Who is the greenest of them all?

The BBC has had much sport displaying and increasing the splits in the Eurosceptic vote between UKIP and the Conservatives.  There are always UKIP people and even some Conservatives who will play along with this BBC agenda.

The BBC  have spent an equal amount of energy ensuring the real splits between the Greens and the Lib Dems are not brought to light, though the Lib Dems are defending the second largest number of Council seats and the Greens have a better track record at winning seats than UKIP, including one in Parliament.

I realise the BBC is never going to represent the majority  of people who value the flexibility of their car for work and pleasure, and resent the strident anti motorist stance of the ultra greens. I understand the BBC will not stand up for Granny when she complains that green energy is too dear for her to keep warm -or they will run a piece demanding more public subsidy. BBC journalists as a whole just do not understand how most of us feel, that we like  belonging to the modern world, so we can use some of the great technolgy it offers, and need cheaper energy to enjoy it to the full.

I would like the BBC to even up their coverage of other  parties by submitting the Greens and their more mainstream Lib Dem big brothers and sisters to some scrutiny for their policies of hounding the motorist and pricing people out of the energy market. They could seek to answer the important question “Are the Greens truly much greener than the Lib Dems?” Which of these two green parties has the best way of torturing motorists to get them off the roads? Who has the most devilish plans to drive energy prices higher to control its use?

The journalists should press until one or other says “Let them all walk”. Will one of them tell Granny that energy prices on their watch do need to rise until she either wears extra woollies or shivers at home?  That would make as entertaining box office as the Eurosceptic  scraps we have been hearing.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. alan jutson
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 5:41 am | Permalink

    If only it were the green type policies which the BBC supported.

    It seems to me they are selective on almost any topic now, so much so that they appear to be an organisation which is completely socialist in thought and deed, apart from when salaries come into question.
    Then they simply must compete with private industry for the so called best people, even though there are no shareholders to satisfy, no profits to make, and they have a legal captive and fully paid up customer base.

    The BBC will win or lose a general election for any Party.
    Look at the support Brown got last time around.
    So called investment, investment, investment, instead of borrow, borrow, borrow, debt, debt, debt, waste, waste, waste.

    • Mark W
      Posted May 2, 2013 at 6:54 am | Permalink

      Minor correction. Socialists have always supported high pay and perks for themselves behind closed doors.

      • lifelogic
        Posted May 2, 2013 at 7:12 am | Permalink

        Indeed and top pay and pensions, at the BBC, are about 3 times the market rate.

      • alan jutson
        Posted May 2, 2013 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

        Mark W

        “Socialists have always supported high pay and perks for themselves behind closed doors”

        True enough !

      • Bazman
        Posted May 2, 2013 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

        That will be banking and other insider companies subsidised by the taxpayer then? You have got to laugh at how market trust failed and how fast it had to be restored. Ram it.

        • Mark W
          Posted May 2, 2013 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

          The problem that you fail to grasp with the left is that they are so certain that they are right and so self righteous with it. So the behind closed doors greed of socialists in power is far worse than that of bankers (whose taxes financed browns boom).

          The certainty of being right, a character floor of the left, is that nearly every time they get close to absolute power anywhere in the world then murdering the opposition and dissenters follows. Capitalists just don’t do that.

          • uanime5
            Posted May 3, 2013 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

            Give the way that certain right wing people ignore everything that doesn’t conform to their ideology it seems that capitalists are also so certain that they are right and quite self-righteous with it. Especially when they pay themselves a large salary regardless of their company’s economic performance.

          • Bazman
            Posted May 3, 2013 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

            Well what in fact you have is communism for the rich. Socialising losses and privatising profits often making the profits from the backs of the whole population who have little choice but to pay and the poorest having to pay the most. Often the right wing governments are murdering the poor by poverty and the burden of the market fantasy that they do not have to face. A small elite in many rich countries and a massive poor underclass which due in many countries Britain included is growing expanding the economy will not help them either. If you think that making society more equal as closing the massive wealth gap by bringing up the poor you are another free market fantasist. Ram it.

          • Edward2
            Posted May 4, 2013 at 8:45 am | Permalink

            Yes Baz, I see your fantasy of communism for the rich elite played out in Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Honk Kong, Singapore, etc etc etc
            Such poverty,such decline.

          • Bazman
            Posted May 4, 2013 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

            As I said communism for the rich. The Soviet Union was always proud of the amount of calories the population had avalible and so should we judging by the amount of overweight people all also have cars, fridges air con and computers. What poverty comrade? You are right.

    • uanime5
      Posted May 2, 2013 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

      I have little doubt that if the BBC didn’t try to attract the best people you would demand that they should be shut down because they lack well know actors, presenters, and journalists.

      The BBC will win or lose a general election for any Party.

      Who exactly did the BBC support in the last general election? Also does this mean the BBC supported Thatcher when she was Prime Minister?

  2. lifelogic
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 5:50 am | Permalink

    Indeed but no chance. What is amusing is how most of the solution proposed, by the greens or Libdems, do not actually work to reduce c02 in real terms (bikes, electric cars and walking are good examples). Even if you accept their silly catastrophic climate modeling. Steak, chips and claret are very inefficient fuels. Electric cars save no energy, on balance – power station to vehicle motion. With current technology they are far too much of a compromise for most people and far too expensive and often very dangerous. Why on earth are tax payers paying grants for them?

    Not that there is anything much wrong with extra woollies, hot water bottles and an electric blanket for granny.

    I see no one is buying the Nissan Leaf, this despite all the mad grants and hugely biased fuel tax system.

    Also I read today that the electric car manufacturer Coda has filed for bankruptcy.

    • Chris Manuell
      Posted May 2, 2013 at 9:27 am | Permalink

      Lifelogic : The reason they are giving grants to enable the buying of Electric cars is the hope that lots of people will have them plugged in so that the electricity generators will be able to draw back power from their batteries when the wind drops and the wind turbines don’t produce any power, the idea is that they can avoid power cuts cheaply.

