Conservatives! Hold the line on cuts.

UK Chancellor, Philip Hammond, is shortly due to present his Autumn Statement, outlining spending and taxation plans.  As with his predecessor, it is a good opportunity to offer advice on what his priorities should be.

There has been much prognosticating by the so called experts about the state of the UK’s finances, post-Brexit.  The latest indicates that there is a £25 billion funding gap which will arise as a result of depressed growth by 2020.  Couple this with Hammond’s Tory conference talk of loosening the reins and we can maybe expect that the much needed fiscal discipline – a policy which very much differentiated the Conservatives from the Labour opposition during the 2015 General Election – will be ditched.

This certainly shouldn’t be so.  

The UK, for the benefit of future generations – your children and grandchildren – needs to urgently reduce public spending.  At the same time, we need a simplification of the UK tax code.  I would contend that one of the major contributors to the industry that has sprung-up around tax avoidance, is the current complexity of tax law.  Indeed, I would suggest that there are parts of it that no one really understands!

The Tax Payers Alliance undertook an extremely well-researched and fully costed analysis of the UK’s public finances and came up with proposals to reduce taxpayer spending.  This blog highlights what I see as the most cost effective and politically acceptable cuts.  The figures shown are based on the TPA’s cumulative total for the years 2017-2020 (3 tax years).  The amounts combine what the TPA call both Programme One measures – required to get public spending down to 35.2% of GDP by 2019-2020 – and Programme Two measures – designed to drive public spending down further, to 31.7% of GDP by 2020-2021.

So to my recommendations:

·      Increase the extent of charges in the NHS.  Saving 2017 to 2020  £26 billion. 

This includes charging people that travel to the UK, for so called ‘health tourism’ for the services that they receive from the NHS.  Frankly can’t believe that this would be opposed by any sane UK politician.

·      Abolish the Department for Culture, Media and Sport  Saving £8.3 Billion

·      Abolish the Department for International Development and scrap Development Aid Saving  £41.8 Billion

·      Abolish the Department for Environment and Climate Change  Saving £1 Billion

·      Abolish the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills  Saving £12.9 Billion

Government itself must be reduced.  The focus of the UK must be on productive workers not on parasitical bureaucrats.  Where there is a perceived (but much reduced) need for some of  the services currently provided by these ministries, then the tasks to be reassigned to other ministries.  In terms of International Aid, the UK is in debt.  It cannot make any sense, other than in the lala land of Westminster to be borrowing money and placing a burden on the UK tax payer, only so that we can give that money to overseas countries.  Especially so, when many of the recipients are either corrupt or don’t need the money.

·      Abolish the H2S programme  Saving £9 Billion

This is a white elephant in the making.  And a very expensive one, at that!  The economic case for this has been doctored more than a randy tom-cat.  Other than the economists who pull together the fictional projections, I doubt there is anyone that believes this project will be delivered for the £50, 60, 70 Billion price tag.  The saving shown could be reduced if the government decided instead to spend some of that money, on improving communication networks across the whole country.   Imagine the benefits for the country if 4G or even 5G coverage was nationwide.  Think of all those saved carbon footprints!

·      Scrap National Pay bargaining  Saving £13.1 Billion

I have written here before about this.  How can it make sense that people – almost exclusively public sector employees – get the same salary increase regardless of where they live.  The ‘cost of living’ for a  public sector employee living in London  or maybe Edinburgh are very, very different for one living in Durham or Cornwall. 

·      Reduce grants to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales  to be in line with England and Scotland’s to match its relative prosperity compared to Wales.  Saving £21.1 Billion

Okay, I have a ‘bee in my bonnet’ about this.  To me it is iniquitous that English tax payers must subsidise residents of other parts of the UK (and, to declare an interest, yes I do live in England)  In Scotland this is particularly galling, where Scottish born university students are provided with free tuition (as are students from other EU countries) while English students are charged fees.   It is time that these members of the Union pay a fair share for the services they enjoy.  Who knows, maybe then they would elect fiscally responsible assemblies and parliaments!  Currently it is easy to elect ‘rent a gob’ politicians in Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland who spout off on all sorts of issues – even those for which they have no competence – and then spend and spend and send the bill to Westminster.

