closures of so many of our industrial plants, priced out of the market.

Electricity prices $ per KWhr

UK   0.47

USA 0.14

France. 0.19

India  0.13

Brazil  0.12

 

Gas  prices per Kwhr

U.K.   0.11

USA 0.04

Canada  0.02

Japan 0.08

These figures show the huge premium we are paying. They also show just how much dearer it is to switch from gas to electricity which government demands industry does. U.K. gas is so much dearer than US because we are closing down our own production to rely on much dearer imports.

The government needs to stop misleading us about renewables producing cheaper energy given these numbers. Government is a main cause of such dear U.K. energy. Renewables receive subsidies to install,  favourable contracts and overriding access to customers when they are generating. There are windfall taxes, double corporation tax on oil and gas, carbon taxes, controlled retail prices, constraint costs –  payments to windfarms not to generate – and expensive use of gas generation as a reserve for bad weather days.

Even the Climate Change Committee think one quarter of U.K. energy will still be oil and gas in 2050, so why is the Rosebank field not going ahead to produce more here? Why is the Jackdaw gas field discovered in 2005 still not producing?

 

 

 

 

 

There is by tradition no new blog on Christmas Day. You are welcome to write in. I will moderate again tomorrow.
Have a great Christmas.

True devolution that would be popular is devolution of power to individuals and families. Indeed, in a good democracy power rests with the people and they only surrender those powers to government that are necessary for an orderly society. Government uses or abuses the powers subject to public opinion and the need to seek their renewal at general elections.

The overmighty state is now too intrusive. We do not need to be told what cars or heating systems we have to buy. We do not need so many bans and restrictions on how we use the nationalised roads we have paid for. We do not need anti money laundering checks every time we want to move money we have earned and paid tax on from a U.K. regulated bank account. Self employed people do not need IR35 controls. We do not need British Energy or a wrongly named National Wealth Fund. We do not need to be compulsory investors in costly carbon capture and storage. We do not need a monumentally  costly HS2. We should not have to pay a licence fee to use a tv if we do not watch BBC. We should not have to pay farmers to stop growing food. We do not need enforced wokery over what we can say.

 

This century MPs have argued over where power lies under the heading of devolution. The so called progressive parties have favoured devolution of U.K. government power to regional Parliaments and Assemblies for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. They have denied the same to England, seeking to break England up into false regions and enlarged city regions, devolving power to elected mayors.

Instead of making people feel empowered the extra overheads and tedious arguments between devolved governments and national government over who is to blame for anything  have left many electors unimpressed. Electors in England are reluctant to vote in Council and mayoral elections, leaving the task to a minority who do. The more devolved government you have, the higher the overhead costs an£ the more disagreements over powers and responsibilities.

Contrary to Gordon Brown’s view that allowing devolved government would stop Scottish independence the Scottish Parliament gave the SNP a great platform and got them a referendum on leaving the Union. They still use the Parliament as a platform to demand more powers and independence despite losing the referendum. The London and Manchester Mayors used their pulpit to denounce the national government whilst playing down their responsibility for poor transport, housing and planning under their control.

Now public spending and taxes are so high what many people want is true devolution to themselves, not to another layer of government. Government does too much and interferes too much. I will be considering things government should do less of.

This recent wide ranging interview was mainly concerned with the economy.It is under PopCon on You tube.

 

 

The Humpty Dumpty government in waiting thought a lot of themselves .They were after all all good eggs. In these environmental days they were well to the free range end of the spectrum. Some had made good livings as lawyers or charity executives or trade union officials . It made them very careful to tell others to obey the law and very willing to call out those who did not.

 

The leader of the party particularly liked international law. He could fly away to so many interesting places. He could meet lots of important people who all thought like him. It was so much more agreeable than trying to explain to the ordinary people why net zero mattered or how we needed to invite in so many migrants to meet our international law duties

 

Once upon a time people told a successful public sector lawyer he could become Prime Minister. He was flattered but had his doubts. It would mean he might lose his very good public sector lawyer pension. They said they could fix that for him. He could even go on and get a big PM pension and lifetime allowances as well. They pointed out he could do more international conferences and be free to travel in his own special jet. So he decided to have a go.

 

He got himself elected to Parliament and got into the Shadow Cabinet of a left wing leader who lost the election.So he pitched  to become  Leader, saying he was different and more moderate which is what electors wanted. He also made sure he was left wing enough to win, which he duly did.

Then he had a piece of luck. The government he opposed first locked down the whole country stopping many working to deal with a pandemic. He backed that and wanted longer lockdowns. Unfortunately it was doing lots of economic damage, where the public naturally blamed the government. Then the Bank printed lots of money and gave the country a big inflation which was very unpopular. He blamed the governing politicians and avoided saying how he might have stopped the Bank doing what they called Quantitative easing. He posed as the safe alternative. He got all the way to the election promising little other than a general message he would change things for the better. He won a huge majority.

 

His supporters put the whole Humpty Dumpty government up on a tall wall to see all the admiring electors. They felt a bit nervous up there but realised they did now need to be on display.

The Humpty Dumpty government sat on a Great Wall of indecision. They had been good at complaining about everything in Opposition and blaming anything bad on the government. They now had to ask themselves the difficult question.

What shall we do, now we have so much power?

 

The Home Secretary, the Chancellor, the Health Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in the Humpty Dumpty government told the Prime Minister they should keep promising all would be improved.

 

They had been elected by all too few people but enjoyed a huge majority because people so wanted change. Voters were fed up with so many migrants coming to the country so they promised to crush the people smugglers.

Electors were angry at the inflation which had put up prices and made them worse off. So they pledged to transform the U.K. into the fastest growing of all the major economies.