      Quite what the owners of the cars will think when they go out to get in their car and find the battery not as full as they would like, is another matter.
      That is why they are wanting us to have smart meters, so they can control how much energy we can have, while charging us double for what we do have.

    • uanime5
      Posted May 2, 2013 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

      What is amusing is how most of the solution proposed, by the greens or Libdems, do not actually work to reduce c02 in real terms (bikes, electric cars and walking are good examples).

      Your claims are getting more and more farcical. Walking, cycling, and electric cars all produce significantly less CO2 than cars. No one produces over 400g of CO2 for every kilometre they walk.

      Even if you accept their silly catastrophic climate modeling.

      Which has been prove to be correct by scientific studies.

      Steak, chips and claret are very inefficient fuels.

      Petrol and diesel aren’t more efficient and produce more CO2.

      Electric cars save no energy, on balance – power station to vehicle motion.

      If the method of power generation produce less CO2 per kilometre that the car can travel than petrol then, on balance, electric cars do reduce CO2 emissions.

      • Mark W
        Posted May 2, 2013 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

        Electric cars? I’m guessing the production and disposal of batteries is not part of your calculation?

        • uanime5
          Posted May 3, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

          I doubt that the production and disposal of batteries produces much more CO2 than the production and disposal of petrol engines.

          • Edward2
            Posted May 3, 2013 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

            Many studies have shown that these electric and hybrid vehicles whilst clean and fuel efficient in terms of CO2 as they travel along are not green on a wholelife basis, due to the environmental costs of making the vehicle’s more complex components and especially the costs in environmental terms of making the limited life batteries.

      • Richard1
        Posted May 3, 2013 at 8:25 am | Permalink

        One error there. Climate modelling has NOT proven to be correct by scientific studies. The forecasts made by eg James Hansen in 1988 and by the IPCC in 1990 have proven to be incorrect.

        • Edward2
          Posted May 3, 2013 at 11:05 am | Permalink

          Indeed Richard1, the original reports from the IPCC predicted runaway increases in global temperatures after 2000 and the opposite has happened.
          Many of the outlandish claims made in Al Gore’s film, (which was scandalously force fed to our primary school pupils) have also stubbornly failed to come true.
          EG Still able to book holidays on islands that are now meant to be under water and ski in winter in places that are now meant to have no snow and ice.
          Decades ago the warmists told us to look at the figures well I am right now, and they quite simply do not confirm the dire predictions made at that time.

        • uanime5
          Posted May 3, 2013 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

          What relevance does your point about climate modelling have regarding whether climate change is occurring or not?

          Scientific studies have shown that the average global temperature is still rising and just because it isn’t rising as fast as some predictions doesn’t change the fact that it is still rising.

          • Edward2
            Posted May 3, 2013 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

            The main point is that still no one from the warmist side will admit that the computer models all these dire predictions were based on, are now proving to be wrong and that they should urgently reassess their raw data that made these models and run their predictions again in the light of what is actually happening today.
            There have been no rises since 2000 that can be called statistically significant on a scientific basis which is g=huge statistical variance to the predictions..
            We are in the realms of small decimal points of one degree Celsius readings averaged out over the whole of the planet.
            Hardly catastrophic warming or is that a non PC word “catastrophic” now its all climate change.
            I notice other points made were not addressed.

          • Richard1
            Posted May 3, 2013 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

            We go round in circles on this. There is no disagreement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas & that, absent any amplifying ‘feedbacks’, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 gives c. 1C rise in temperature. There are many scientists and other experts who believe feedbacks are in fact neutral or negative, therefore we do not face dangerous global warming, therefore we should not be turning the world economy upside down to prevent a nonexistent threat. I don’t suppose either you or I are qualified to have an independent view. But the evidence from what has actually happened to the climate in recent decades supports the sceptical, not the alarmist case.

    • Bazman
      Posted May 2, 2013 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

      Bile… Cough!

    • Bazman
      Posted May 2, 2013 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

      ….Still there… Dreadful.

      • Edward2
        Posted May 3, 2013 at 11:06 am | Permalink

        Oh that bile problem, its what happens to you if you are a bitter old socialist Baz!

    • Bazman
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

      Lifedodgic do you seriously think that saying chip claret and steak is less efficient than diesil is a valid point? What you are saying is that if you powered a car on Beluga Caviare it would be expensive to run. How old are you? Ten?

  3. Mark W
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 6:00 am | Permalink

    I was beginning to feel alone with the view that the BBC were ramping up coverage of UKIP to create a split on the right.

    And apart from a solo outing on QT the greens have been buried on Andrew Neil’s daily politics, which is about as neutral as the BBC gets but hidden away on a midday slot. I don’t believe I will ever see a Green/LibDem get a Paxman vs Howard style grilling over their drive to take us back to the Stone Age.

    At present I find the greens an amusing joke and consider their Brighton seat the result of the candidates charm and a 4 way marginal in a student area. But the idea of them holding any influence would be terrifying. The LibDems have ruined this government and are most likely to be the one party that has the best odds of being in the next government too. Although they’d show more of their vicious side if in coalition with Labour.

    What the BBC don’t highlight is that the combined ‘right’ support is large and thus there is little appetite for the social democratic policies that go back to the mid 90s. Cameron should spot this too.

    A recent case, on his blog, was taken by Peter Hitchens on the bias of the BBC. It failed as I imagine Hitchens knew it would, but how others view it is rather more interesting.