·      Freeze Benefits for two years and then uprate with CPI  Saving £5.7 Billion

·      Means Test winter fuel payments  Saving £4.3 Billion

·      Reduce the Welfare cap to £20,000  Saving £2.3 Billion

·      Scrap Childcare subsidy  Saving £2.6 Billion

·      Cut Child Tax Credits to their 2003-4 levels, in real terms  Saving £16.8 Billion

·      Target free bus passes, for the elderly, for those who genuinely need them  Saving £1.7 Billion

·      Flatten housing benefit rates across expensive areas to cut 10% off bills  Saving £7.9 Billion

Looking at the savings, it is easy to see the extent that the welfare programme is still a very significant part of the UK’s spending.  I have no doubt that implementing such cuts as proposed, would unleash a howl of protest from Labour and the rest of the Left.  The same could be expected from the soft Left in the Conservative Party.  This I find highly ironic.  At the moment, the tax payer is subsidising vast numbers of employers of people who are in work or people who do not need the benefits that they receive (rich old age pensioners, for example).  How can anyone justify companies paying low wages to people and people only being able to afford to take these jobs because they receive supplementary handouts from the tax payer, via the State?  The State and the tax payer need to get out of the business of subsidising private enterprise. 

These are just my selection from the TPA’s Spending Plan.  Now let’s turn to income taxes.

Raise the Income Tax threshold to £15,000 from next year and to £20,000 by tax year 2019-2020.

Reduce the basic rate of income tax to 15% for all income between £15,000 and £50,000.  For income over Sterling £50,000 reduce rate to 35%

Abolish National Insurance contributions, for both employee and employer for all employees under the age of 25 years.

Abolish all of the so called Green Taxes.

Increase Inheritance Tax thresholds to £600,000 and then increment to £750,000 by 2019-2020.

Finally, another ‘bee in my bonnet’.  Tax MPs expenses.  If the average tax payer is reimbursed for home to work travel or accommodation, then this is considered a taxable benefit.  Brexit has shown that the people are taking back control from the elites.  Those who think that they should be treated differently than the rest of us.  

If you’ve read this far, I apologise for the length of the piece.  I am under no illusion that these progressive policies will be implemented – I think it will take some kind of tax payers revolt for common sense to come to Britain’s public finances – that or a financial crisis, however, who knows, maybe one day a UK government will pay more attention to the tax payer that funds all this and less to the recipients of the tax payer’s largesse.  Then they might also think about our children and grandchildren.

Don’t hold your breath, though!

Massive, Massive hat-tip to the Tax Payers Alliance!

Frack, baby frack

I have posted here before about Fracking and pointed people to the demolition of the lies and stunts,  performed by Josh Fox in his Gasland movie, in the documentary Fracknation.  Some might say that it is unfair to use facts to demolish fantasy but as a grown-up....

Anyway, today, the UK shows the ignorance of the 'debate' on fracking.

By all reliable accounts, Britain is sitting on top of an energy source which is cleaner than most and could provide a much needed economic boost to areas which are not enjoying the growth seen in other parts of the country.

So here's a challenge to Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne.  If you really are in favour of fracking and in tapping into this subterranean bounty that nature has provided, then do something about it.

That something has to be to recognise the national interest is best served by developing these resources.  That means that planning approvals, for such developments, cannot be allowed to sit with local authorities but must sit with central government.  Local politicians are ever fearful of NIMBYs and such narrow-minded pressure groups.  Take the responsibility away from them.

