Britain, Economic, Energy, Government, Politics, Society

The folly of Labour’s energy policy and what needs to be done…

ENERGY MARKET

Ed Miliband’s headline-grabbing pledge to freeze energy prices until 2017 if Labour is elected at the next General Election has already seen one of the ‘Big Six’ suppliers, SSE, raise its prices by an average of 8.2 per cent. Dire warnings have followed that if other utility companies follow suite, as they are expected to, the poor will have to choose between heating and eating as the winter bites. Mr Miliband could not have planned it better – first, we witnessed billions being wiped off the stock market following his announcement on an energy-price freeze at the Labour Party conference. And now, two weeks on, we are braced for yet another round of what could amount to double-digit increases to the basic price of energy for consumers.

Despite SSE’s decision, we must examine more closely why the facts of the energy market fail to conform to Mr Miliband’s egalitarian rhetoric. To start with, while British consumers may well be aggrieved with rising energy bills, they are hardly in isolation. Last year, our electricity prices were ranked 12th highest in the European Union, below all of our major rivals (except France). Britain’s gas prices were the lowest in Western Europe.

Next, it should be pointed out that many of the factors behind rising prices are beyond the control of any energy company or politician. As North Sea supplies dwindle, the UK is increasingly reliant on imported gas from countries such a Qatar. Others are in the same fix, too, with prices being driven in accordance with the laws of economics and the market.

What comes next is even more important to understand. While Mr Miliband has sought to frame the energy debate as a ‘cost of living’ issue, this is cunning and shrewd brinkmanship. The fact that energy bills have risen by a quarter over the past five years, at a time of huge pressure on incomes, has infuriated many. Nowadays, though, energy prices are being more robustly used as a policy tool. They are being used to subsidise the next generation of power stations – where the cost of building and construction has risen sharply due to Labour’s failure to replace those it mothballed. This raises the extraordinary prospect of widespread blackouts as the conceivable position arises of demand outstripping supply. Surging energy bills are also being used to fund a decarbonisation agenda that has seen non-competitive renewables receive bountiful sums in subsidies.

Yet, all the more surprising that the Labour leader does not recognise this, despite the fact it was Mr Miliband who had set-up the regime in the first place, when he was energy and climate change secretary in the last Labour government. At first, and to be fair, the Conservatives were happy to go along with it, although they have increasingly had second thoughts. Unfortunately, when the coalition came into being the control of energy was handed to the Liberal Democrats – who remain as fixated to the green and environmental agenda as Labour. The LibDem part of the coalition has made clear – through Vince Cable, the Business Secretary – that the renewables levy is non-negotiable.

So, what could the Conservatives do to bring down prices – and persuade voters that Labour’s offer is pie in the sky politics, if not complete nonsense?  A blueprint on Tory energy policy could be set out, countering the need to argue on a point-by-point basis with Labour on its policy, and one which should be designed to provide immediate relief. This is an opportunity for the Tory party to show how a majority Conservative government would help consumers.

A plan to create a proper market in energy, with smaller providers able to compete, would provide the market with competition that is much needed, particularly if new entrants to the market were made exempt from eco-levies. The current oligopoly serves no one’s interests other than the shareholders of the Big Six and the huge profits retained by them.

A new vision should accept that more money will be needed for energy infrastructure, but one where the new generating capacity is as cost-effective as possible, and delivers electricity at the lowest possible price. Embracing the shale gas revolution, for instance, would be a good start in that direction. Others might suggest decarbonising by building other types of energy driven plants but with a more rigorous subsidy regime in place. The sums wasted on renewable energy supplies have been astronomical. The status quo is to continue lumbering businesses and firms with unaffordable and uncompetitive energy costs.

Those subsidies that survive under such a plan should be stripped out of energy bills and instead become part of general taxation. Disguising such costs by loading them onto consumers discriminates against the poorest, an unfair and dishonest approach when many are struggling to pay for their gas and electricity anyway.

Keeping energy costs down can only be achieved if the market is made to work properly, not through a price-fixing cartel where the market is effectively rigged.