    • Mark W
      Posted May 2, 2013 at 6:52 am | Permalink

      As an additional comment. On DP the green leader said they wish to help small business. After I’d stopped laughing it crossed my mind that Dracula would claim the same wish to help young virgins to walk the streets at night.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted May 2, 2013 at 8:10 am | Permalink

        The thought that crossed my mind is that I have never ever met anybody describing himself as a Green whereas at least in the Essex village in which I live (admittedly close to Simon Heffer whom I admire but don’t know) be assured it is like falling off a log finding UKIP supporters–who would vote in droves once the admitted FPTP barrier gets overcome somehow.

      • margaret brandreth-j
        Posted May 2, 2013 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

        I have been bled dry several times now and have become a clingon to the small things I have, which is why I am still single. You never know I may have a doppleganger at work again , or someone signing my name which I have tried to make as complicated as possible by reverting to my christian name. Bye the way .I have been told that using the terminology christian name is not politically incorrect. Is this true?

  4. Francis Irving
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 6:27 am | Permalink

    In terms of motivation, the Greens want cheap energy – they are concerned that increased international demand and increased extraction costs are making fossil fuels unaffordable.

    There is a transition cost to other systems – a capital investment. Then solar in particular is much cheaper.

    • lifelogic
      Posted May 2, 2013 at 6:58 am | Permalink

      I am all in favour of investment in R&D on solar power, battery systems and indeed on other fuels storage systems and engines. But they are actually installing wind farms, PV house bling and encouraging people with large subsidies to buy wind and electric cars before they have sorted the technology and made it economic.

      Giving a government grant and perverse tax incentives to encourage people to buy technology before it is working properly is mad. It just mis-allocates funding, resources and wastes billions.

      R&D investment get it working then role it out. Rolling it out before it works or is economic is bonkers. The investment needed is just R&D not production and installation yet.

      • stred
        Posted May 2, 2013 at 10:30 am | Permalink

        Statements by the PM and Greg Barker make it clear that DECC are going along with the idea that, if we all had electric cars, the electricity available from wind would match the total battery capacity. Even if 5 Dinorwic hydro storage stations were built it would not match the fluctuating power. Greg barker said that the new power network was being put in so that we can charge our cars when we need to. It seems that the opposite is true. We already have connections to where cars are kept. The changes are to make us use wind energy in cars, as otherwise there is nowhere else to store it. Perhaps it would be cheaper to give everyone £5k to put a battery in the shed.

      • Bazman
        Posted May 2, 2013 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

        Problem is like fusion does not work, is a fantasy and is unviable.

    • forthurst
      Posted May 2, 2013 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

      “In terms of motivation, the Greens want cheap energy – they are concerned that increased international demand and increased extraction costs are making fossil fuels unaffordable.”

      Are they in favour of allowing the market to decide which are the fuels to utilise to provide us with the cheapest energy? Yes or No?

      • uanime5
        Posted May 3, 2013 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

        Depends over what time period you’re talking about. Certain fossil fuels may become very expensive by the end of this century as they become more scarce.

        • Bazman
          Posted May 4, 2013 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

          Fossil fuels will never run out that is not the problem.

    • A different Simon
      Posted May 2, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

      Francis ,

      Are you sure the Greens want cheap energy ?

      Seems to me that some of the Greens and the UK establishment elites want population control rather than engineering solutions which would deliver cheap energy or available energy .

      The hypothesis that “increased international demand and increased extraction costs are making fossil fuels unaffordable. ” might hold true if oil was subject to market pricing rather than set by a cartel and gas prices were not linked to oil .

      The cost of production is only part of the cost of a barrel of oil . The House of Saud maintains security in the Middle East and in aggregate will exceed the lifting costs of the oil from Saudi .

    • Mark
      Posted May 2, 2013 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

      Greens would prefer it if energy didn’t exist.

  5. ChrisXP
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 7:01 am | Permalink

    Prime example of butchering roads to favour cyclists has happened just a few miles from my home. A long, straight 50mile-per-hour road in a rural setting has had its width slashed in order to provide a cycle-path. At the same time, the speed limit has been cut to 30mph. Every time I drive along it, the cyclepath is empty. A proposal for several hundred houses is also in the offing, just partway along that same road….so soon there will be a lot more cars all squeezing along a narrowed road.
    I am not against people cycling anywhere, but the assumption that we must ALL go everywhere by bike (including the elderly) is lunacy. Sometimes it just isn’t practical, especially when carrying goods. There seem to be a number of agendas aimed at restricting people’s movements, pushing them to live in large towns or cities and bullying them out of their cars. The daft thing is, if everyone gave up their cars and went on bikes, the tax take from fuel duty would drop like a rock, and governments would then be taxing bicycles. The whole thing just goes round and round in ridiculous circles….presumably us peasants must give up our cars to make more room for the ultra-wealthy and their Rollers?

  6. Acorn
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    The Greens are basically anti-capitalists using the green theme as a vehicle to drive their Marxist ideology. They would re-nationalise the energy industry.

    • uanime5
      Posted May 3, 2013 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

      Given that the current problems with the energy industry is that there won’t be enough power because the private companies didn’t build any replacements for the power plants that are being closed would you mind explaining why renationalisation would be a bad thing? Don’t forget that the Government is having to give EDF a large amount of subsidies to build a new nuclear power plant.

      • Acorn
        Posted May 4, 2013 at 6:17 am | Permalink

        I used to work for the CEGB, there was nothing wrong with it except we used to gold plate everything in the interest of system security and “keeping the lights on”. We had forty year forward plans and kit that would last even longer. Every where you went you would trip over apprentices and honours graduates in engineering.

        We did more research and had more experts than the companies that supplied us with the kit. The bit that slowed us down was, like the rest of the public sector, nationalised trade unions that had their own political agenda and infiltrated large public sector industries for a vehicle to fulfil them.

        The current electric oligopoly (supplier companies are maintaining pricing power in the market), depends on the government for a long term plan.

  7. Ben Kelly
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 7:28 am | Permalink

    I rarely recognise the partial BBC that complainants on this site report.