That doesn't mean giving it to the Department of Environment and Climate Change.  In my view DECC should no longer exist.  This is a department that, when led by former Labour leader, Ed Miliband, pushed through legislation that directly causes 'fuel poverty' in the UK and leads every year, to the deaths of thousands of people, who simply can't afford the 'Green Taxes' imposed by energy companies.

Responsibility for planning applications, by energy exploration companies, should rest with the Treasury.  They are responsible for securing Britain's economic future, after all.

Wrapping up on fracking, the Treasury should also have responsibility for protecting those companies that are providing for Britain's economic future.  These drilling operations, once approved, cannot be disrupted by Green protestors who, in spite of all the real evidence pointing to the positive economic benefits of fracking and the overwhelmingly safe environment in which drilling and development operations are conducted, simply refuse to accept fracking.  These Greens are people that would have us back, literally, in the Dark Ages !

Developing our natural resources for the benefit of the British people, must proceed.

As previously disclosed, I work in the energy industry.         

Budget advice for Osborne

When the last Labour government left office (doesn't that sound great - last Labour government), they left three things for the incoming Conservative administration.   A very significant deficit and debt position, a massive £600Bn PFI burden for future generations and a note from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury advising 'there's no money left'.  The latter was at least honest but, as can be expected by Labour, the financial position did not inhibit them making wild spending promises in their 2010 General Election manifesto.

They also left something else.  Some ticking time-bombs in their last and penultimate budgets.  This included the imposition of a 50% top rate of tax.  This was supposed to only be for one year - that was the Labour position, when in power, but then it flipped to them wanting it in place for ever. Same old Labour - lies and hypocrisy!

So, some advice for George Osborne as he puts the finishing touches to the pre-election budget that he will deliver, next week.

Lay-out the Conservative agenda regarding taxes and spending and put these in the budget package so that they can be enshrined in law and present whichever party wins the imminent election, with a clear path forward.  If the proposals are defeated, maybe because of lack of support from the Lib Dems, then this will provide clear evidence of the tax, tax, tax desires of the opponents.

National Insurance - In order to promote the hiring of under 25s, abolish NI contributions for both employees and employers.  All parties make regular speeches talking of the need to reduce youth unemployment, so this should have no opposition - unless it's just lip service that is being paid.

Tax thresholds for OAPs.  It is plainly wrong to overtax people who have made provision for their retirement - either through pensions or savings or both.  So for all pensioners, increase the tax free allowance to £15,000 for the first £30,000 of income.  Then on income over £30,000, reduce the allowance so that for every £1 of income, the allowance is reduced by £2 until the tax free allowance of £12,500 is reached.

Tax Rates for OAPs.  Reduce the rate of tax for OAPs  to 15% on first £30,000, 30% on next £20,000 and then 40% on anything remaining.

Tax thresholds for other workers.  Increase personal allowance to £12,000 for the tax year 2015/2016 and then to £13,250 for 2016/2017 and £14,500 for 2017/2018 and £15,500 for 2018/2019 and £17,000 for tax year 2019/2020.  

Tax rates for other workers.  Reduce the basic rate of tax to 15% and the 40% rate to 38% and commit to reducing this to 36% in 2016/2017, to 34% in 2017/2018, 20 32% in 2018/2019 and 30% in 2019/2020.  Commit to abolishing the 45% rate with effect from the 2017/2018 tax year.

Non-Dom taxes - Increase the Autumn Statement announced charge from £90,000 to £150,000 in 2015/2016 and £200,000 in 2016/2017 and then £300,000 in 2017/2018.

Tax on High value homes owned by companies -  Increase the Autumn Statement announced charge from 50% above inflation to 100% in 2015/2016 and 200% above inflation in 2016/2017 and then 300% above inflation in 2017/2018.

Inheritance Tax threshold and rates - Increase the threshold from £325,000 to £500,000 with effect from 2015/2016 and to £650,000 with effect from 2017/2018 and then £750,000 from 2019/2020.  Impose a flat rate of 25% on any estate in excess of these thresholds.  Exempt all military personnel and Police, Fire and Ambulance personnel that die while on or as a result of being on, active service.