People were cross that when they needed to see a doctor or get medical treatment there were so many delays and so much difficulty in arranging an appointment. They said they would mend the broken health service.

Young people were frustrated that homes were so dear so many could not afford to buy one. They told people they would change planning rules and build lots more houses.

Many were annoyed that when it came to giving out help the government seemed to give priority to giving things away to foreigners. The government wrapped themselves in the Union Jack and said they were proud of the U.K . .

 

The government embarked on its first few months telling the public everything was broken, but failing to say how they were fixing it. Soon they heard some critical voices raised against them.

 

Five months into the government the people were very angry . The number of illegal migrants coming by small boats had gone up. The Chancellor’s unexpected tax rises had slashed growth and led to a loss of jobs and cancelled investments. Pensioners and small businesses  had to pay for all the giveaways to others. The NHS received a lot more money but there were still very long waits. Mortgages to buy a home started going up again whilst no more homes were built. The U.K. kept giving more away to foreigners, giving away the Chagos islands and promising a lot more money to foreign countries to help them with net zero costs.

 

The Prime Minister had been all round the world giving things away to countries that did not like us and trying to be closer friends with Europe and with the UN. As he sat with the Cabinet on the wall and looked down he could see people pointing to them to get off the wall. So he called a Council of his key Cabinet Ministers to think through what to do.

 

Well said the Home Secretary we need to press on with our plans to slash illegal migrant numbers. We can speed up consideration of their cases once they have got here and find most of them deserve to stay. That way we can get them out of special hotels and let them find other accommodation. We can make it easier to come here legally. We can stage a few successes in prosecuting people smugglers but we need to show how this a Europe wide problem with illegal entry to the EU before they come to us.

The Chancellor said she had to put up taxes a lot to pay for all the public sector workers pay awards the party supported. She would carry on blaming the last government for not leaving enough money behind. She was cross that so many businesses were refusing to invest and hire more people when she had told them to do so. The Bank and Treasury had not told her borrowing more would put up mortgage rates.

 

The Health Secretary reported that the NHS was broken. He was asking patients and voters how to fix it. You couldn’t blame him. It would take a long time to mend.

The Deputy Prime Minister reported she had told the Councils to grant more planning permissions. It wasn’t her fault that the Chancellors budget had put up mortgage rates.

The Foreign Secretary said it was most important the U.K. agreed with foreign country views of international law and paid all our bills. It was right to increase net zero payments and right to pay to lease back an island we had given away.

 

The Prime Minister thought that all made a lot of sense so he decided the problem must be the people. He had had to be very firm at the beginning and told the courts to crack down hard on right wing protesters complaining about too much illegal migration. It was clear too few people understood the perfect way he was handling impossible problems inherited from the past against a very unsettled world background. He would continue to take an international lawyers view of what to do.

 

Meanwhile growth collapsed, inflation started to rise again, the government was way short of its housing and NHS waiting list targets and people were demanding a new early election. The Humpty Dumpty government felt very alone, very exposed and very vulnerable. Would anyone succeed in pulling them down?

 

There are two endings to this story. In the happy one the Humpty Dumpty government remembered the old nursery rhyme, listened to the public and won back support by doing what the public wanted. That was something special, a government that did what people wanted. They were delighted to hear the cheers as the people came to like their government on the wall.

The other ending saw the government double down on what they were doing.

They strengthened their attacks on their critics and told people it would all take a long time to put right. That made sitting on the wall a very uncomfortable experience. What do you think happens? Did the government fall and did its leading characters rush away from the problems to write their memoirs and earn their speaking fees?

This is a democratic forum, so you will decided the ending in the light of what the government does next.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lord Mandelson is a poor choice for this job. Our current Ambassador pulled off getting an appointment for the PM and Foreign Secretary to see Donald Trump shortly before his victory and  did her best to help Lammy move on from his offensive remarks. She could have continued for longer.

Lord Mandelson is said to be experienced and charming. He will  need to be both to win over the President. He will come to crucial trade issues from the EU standpoint  that is likely to inflame the  President and  will probably urge Starmer to align with a losing and no growth EU. To prove me wrong he should begin by persuading the PM to cancel negotiations to give away the Chagos. This is a clear policy where the U.K. and US interests are the same. The absurd and expensive surrender line from the Foreign Office needs to be dumped.

The U.K. has a great opportunity to clinch a free trade deal with the US whilst the EU and the US impose more tariffs on each other. The U.K. should not copy the EU plan to impose high and wide ranging carbon based tariffs under the so called carbon border mechanism.

 

Let me try again. My main point was what someone studied at 18-21 may  be irrelevant by the time they come to an important job twenty or thirty years later. It is quite possible for someone with a non technical/scientific degree to gain experience and professional qualifications later.

I am all in favour of people who know what they are doing running things. Most management tasks require teams of people with different skills. The Leader needs leaders skills, which are more about choosing  talented and qualified people, incentivising  them, establishing correct accountabilities, setting targets  and making ultimate decisions where need arises. The team may need a scientist, a technician, a stats and maths analyst, an engineer etc.

Having a relevant degree at 21 does not mean you can run something 20 years later. Someone without a relevant degree who is good at choosing people and leading may do well as they gain management experience.

If you are a professional you have to take exams. Equally important you need to keep up to date and keep practising as experience and evolution of knowledge matters. Medics, lawyers, finance professionals etc do this through Continuous professional development learning and testing sessions. I was certainly not proposing seeking medical advice from a non qualified person, but would be happy to see a Dr at a clinic or hospital run by a good manager whatever their degree. I took a professional qualification later in life and keep up to date on investment and economic issues daily.