    Harriet Harman had a torrid time on Today yesterday and her discomfort was reported repeatedly on the news.

    Politicians of all colours are routinely prodded and probed for weakness and lack of knowlege. That Conservative more regularly feel uncomfortable may be that their communication skills are not up to scratch or they are not fully in control of their brief. Mr Gove swats away the brickbats, Mr Osborne too for all his failings as a Chancellor for the middle income earners usually comes out on top. The two Eds however regularly appear to be making it up as they go along and resort to soundbite.

    Green soundbite sounds persuasive and is repeated mantra style. If you disagree counter with your own pithy statements and repetition. Your speeches in the house are noteworthy (your put down of Ms Lucas marvellous) but that point does not reach the masses and how many within the House have you converted?

    It takes a thief to catch a thief. In this world of short attention spans and headlines the available weapons have changed.

  8. oldtimer
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 7:58 am | Permalink

    For some the word “green” is a euphemism for “hair shirt”. The fact that so-called green policies are inefficient is, for them, beside the point. What they want is an excuse to ration or, even better, shut down consumption of those goods and services which they deem we are unworthy to enjoy. Fossil fuels are the most obvious example. Some want a reintroduction of ration books because we consume and waste too much food. The aim is to foster a sense of guilt. On the BBC Woman`s Hour I once heard by chance (I was about to make myself a cup of coffee) commentators earnestly discussing and advocating that we should resort to eating grubs and insects. to supplement our diets. The Australian Aborigines were held up as an exemplar. In my opinion there is a campaign under way, aided and abetted by the BBC to promote this extension of the green movement. Recent FRS elections (eg of Professor Ehrlich) are, I believe also significant in the promotion of this latest catastrophe agenda.

  9. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    Where would be the balance? You would have three groups – Greens, LibDems and BBC, all spouting the same guff.

  10. Steven Granger
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 8:12 am | Permalink

    You talk as if your own party has no responsibility at all for any of this green nonsene. Those “devilish plans to drive energy prices higher to control its use” are supported by your own party. Osborne has just introduced the carbon tax that will make things even worse. The climate change act was passed almost unanimously and you didn’t have the guts to vote against it despite claiming here to oppose it. Much more is planned by our masters in Brussels and this is supported by your party. Did not Cameron recently instruct his MEPs to support the plans to “backload” carbon emissions licences to artifically inflate the Carbon price? (Thankfully, most of them did not oblige). You talk a good game on this website but your actions (and those of the party that you support and remain a member of) show you to be a bunch of hypocrites.

  11. Richard1
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    This is a good point. Greens, whenever they are interviewed on the BBC, get a strikingly easy ride given how absurd their policies are. We must encourage true egalitarians to vote Green, as they do have the most anti-capitalist agenda, in order to get more of a split on the left.

    By contrast, if I was a eurofederalist social democrat I would vote UKIP in Conservative seats in the General Election, this being the best way to prevent a Conservative victory and so prevent any renegotiation or any In-Out referendum.

  12. The PrangWizard
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    The license fee is a tax to fund a State Corporation. It totals around £2.5 billion pounds each year. What is a State Corporation doing making programmes for entertainment? What is a State Corporation doing creating a vast website which they once said they wanted to be the biggest in the world? What is a State Corporation doing broadcasting sport? What is State Corporation doing choosing the news and current affairs issues that we should see?
    The bias and partility of the BBC cannot be denied or hidden, indeed the Corporation acknowledges it. And it sets the news agenda in Britain.
    It is beyond internal reform, it must be broken up. The entertainment and sport should be sold off or dissolved where they have no value.
    The news and current affairs should be given to each of the nations, they can then decide how they are to be funded.

  13. Mike Wilson
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    Why on earth don’t you take your revenge on the BBC and SLASH the licence fee?

    The fact that THREE AND A HALF THOUSAND, MILLION POUNDS is taken from us ( on pain of IMPRISONMENT! when did the state become so overbearing?! to be given to a left wing organisation full of champagne socialists on truly fantastic salaries and pensions that those of us in the private sector can only salivate at – is quite unbelievable.

    When New Labour were in power the BBC openly derided conservatives – I remember Michael Howard being interviewed on the Today program before the 2005 election and he was shouted down and belittled by the interviewers. It was quite surreal.

    I always assumed if ever the Tories got in again they would exact their revenge. But, no, you continue this foul monopoly and extortion.

  14. Tad Davison
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    What bothers me most about BBC bias, is that so many people can’t see through it.

    I can watch a Labour politician spouting nonsense, and thinking consciously to myself, ‘but they would say that, wouldn’t they’, so I know to pick holes in it. With the BBC, they are supposed to be neutral, so a lot of people believe what they say, and haven’t the capacity or the presence of mind to question what they hear.

    That, in my experience, is the way of the socialist. I keep hearing a completely different account these days emanating from Labour politicians of the financial crash under the last Labour government. Yet apart from some very straight BBC journalists, it appears not to be challenged. And Europe just takes the biscuit. I cannot rely upon anything the BBC says about the disaster zone that is the EU. The same highly-paid journalists who assured us not so long ago, that the crisis in the EU was over. Really, when was that then?

    This has to change, but can we look forward to the necessary changes under pro-EU people like Patten?

    The BBC produces some quality programmes, but the rest is tainted by liberal socialism that massages the information to suit themselves, and I resent having to pay for it, like it or not, just as I would if I had to pay the Labour party levy on trade union subscriptions, or even pay for a Labour party political broadcast.

    Lamentably, there is no proper and effective mechanism to hold them to account and change it, so I come back to the parallel with socialism. That rules by decree, and puts down descent. I venture that anyone who wanted to change the BBC from within, would find it very difficult to do, an impediment to their advancement, if not an end to their BBC career altogether.