Eliminate the so called Green Taxes - these serve only to put subsidy money into the hands of rich landowners and in the process, impoverish our people.

Then to pay for this,  don't spend, don't spend, don't spend.

Reduce all budgets, across the board by 15%, with the sole exception of defence, with further cuts of 3% for the remaining life of the next parliament.  For defence, meet the commitment to get this to 2% of GDP, and then retain as this level, from 2016/2017.

The astute and economically competent will recognise that even with 15% cuts the budget won't be balanced.  So the ring-fence around NHS and Education expenditure has to be removed and these departments must contribute to the overall reduction in the reach of government.  In order to perhaps mitigate the impact on the 'blessed' NHS consider making the reduction in Local Government expenditure 20% instead of 15%.  That will be bad news for those councils that want to continue their outreach programmes for LGBT unemployed or single mothers but the whole thrust of the budget and Conservative policy must be to recognise that working people must be able to retain more of their money rather than it being taking by the government.

Abolish, completely and utterly, the Department for the Environment and Climate Change.

Also to assist the NHS, ensure that it is clear that the government will not stand as the lender of last resort behind any NHS Trust that, for example was to declare itself insolvent and unable to meet its onerous PFI payments but that were such to occur, the government would immediately intervene to establish an alternative NHS Trust which would not accept the PFI liabilities of its predecessor organisation.

Finally bring MPs back in line with the people that they represent by making the expenses that they receive, taxable, just as they are for all other 'hard-working people'.  I have never heard an explanation of why MPs should be treated differently to ordinary people!  No doubt, being taken down from the lofty levels to which they have elevated themselves,  this will upset some MPs but all MPs must first and foremost recognise that they are servants of the people not their rulers.

Election Budget for UK

George Osborne is, in addition to being the UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Conservative Party's internal election strategist.  So this begs the question, will he use the upcoming budget as an opportunity to start the process of rolling back the state and reducing taxes?  Will he take the chance to load the dice in favour of the Conservatives or at least directionally the Conservative way?

There is a convention in British politics that a current government cannot burden future governments or tie their hands etc..  This doesn't though, seem to apply to taxation.  Rates set by one government end-up being followed by successors.  Neither though does it seem to apply to any other than 'future unclear' policies.

So..........

How about a budget from George that lays out a tax-cutting and spending-cutting strategy, into the future?  How about the 2014 Budget speech going something like this.

Tax Threshold
The popularity of this coalition government's policy of raising the tax threshold, which will reach £10,000 starting this year, is such that we will continue with this strategy of taking more and more low-paid people out of tax, altogether.  The budget that I bring before the House today, includes measures to raise the tax threshold to £12,000 from April 1, 2015 to £15,000 by April 1, 2017 and £20,000 by April 1, 2020.

Income Tax Rates
The budget also includes measures to reduce the basic rate of taxation to 18% and the next rate of taxation to 39%, with effect from April 1, 2014 and to reduce to 15% and 35% respectively by April 1, 2017.  Also to eliminate the current top rate of tax, of 45%, with effect from April 1, 2016. 

These measures will serve to continue the reduction of the tax burden on the lower-paid, which has been a feature of this government's tax policies.  At the same time, recognizing that the 45% rate is a dis-incentive to individuals we will abolish this punitive level.  We already know, from numerous independent and government fact-based studies, that high rates of taxation produce little in the way of meaningful income raised for the exchequer and only serve to engender a divisive culture of envy.

Inheritance Tax
Inheritance Tax is often cited as an iniquitous tax since it argues against our people putting money away for their future and providing for their loved ones.  It also taxes that which has already been taxed.  With effect from April 1, 2015 the nil-band threshold will be raised to £1 million.  This will then be raised by £200,000 on each successive April 1, so that by April 1, 2020, the nil-band threshold will be £2 million.  At the same time, with effect from April 1, 2015, the rate of taxation applied will be reduced to 30%.