Standard
Britain, Government, Health

GP surgeries and out-of-hours primary care…

OUT-OF-HOURS CARE

The crisis facing out-of-hours primary care services is largely down to the health policy pursued by the last Labour government. Whilst it is a bit rich for Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, to accuse the present Government of ‘an epic U-turn’ for announcing a financial package intended to encourage GP surgeries to stay open in the evenings and at weekends – in reversing the mess the Government inherited from Labour – Mr Burnham has a case if we put hypocrisy aside. As the implications of the new contract began to take hold, the last government offered something very similar to what is being offered to GPs now – but funding was withdrawn by the Coalition when they came to office on the basis that there was no demand for the services. Now, though, an additional £50 million is being earmarked for doctors’ surgeries that want to remain open during unsociable hours or those GPs that wish to embrace new, hi-tech consultation methods.

Surely, the time has come to repair the huge damage caused by Labour’s poorly-judged contract with GPs in 2004. The contract removed responsibility for out-of-hours care from GPs, the majority of who opted out of providing it. The consequences are well-documented: demand has been pushed on to hospital A&E services with the resultant pressures making many A&E units unable to cope with a winter crisis. Worse still, has been the non-emergency telephone advice service which has been found seriously wanting with patients left frustrated in their efforts to make appointments at times convenient to them rather than to the practitioners.

The current Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, says he wants GPs to ‘rediscover family doctoring’, an ambition no-doubt that will be shared by most people. Innovative ideas such as wider use of email and Skype are good ones that could help to restore an element of personal contact with surgeries when people need it most.

Who would doubt that it is in the interests of GPs that they play their part in bringing about a more modern, proactive and flexible service for their patients?

Standard
Britain, Politics

Labour’s struggle with Unite…

EXPOSING MILIBAND’S WEAKNESS

For Ed Miliband, the Labour Party’s leader in the UK, the last ten days or so have been wretched. Mr Miliband who has been so desperately unimpressive in the past few months, particularly in response to the spending review delivered by George Osborne, now finds himself at the centre of a scandal that exposes his weakness even further.

Mr Miliband would never have guessed that a Westminster barroom brawl involving Falkirk MP Eric Joyce would have had such seismic repercussions.

Mr Joyce decided to stand down and subsequently this has triggered a poisonous battle in who should become the next Labour candidate in this safe Labour seat. The issue is now threatening to engulf the Labour leader, who has never looked so weak, rattled and indecisive.

The first allegations to emerge were that the union Unite – whose block vote was crucial in winning Mr Miliband his job following the departure of Gordon Brown – had swamped the local party constituency with new and unfettered members, so they could vote for the union’s preferred Left-wing candidate.

Worse still, it was then discovered that Unite, led by Len McCluskey, was itself paying the new members’ subscription fees, and in some cases had even signed up people as members without their knowledge. This could lead to a potential criminal act of identity theft.

A strong leader of the Labour Party would have recognised the huge political danger in allowing a militant trade union (which wants Labour to wreck the economy all over again with more spending and more debt) to tighten its already vice-like grip on the party.

It is alleged that, for weeks, Mr Miliband knew about the Falkirk allegations and did nothing. It has taken the deeply suspicious resignation of his election chief Tom Watson, and the revelation that Unite had tried to influence the outcome in a further 40 selection contests elsewhere in the country, to wake him up from this pathetic dithering.

And yet Ed Miliband’s response has been feeble and inadequate.

On Friday, Mr Miliband made much of the fact that he has referred Labour’s internal report into Falkirk to the police. But, in reality, was this not an act of weakness given that 24 hours earlier the Conservative MP Henry Smith had written a public letter to the Chief Constable of Police Scotland calling for a full fraud inquiry?

Mr Miliband who champions the cause of openness and transparency is steadfast in his refusal to make the report public. A string of senior figures, however, has demanded that he do so.

Mr Miliband, who wants to shackle Britain’s free Press with statutory regulation, is a position that is at odds with the openness he calls for. For how would the murky dealings and vote-rigging within his party have surfaced if such a framework had existed? It is likely the shenanigans and underhand dealings of Unite would never have been exposed.

Calling on Mr McCluskey to turn his back on ‘machine politics’, the Labour Party has to answer as to why it has quietly changed the rules by making it a condition that any candidate in a council or Parliamentary election must be a union member (as opposed to should be, which was formerly the case). This was done shortly after Mr Miliband become leader.

Many people will question whether Mr Miliband is in any position to confront Unite and its leadership over its bid to drag Labour back to the bad old days of 1980s militancy. It is certain that if Unite withdrew its financial support of the Labour Party, the party would quickly become inoperable, if not by going bust. Over the past three years alone Unite has given Labour a staggering £8 million.

No wonder then that Labour are unable to commit properly to spending cuts, in fear that Mr McCluskey and his union cronies might not like it.

Standard