    Is a little balance and enlightenment too much to ask for the compulsory payment we give them?

    Tad Davison


    • Tad Davison
      Posted May 3, 2013 at 7:46 am | Permalink

      Just hours after posting this, the BBC came out and said there was ‘bullying’ by ‘untouchable’ people, which threatened the careers of those who complained or showed dissent. You heard it here first folks, or at least you would have done had my post appeared earlier.


  15. brian
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    The BBC would love to see a permanent split on the “right” so that the UK would have a permanent lefty government. Hence their encouragement of ukip.

    • Bazman
      Posted May 3, 2013 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

      Ah! There’s the answer from the paranoid fantasists as to why the BBC is reporting UKIP gains. What would be the fantasy if they did not report UKIP gains?

      • Edward2
        Posted May 4, 2013 at 8:38 am | Permalink

        But they are suddenly giving UKIP greatly increased air time Baz, its no fantasy. We see more of dear Nigel than the PM.
        You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorists to work out that UKIP are splitting the vote of the Conservatives and this will result in an easy Labour victory at the next election which is what most BBC staff would like.

        • Bazman
          Posted May 4, 2013 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

          Why are the rest of the news channels doing the same? It’s a story and had they ignored this story the conspiracy theorists would behave been vindicated. You are trying to create intrigue where there is none.

  16. Max Dunbar
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    It could be worth researching how green the BBC is.
    For example, how much energy do their shiny new trendy buildings consume? What is the lifespan of these buildings compared to the energy and material required in their construction? How much fuel is used by BBC employees getting to and from work? What proportion of food is thrown out from the subsidised canteens? How many tons of paper is consumed? How often are computers replaced? Are green/recycling solutions used for sewage processing?

  17. DennisA
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    Whilst it is fashionable to attack the BBC and I hold no brief for them, I find very little difference between any of the media outlets. News reporting these days is news from press releases: “The BBC/ITV/Sky News etc, has learned that XYZ…..”

    In fact they have learned nothing, they have all been given the same press release and if you switch from news outlet to news outlet, the news agenda and commentary is almost identical.

  18. Roy Grainger
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    While agreeing about the institutional Guardian-bias in the BBC I can’t see the point of them highlighting differences between a couple of small parties like the Greens and LibDems. It makes sense for them to give more coverage to what the Conservatives are saying and it is hardly their fault when Ken Clarke is sent out with the express intention of insulting UKIP in the media.

  19. behindthefrogs
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    It also seems to me that this blog is very muh biased towards your own views.

    I will agree that the “green” spend and Tax is often misplaced but surely the criticism should be concentrated on this fact. A lot more of the green spend should be directed at improving the technology. This would also have the advantage of improving the UKs position in manufacturing and selling products to the rest of the world.

  20. Bob
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    BBC takes over 500 million pounds from the welfare budget to cover Licence Fees for people aged 75 and above.

    Why doesn’t the government change the rules so that the over 75s are exempted from the requirement to have a TV Licence?

    That will save the welfare budget 500 million pounds, and the BBC can learn to be more thrifty with tax payers money.

  21. Christopher Ekstrom
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    When a UKIP government is formed energy policy should be its second order of business. First will be the total transformation of the BBC. Journalists having even less spine than a spiv politician will always betray each other when seeking their individual main-chance. The very concept that some individuals will not is anathema. That is why so FEW are needed to enact a reckoning, & of course why it seems impossible to locate England’s next leader; one Churchill or Thatcher slays a thousand dragons. I think of the Hebrides in the early 90’s: most turned down the heat due to penury via Sheik. Now it’s tax (for the Earth!) for “green” (a sham: actually NHS folly & tins for Yobs). What a fiddle! The young ones actually BELIEVE this racket; think the lads at Rourkes Drift would buy this laugher! Today we are so much more STUPID!

  22. Chris
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    I believe the Greens/Lib Dems should be questioned closely about the commitments from the EU with regard to climate change, and in particular the launch of the new strategy in April on adaptation to climate change. I quote from Richard North’s excellent blog:
    http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83853 (Links to all EU docs are in the original article).
    “Climate change: the EU juggernaut rolls on”
    “…Completely oblivious to the real world, the “colleagues” in Brussels today have launched their strategy on adaptation to climate change, complete with an address from Connie Hedegaard, the commissioner for “climate action”.
    This is on the back of COM(2013) 216 final, the strategy document which was published on 16 April, and today’s monster report from the the European Environmental Agency (EEA), plus no less than nine Commission staff working documents, such as this one, and this, where the detail is buried.
    No one outside the loop is going to read but a fraction of the hundreds of pages – life is too short. But the problem for us all is that climate change adaptation is now to take a central part in all EU policy-making, as we see here, in a report which outlines the principles and recommendations for integrating climate change adaptation considerations under the 2014-2020 rural development programmes.
    That adaptation is now a key policy driver is indicated in the foreword to the EEA report, written by professor Jacqueline McGlade, executive director of Agency. Adaptation, she writes, is not simply about doing more, “it is about new ways of thinking and dealing with risk and hazards, uncertainty and complexity”.

    And in a clue to the mindset, we find McGlade telling us that climate adaptation requires precautionary “science” and approaches, with an emphasis on “probability and multiple reactive thresholds”, rather than a reliance on the statistics of the past. There is also scope, we are told, “for increased complementarity between adaptation and mitigation actions”. (End quote)

    My questions to the Greens/Lib Dems and Conservatives supporting the EU policy (in addition to those already asked about shortage of energy supplies, affordability, suffering felt by consumers, both private and business):
    Do they really understand the complexities of what has been proposed and have they closely scrutinised it?
    Do they condone the use of this mind numbing jargon, such as that by McGlade above, and do they actually understand it? How can that be translated into a meaningful message for the public, or is their understanding not relevant?
    What account has been taken when formulating this strategy of up to date findings by various climate scientists (including the recent Russian scientists’ study) that the earth seems to be cooling and possibly heading for a major cooling period?