Non-Doms
The issue of non-domiciled taxpayers has long been an issue for this House.  People that live in the UK and enjoy all the benefits that this brings, do need to contribute more to the country in which they reside.  Effective from April 1, 2014, the so called non-dom tax will be raised to £100,000 and will then rise by increments of £200,000 on successive April 1, until April 1, 2020.

Fuel Taxes
It is widely recognized that fuel duties impose a heavy burden on small and medium sized enterprises.  This government sees such SMEs as a powerful force in continuing the growth that the policies of this coalition government have engendered.   Effective from midnight, all fuel duties will be reduced by 5%.  We intend to go further and enact, in this budget, future reductions in duty such that in the next 4  successive years, on April 1, fuel duties will be reduced by a further 5%.  Thus by April 1, 2018, fuel duties will have been reduced by 25% from their current levels. 

SMEs
Staying with SMEs and here we mean a business that employs less than 500 people.  Effective from April 1, 2014, an SME that engages a new employee, will be able to enjoy a 5 year NIC holiday for that employee for both the employer and the employee.  We will also enact legislation that extends this 'holiday', until the new employee's 25th birthday.  So either 5 years NIC holiday or until the person reaches 25 years of age, whichever is later.  This is expected to provide a further boost to the employment prospects of our youth and to help Britain avoid some of the horrendously high levels of youth unemployment, seen elsewhere.

Green Taxes
The government is committed to protecting the environment, however, after review of the so called 'green taxes' that were brought in under the last administration, we have decided to abolish them, with effect from April 1, 2014.  Our review has concluded that these taxes do nothing meaningful to reduce carbon emissions but do place a very heavy burden on the pockets and budgets of our people.   Our review results point to the conclusion that temporary reductions or freezes in these taxes is a gimmick.  What is needed, to help the British energy user, is abolition that will aid our industry and improve its competitiveness, where it is up against other nations that are not so burdened and this will also bring very welcome relief to our people, particularly those on low or fixed incomes.

Spending
While the positive effects of cuts in taxation on the economy are known and thus expected, this government believes it prudent, if I may borrow a phrase, to also reduce spending.

This government believes that it is not a given that government has to be involved in everything.  In the past we managed very well as a nation, when we had smaller government.

We are seeing for example, in the educational reforms that are being implemented, that when central and local government step back and allow other providers into the system, great and beneficial changes follow.

Balanced Budget
This government aims to continue to reduce the deficit and strives to start to pay down our already high debt.  The country is now experiencing economic growth, after the disruption felt by the 2008 banking crisis.  The growth is not as uniformly spread, as we would like but the tax cutting measures, of which I spoke earlier, will start to address this.  However, we do not believe that it is sustainable to continue with old borrowing and spending and borrowing  patterns.  Every householder knows that when times are better, then is when you put money away for the future - when you can afford it.  That isn't the time to go out and get further into debt!  As for the average household, so for the country.

This budget will enact legislation to ensure that with effect from the fiscal year commencing on April 1, 2014, all budgets placed before the house are balanced without the aid of further borrowings.  Going further, any surplus that is achieved, where taxes raised exceed public expenditure, will be used to pay down government debt.  We owe this commitment not just to the current inhabitants of Britain but to the future generations.  We must be able to look into the eyes of our children and grandchildren and say that we put a great debt burden on you and your children but we are working to lift this burden.

Department of Energy and  Climate Change
With the earlier mentioned abolition of so called 'green taxes', the Department of Energy and Climate Change will cease to exist, from April 1, 2014 and all of its personnel and facilities will be reduced to zero by April 1, 2015.