    • uanime5
      Posted May 3, 2013 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

      It is hardly the fault of the Greens/Lib Dems that their critics couldn’t be bothered to read the reports on Climate Change. Also the fact you don’t understand this report doesn’t mean it is full of “mind numbing jargon”.

      The Greens/Lib Dems also aren’t under any obligation to explain these reports to anyone.

      If you have peer reviewed scientific evidence that the earth is cooling why don’t you send it to professor McGlade so it can be included in this report.

  23. Barbara1
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    Germany is finally waking up.

    ‘Once believed to hold the key to future jobs and prosperity, renewable energies in Germany are now emerging as a complete flop and a national embarrassment … ‘ reports the NoTricksZone (climate news from Germany) website.

    ‘Expensive green subsidies are useless’ says today’s edition of Die Welt, going on to add,
    ‘The German solar industry is dissolving faster than you can even see. One third of all companies disappeared from the market within one year. Solar power subsidies of more than 100 billion euros [$130 billion] over 20 years have led to only a mere flash in the pan. According to the official numbers, today there are barely 6000 employees in the German solar cell and module production.’

  24. Alan Wheatley
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    As the Department for Transport continue to be institutionally anti-motorist and pro rail, as evidenced by their actions, and the Conservatives Party are the majority party in government, it could be argued that currently it is the Conservatives that “has the best way of torturing motorists to get them off the roads”. After all, is it not Ministers who decide!

  25. uanime5
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    Well John if you want the BBC to show more concern about the plight of people how about they investigate how the benefit cuts are driving people deeper into poverty. I’m sure there’s plenty of people at food banks who would love the chance to explain how the Conservatives’ austerity is harming them.

    Alternatively they could provide a report on how the Prime Minister’s wife and father in law owns shares in a company that will benefit from the Government’s plans to construct 1,000 houses on an area of greenfield land in Lincolnshire.


    If you want the BBC to become more critical then you shouldn’t be surprised if they criticise your party.

    • Edward2
      Posted May 3, 2013 at 8:41 am | Permalink

      Is it much of surprise that the campaign by charities and Trades Unions and Church groups to hand out free food to those on limited budgets is popular?
      It would have been equally popular under your glorious leaders Brown and Blair Uni, but these groups would not have organised such a scheme under a Govt they support, despite demand which would have been just as strong.

      • uanime5
        Posted May 3, 2013 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

        Firstly food banks did exist when Blair and Brown were in power. They weren’t a necessary because unemployment was lower and neither PM was cutting the benefits of the poor.

        Secondly the demand for food banks is stronger now because 1 million more people are unemployed at a time when the Government is cutting benefits and legal aid. So Conservative policies have resulted in food banks being needed more than when Labour was in power.

      • Bazman
        Posted May 3, 2013 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

        More!! They don’t just hand food out. You have to fulfil a criteria and often has to be signed by a Doctor or the like. You Dickensian view of the undeserving poor scoffing potatoes, shovelling down bread and chomping on free meat is a fantasy many from many backgrounds are using them there use has tripled. Care to explain why? If your benefits have a large gap or are now not enough to cover adequate food and you have stopped smoking/drinking gambling and other luxuries like heat. What do you then cut back on? Oh! non of this is true? Get real.

        • Edward2
          Posted May 4, 2013 at 8:57 am | Permalink

          To get both of you waving your plackards and shouting your slogans is for me an achievement.
          Stuck as you both are in a seventies class war time warp.
          Free food will be popular if offered.
          Both you and I know this is politically motivated campaign rather than one motivated by genuine charitable concern.

          • Bazman
            Posted May 4, 2013 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

            It’s not ‘free food’ as you say. It has been pointed out that you must meet a criteria to enable you to receive this. Are benefits ‘free money’? See how far you get with that one.

          • Edward2
            Posted May 4, 2013 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

            You are being pedantic. I’m well aware you have to “qualify” but its still free food.
            There are no money costs involved in “qualifying”
            You qualify if on benefits, if a single parent, if in debt or if you get a letter from a Doctor or social worker. The list is endless.
            I predict when word gets round on how to “qualify” the take up will soar.

          • Bazman
            Posted May 5, 2013 at 11:25 am | Permalink

            If I qualify I will be going to get some ‘free food’. Count on it. You argument is now paper thin.

          • Edward2
            Posted May 5, 2013 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

            Far from it Baz
            Your statement that you would go and get free food for yourself though not in desperate straits, proves yet again that Uni’s original argument that the rapid increase in free food hand outs are caused by the wicked Coalition’s policies were wrong.
            You like everyone else would be drawn to any offer of free food if you could pass as”qualified”

          • Bazman
            Posted May 6, 2013 at 7:40 am | Permalink

            You base your argument on it is easy to get qualified and is all a conspiracy to prove the coalitions policies are wrong. That these policies are in no way related to the increases in the number of food banks, which are just run by people opposed to the government? All a bit far fetched don’t you think? Almost a communist denial of the system I would say. Thought of a job In North Korea?

          • Edward2
            Posted May 6, 2013 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

            They don’t have food banks in North Korea Baz
            Most the population are starving to death and the State would not allow such things.
            This is where socialism ends with all equally poor and equally starving except the glorious leader and his mates of course.

          • Bazman
            Posted May 7, 2013 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

            You are right. We do seem to be going that way by socialism for the rich.

          • Edward2
            Posted May 7, 2013 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

            Back to your meaningless cliché I see Baz.
            Standards of living for the majority of citizens in the Western democracies over the last few decades have been rising enormously, which make your claim complete nonsense.
            Your solution is to take all the money off the few very rich and give it to the poor.
            You can see where that idea of forced equality gets you.
            You all end up equally poor.

        • Bazman
          Posted May 10, 2013 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

          The inequality of wealth is higher than it has ever been. You believe this is a price worth paying and no harm can come from it?

  26. Mark
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    I see yesterday the Supreme Court invited the EU to indulge in a round of fines for breaching NOx emissions limits, with a requirement that a mitigation strategy (involving paralysing major cities with traffic bans) be pursued. The judgement inlcudes the following “undisputed” remark:

    Nitrogen dioxide, along with ammonia, also contributes to the formation of microscopic airborne particles, one of the many components of
    particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5) which have been calculated to have an
    effect equivalent to 29,000 premature deaths each year in the UK.

    A candidate for “I’m sorry but I’ll read that again”. That does not attribute any particular level of deaths to NOx – not that you would think so reading the Guardian comments.

    Meantime the House of Lords wants the EU to regulate to set targets for UK renewables for 2030; a new carbon tax; expensive undersea power cables so other countries could impose power cuts on us; and shale gas regulation (presumably they hope the EU will ban it de facto if not de jure, as we have already done with coal). If our own Parliament can’t regulate there is a strong case for abolition, made stronger by the absurdity of these proposals.

    • uanime5
      Posted May 3, 2013 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

      I suspect the remarks regarding nitrogen dioxide and ammonia was based on the scientific evidence presented by an expert witness. The fact that you did not quote the evidence presented does not make it wrong.

      The EU has not banned coal and has no plans to ban it. Though they have banned coal power plants that produce high levels of certain emissions.

    • Bazman
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

      You despite particulates are bad for the health or their role in premature death is exaggerated? As a worker in the metal trade I deal with particulates every day and many employers are against spending money on protection against this not productive you see. The ones who went along with their arguments now rue the day. No protection no work. My breathing is good, but in the city why should we be exposed and have to listen to apologists fools?

  27. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    Yes I agree, the greens should have much more coverage . The general public would get a balanced perspective upon how we ALL feel about living in a modern clean and green world.
    Whilst we all need our cars in these jobs where we have to travel the country looking for work it is not accpetable to say that we cannot use cars. Some of the places I have needed to go to for instance would need a train journey , 3 buses and a hike accross fields and country lanes. There always has to be compromise. How can goods be delivered without a satisfactory logistics system? YET to not curtails the unecessary carbon emissions is futile. I remember when I was a child living in Manchester with winter fogs (smog) every year . The younger people will not remember this, but these are the areas we need to look at internationally.

  28. Atlas
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    If you drive to Cheltenham you will discover that the Lib-Dem Council there has in place a wonderful array of traffic-lights that grinds motor traffic to a near halt. I think even the Greens would be challenged in coming up with such a business hostile place to shop. A lot of Cheltenham’s shopping streets are run-down. So we have cause and effect?

  29. Electro-Kevin
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    Radio 4 the other day were discussing Strict Liability (Dutch style) whereby any accident between motorist and cyclist renders the motorist automatically guilty unless he can prove otherwise.

    If this goes the way of ‘whiplash’ injuries lawyers and fraudsters will clean up.

    Why not Strict Liability for cyclists vs pedestrians – while we’re at it why not excise discs, insurance, cycling licences, breath tests, bans … for cyclists ? They are the most lawless of road users by far.

    • Mark
      Posted May 2, 2013 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

      Today’s cyclists ignore the highway code all too often in my experience – mowing down pedestrians on pavements they have no business to be on, ignoring red lights, not having lights after dusk and so forth.

      My experience in Holland was there was no strict liability law, but perhaps it’s changed recently. Indeed it was quite hard pursuing a motorist who caused damage to my cycle and knocked me off (fortunately no more than the odd bruise and scratch for me).

  30. John
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    Want to save energy? Then switch off the anti English BBC.

  31. Bazman
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    BBC propaganda? LIke UKIP are Turbo Tories John? These people like lifelogic and are coming to get you. The Tories at least agree that there must be some basic employment legislation. UKIP do not believe there should be any and like lifpoghy when questioned on how and when do not know anything. Fruitcakes and fantasists. Driving energy prices for profit and subsidised dogma will see huge numbers of the population just not switching on their heating or driving to service richer areas, they can’t afford the train/bus/heating Getting the green/transport/energy agenda sorted. What will the rich do then? Pay more? What then? Replies are expected from the usual fantasists.

  32. wab
    Posted May 2, 2013 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    “The BBC has had much sport displaying and increasing the splits in the Eurosceptic vote between UKIP and the Conservatives. There are always UKIP people and even some Conservatives who will play along with this BBC agenda.”

    Funny how all the media is playing the same tape and yet somehow the BBC is the one lambasted by the usual BBC haters. The problem is not the BBC, the problem is that Tea Party Brits (a.k.a. angry old white people) have lost faith in the Tories and are migrating to UKIP. Mr. Redwood can continue to stick his head in the sand but that will not change the situation.

    “The BBC have spent an equal amount of energy ensuring the real splits between the Greens and the Lib Dems are not brought to light.”

    There are very few real differences between the Lib Dems and Greens. They are both parties of, by and for the sanctimonious and puritanical middle class. Everything else is secondary.

    “Which of these two green parties has the best way of torturing motorists to get them off the roads?”

    Although the Lib Dems and Greens both hate motorists (excepting themselves of course), the two parties that have caused most harm to motorists (via fuel duty) are Labour and the Tories. When is the last time a major politician in any political party had anything nice to say about motorists? I think Blair once said something nice, and Thatcher was the last leader when the interests of motorists were ever considered at all. As for most politicians, they are typical ruling elite who think there is one rule for them (free travel courtesy of the taxpayer, and as and when they see fit) and another rule for everyone else.