Local Government
We have continued to see local councils failing to heed the message that all households have received in the last few years.  Belts need to be tightened!  Speak to any working person, up and down the country and they will tell you that they have had to draw in their horns and learn to spend less.  This is plain common sense but it hasn't percolated through to some of the town halls in Britain, where waste and profligacy continue.  Therefore, the settlement for Local Government, for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 2014 will decrease by 15% from the preceding year's levels, across the board.  There will be an exception to this.  Those councils that propose no increase in fiscal year 2014 Council Tax rates, will not receive a decrease in the settlement. 

From April 1, 2015, the settlement will be reduced by a further 5% and this will continue for the fiscal years commencing April 1 2016, 2017 and 2018.  Again, those councils that do not increase council taxes for their people, will only see the settlement be reduced by 2.5%  in those years

Welfare Benefits Cap
My colleague the minister for Works and Pensions will introduce legislation that reduces the so called benefits cap, to £20,000 with effect from April 1, 2015 and then by £1,000 for each successive year up to 2020, so that by April 1, 2020 the cap will be £15,000.  This government believes that as a nation we must make work pay and reward the workers not the shirkers.  These are strong words but it is a fundamental of the British way of life that hard work should produce rewards, not idleness.  It is not the job of government to give people the wherewithal for life's luxuries.  A safety net, yes! A  smartphone or wide screen TV, no!

Welfare Trap
My colleague will also introduce legislation with the aim of eliminating the so called Welfare Trap, where persons coming off of benefits find that for every extra pound they earn, the cost of taxation and reductions in benefits are such that the effective value to them, of working is very small.  This legislation will take effect from April 1, 2014 and will allow for transitional arrangements for those long term unemployed - defined as those having been in receipt of state benefits for longer than 12 months - such that for the 12 month period following their taking up employment, the reduction in benefits will be such that the effective rate is not greater than 50%.  After those 12 months, and continuing for a further 6 months, the reduction in benefits will be such that the effective rate of reduction would be 25%.  This would mean that after 18 months, the special concession for a  long term unemployed person would cease.  This government did not create this welfare trap but this legislation will give people the opportunity to move into employment and off of benefit dependency.

Other spending
All other departments, except for the Ministry of Defence, will reduce departmental budgets, for the year commencing April 1, 2014 by 10%.  For the years, commencing April 1, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, the budgets will reduce by a further 5%, from the immediately preceding year's budget.      

This is a budget for the people of Britain, this proposes reductions in taxation, paid for by reductions in spending.  We don't aim to put money into people's pockets.  We aim to leave it there and not take it out in the first place!  This is a budget unashamedly for workers.  This is a budget also for our children and grandchildren - we must start to reduce debt, for their sakes.  

I commend the budget to the House!

The UK needs a 'fiscal cliff'

There is much talk about the 'fiscal cliff' that is facing the USA.  This refers to the tax increases and spending cuts which come into effect on January 1, 2013 unless some action is taken to repeal or amend the relevant legislation.  The aim of the original legislation was to require the US Congress and Administration to address the ever increasing budget deficit and US debt.

As one would expect, politics has intervened and a game of fiscal chicken is now underway.   The Democrats, buoyed by the results of the presidential election think they have a mandate to tax more and not cut expenditure.  The Republicans seem to be trying to reach a compromise which reduces the level of tax increases but still has some expenditure cuts.  As so often with Obama, though, there is a lot of talk and no real action.

However, I was thinking that the UK needs its own 'fiscal cliff'.  So, for that matter does Europe but let's stay with the UK.

As a nation, we need to face-up to our situation.  Forget all the rhetoric about 'responsibly' cutting public expenditure from the Tories or 'swingeing' cuts from Labour.  The reality is that public expenditure is not being reduced by any meaningful level.  There will be all the usual suspects lining-up to defend the 'steady as she goes' approach and saying too much has already been cut etc., but the plain and simple truth is that the UK, as a nation continues to live way beyond its means.

It won't happen, but here is what I think we need.

First, a Chancellor that is focused on the UK economy not one who always has his eye on the electoral impact.  I hesitate to say this but someone like Ken Clarke was, after 1992.  Someone that builds the economy for the economy's sake and damn the electoral consequences - hence the Labour landslide of  1997!!  My belief is that Clarke's insistence on something approaching fiscal rectitude, gave Labour a 'golden legacy' and the Tories defeat!

Second, honesty as to the course of action that is to be undertaken.  Tell it like it is.  I know that sounds incredibly naive but some Britons are actually grown-ups.  They are having to deal with their own fiscal cliff and managing and struggling to do so.

Third, demonstrable cuts across the board.  Yes that includes the 'sacred NHS' .  Demonstrable?  How about a 15% cut in expenditure for ALL departments.  Zero based budgeting.  What did we spend in the last 12 months?  That number less 15% is what we spend in the next 12 months.

Fourth, cease payments, within 60 days, to the EU.  Simply stop.  Make no further payments until, CAP is abolished, until the books are audited and approved, until the EU bureaucracy is reduced by at least 50%.  Until.............  the whole damn place is under control and that means democratic control - not political appointees.  No more money until all of the above is achieved.

Fifth, cut overseas aid.  Make all overseas aid actually only 'in kind' and only is UK manufactured products.  Any 'on the ground' costs must be met by the recipient nation.  End all overseas aid to India, China and Brazil, immediately.  I read today that the average age of retirement, in Brazil, for private sector workers, is 53 years of age.  Makes Greece look miserly!

Sixth, instruct the NHS and other public institutions to initiate immediate discussions with their Private Finance Initiative  (PFI) providers and the starting point is a dramatic reduction in the payments that are to be made under these agreements.    If not, the NHS Trusts to declare bankruptcy.  Who exactly do we think holds the whip hand?  The NHS, who can make use (or sometimes misuse) of the relevant facilities or the financing companies?  What will the latter do with bankrupt hospitals?

Seventh, and we are back to # 3 make the cuts even more demonstrable - abolish a complete government department.  The Department for Energy and Climate Change would get my vote for abolition, along with the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office - I know that's three and I am in danger of fuzzy maths but.....   All of the displaced personnel to receive redundancy pay in line with the statutory limits - so not the usual 'golden parachutes'.

Eighth, Cut support for local government by 25%  - This will lead to a decline in employment opportunities for 'diversity officers' and LGBT empowerment posts but we will just have to get by.

Nine, 'means test'all benefits,  Welfare should be a 'safety net' not the lap of luxury.  And yes, 'means test' including those for pensioners.  Why should a pensioner get free bus pass?  Or a winter fuel allowance, if they don't really need it? 

Ten, abolish the so called 'green taxes' that have been imposed upon all energy users and go 'hell for leather' to promote shale gas exploitation.  This will require ignoring the lies from the BBC and Greenpeace but at least, if # 7 is followed, there won't be anyone at the Cabinet table pushing these lies and distortions.

As I said at the outset, it won't happen but it was nice to get this off of my chest.  Instead the UK will slide towards IMF bailouts and austerity much like the above but it will be administered by 'foreigners'.  And we will have the usual bogeyman of bankers to blame, so that's all right then!!

The USA has a chance to turn back from the financial abyss but politicians being what they are, the problems are as likely to be kicked down the road over there, as they are in the UK.

Hunhe gone - Time for a new 'policy'

Farewell Chris Huhne.  Can't comment on the case, of course (that might be considered perverting the course of justice!) but let's look at the state of UK energy policy, for which his former department is, in large part, responsible.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is very busy promoting the installation of renewable energy sources so as to help the UK reach its self-imposed target of a reduction in carbon emissions (30% of renewables and 40% of low carbon content in electricity by 2020).

They are furthering this aim, which no other industrialised nation is following, by subsidizing renewable energy sources, including Wind Power and Solar Power.