    On the general point about energy, the Lib Dems and Greens want expensive energy (even if they might sometimes claim otherwise). Cheap energy is a disaster for them, because it means human beings can do things (i.e. impact the world), and the Lib Dems and Greens do not like human beings doing anything except contemplating the infinite.

  33. David Langley
    Posted May 3, 2013 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Nuclear power is the answer, lots of nuclear power stations providing constant energy to a growing Britain. Independent of other countries supplies, and giving us energy security and confidence.
    Latest types and a determined plan for decommissioning and waste storage or disposal in remote and geologically sound locations.
    Green energy can still be created by those who can have access to affordable natural assets. Hydropower etc as long as it gives a fair return on capital investment. In the long run I will be dead so in the meantime I love my Mercedes but hate the roads round here.

    • Bazman
      Posted May 3, 2013 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

      Waste storage or disposal in remote and geologically sound locations? Like where? Specific place. Nuclear is an expensive dangerous fantasy. Who should pay for all this the taxpayer and the bill payer subsidising foreign nuclear energy companies often state owned for decades into the future and then forever on the clean up?

      • Edward2
        Posted May 4, 2013 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

        All the waste ever produced by nuclear power plants would fit onto a football pitch sized cube.
        Plenty of remote places on Earth to store it.
        Coal gas and oil explorations and production has killed hundreds of thousands more than nuclear yet it is nuclear that is considered dangerous.
        Clean, safe and minimal CO2
        And already working well for France just a few miles off our coast.

        • Bazman
          Posted May 4, 2013 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

          Subsidised by the government on a massive scale. The waste is mainly low level and generates on a massive scale such as gloves tools filters etc. Where in Britain would this waste be stored? Nirex spent millions investigating geological conditions in the Lake District in Cumbria to no avail. I’ve got to hand it to you though the council in Cumbria rejecting planning permission for nuclear waste storage is ironic considering Sellafield is already there!
          This idea that nuclear is clean and safe is another fantasy the cost is astronomical for a start the money could be spent on cheaper ways to generate transmit and economise energy much more cheaply and safely.

          • Edward2
            Posted May 5, 2013 at 9:07 am | Permalink

            What energy streams are these Baz, that are cheap, not subsidised, clean, safe and low CO2?
            Face it windmills etc are also heavily subsidised.
            Ps low level waste which has a radiation level akin to the luminous dial on your wristwatch used to be incinerated but new EU rules put a stop to it.

          • Bazman
            Posted May 6, 2013 at 10:37 am | Permalink

            Clean coal, more efficient gas powered stations, better building regulations and more efficient appliances would go a long way to solving the energy problems. Windmills are a non starter and like nuclear a power source of last resort or a specific application such as a nuclear powered submarine which is used as a power of last resort in effect. You are for the burning of nuclear waste or any other rubbish for that matter. Idiotic idea.

          • Edward2
            Posted May 6, 2013 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

            If you were to incinerate low grade radioactive waste at extremely high temperatures and then filter the exhaust output there are no health and safety issues.
            But even if you bury these items, it is of no great concern as it takes up a tiny amount of space buried deep down and encased in thick walls of concrete
            I like the energy types you mention but favour a wider range of methods including nuclear.
            Effectively all energy types are currently subsidised to one level or another..

          • Bazman
            Posted May 7, 2013 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

            This was investigated by Nirex and the question of how long ‘forever’ was asked. It was agreed that a hundred thousand years was in human terms forever concrete does not last forever and the the Lake District was geologically to unstable. This idea in incineration is just retarded. Filter the particles? I mean who sets the filtration and how can you be sure it is maintained? A basic problem is that a piece of wood burns differently to a circuit board, that should not be burned. Or a piece of plastic. I live near an incinerator once and all the cars panels in the street that faced the chimney had paint problems with a fine dust on them in the mornings. All brands all models. Coincidence? Residents complained that their health had got worse since the building of the incinerator. Radioactivity in the waste too?
            A fundamental point is that burning waste destroys it forever, making any of the components of the rubbish unable to be ever recovered by as yet unimagined methods.
            A cavalier short term attitude that we expect from fatalistic right wing fantasists trying to make something very expensive on the cheap by cutting corners.

          • Edward2
            Posted May 8, 2013 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

            You are showing your lack of engineering knowledge with these repeated incorrect posts on modern incineration techniques and methods of safe waste management from nuclear power plants.

            Your usual descent to personal abuse in your last paragraph just confirms that you have no valid arguments.
            Its simply about engineering, science and safety, not left or right wing politics.

          • Bazman
            Posted May 10, 2013 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

            Wood burns the same as plastic? I don’t think so. What is this God like incineration technique? Your belief in technology is laughable and what of the potential future resource gone forever?

  34. Christopher White
    Posted May 3, 2013 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    people don’t merely have to put extra woollies on – large number die of cold – figure in my memory is 28000, but may be wrong

    • Bazman
      Posted May 4, 2013 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

      Where they to poor to buy clothes? Did they die outside? Must have spent their money on luxuries instead of heat. Same ones that no doubt scrounge off the food banks.

      • Edward2
        Posted May 5, 2013 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

        You can’t “scrounge” off food banks Baz, you have to qualify which is a difficult process so only deserving cases qualify for the free food.

        • Bazman
          Posted May 7, 2013 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

          If there where no food banks and someone had no food do tell us how they would get some without money Edward. Begging on the street or would that all be just show?

          • Edward2
            Posted May 7, 2013 at 11:28 pm | Permalink

            Where are these starving people Baz?
            Do tell us.
            Any socialist dictatorship I know?

          • Bazman
            Posted May 10, 2013 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

            They are hidden behind closed doors Deadward II. Living in their own shame with medical evidence of malnutrition and other problem caused by an adequate diet. It is not possible to live on a quid a day food in this country as many try to do as the are so skint of ten due to accommodation problems.Maybe they could become peasants huh? You think you can tell us that none is skint in this country?

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page