The latter programme took something of a blow last October when the Government announced, with very short notice, that they were halving the level of Feed in Tariff that would be able.  Cue panic from the 'greens' and  the Solar Power installers and a legal challenge which they won (so the reduction delayed).  The Solar Power installers spoke of there being 25,000 jobs at risk because of the government's action.  (Note:  The Solar Power industry employs a total of 25,000 people! - No scare-mongering there then!)

Wind Power projects have been heavily subsidized and generating capacity coming online, has  grown considerably in recent years and this is scheduled to continue and further accelerate in coming years, however, even with this massive and very expensive programme, renewable energy sources will struggle to reach government targets.

Cost of the Wind Power subsidy? There are widely conflicting numbers ranging from  £4-600 up to £1-1,200 per year for each and every family.  It is possible that the variation in the total cost of the subsidy is due to what is and isn't included and so the upper limit may include all energy subsidies.

I have written previously of the dilemma that Wind and Solar power sources produce.  That is, there is a requirement for fossil fuel back-up capacity to cover for the vagaries of the environment.

• Solar Power produces nothing at night!  
• Wind turbines produce nothing when the wind speed is less than 2.5 metres per second (around 5.5 MPH)  and must be switched off when the wind speed is greater than 25 metres per second (around 55 MPH) 

 Per Wikipedia:

On the evening of the 5th into the 6th of April, 2011, the wind in Scotland was high, it was raining heavily, which also created more hydroelectricity than normal. The grid became overloaded and a transmission fault in the system "meant the surplus energy could not be transferred to England and so generation had to be cut". Wind farms operators "were paid £900,000 by the National Grid to disconnect their turbines for one night because the electricity was not needed". A spokesman for the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), described this situation as "unusual" and said more electrical storage was needed, adding: "In future we need greater electrical energy storage facilities and greater interconnection with our EU neighbours so that excess energy supplies can be sold or bought where required."

Wikipedia . on the subject of standby capacity continues to inform:

There is some dispute over the necessary amount of reserve or backup required to support the large-scale use of wind energy due to the variable nature of its supply. In a 2008 submission to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, E.ON UK argued that it is necessary to have up to 80–90% backup. National Grid which has responsibility for balancing the grid reported in June 2009 that the electricity distribution grid could cope with on-off wind energy without spending a lot on backup, but only by rationing electricity at peak times using a so-called "smart grid", developing increased energy storage technology and increasing interconnection with the rest of Europe. In June 2011 several energy companies including Centrica  told the government that 17 gas-fired plants costing £10 billion would be needed by 2020 to act as back-up generation for wind. However as they would be standing idle for much of the time they would require "capacity payments" to make the investment economic, on top of the subsidies already paid for wind.

No one from the 'Green' lobby, seems prepared to comment on how the promotion of Wind and Solar Power can be seen as 'green' when they require such a high level of back-up supply capacity requirement.  Remember that these back-up stations can't just be switched on and off like an electric kettle, to meed the fluctuations in supply from these unreliable sources. 


This same 'Green' lobby is then opposed to the construction of these new fossil fuel power stations (e.g. Kingsnorth) and is strongly opposed the the greenest energy source - Nuclear Power.  Currently Nuclear power accounts for around 18 to 20% of UK needs.  Today this represents around 3 times the volumes  of what Wind and Solar Power are expected to contribute by  2020.

To me it is indisputable that by 2020 and indeed, 2050, we will continue to have a very heavy reliance on Gas, Oil and Coal for the production of energy in the UK.  For me it then follows on, that the focus should be on finding ways to 'capture' the carbon that is produced, rather than this being released into the environment.  I would suggest that this is where any energy subsidy should be directed rather than into inefficient (wind power typically operates at around 20 to 25% of capacity) and expensive  forms of renewable energy.

I would also suggest that, just as in America, the UK should quickly get engaged in the production of Shale Gas (personal interest already declared) and reduce our growing reliance on imported gas.

I welcome comments and particularly from 'Greens' so they can better help me understand the conflict between renewables that must be backed-up with fossil fuels.