Important question – If this is such a problem for Cameron, why isn’t this a problem too?

On Friday night the Telegraph ran a story about David Cameron’s comments to a group of factory workers in Wales, about food prices being increased to subsidise cheaper alcohol, explaining:

The Prime Minister claimed that “a family with a reasonable drinking habit” was “actually subsidising the binge drinker” because supermarkets were increasing the price of food to fund cuts in the cost of wine, beer and cider.

Tim Worstall challenges this by asking, ‘Even if it’s true, so what?‘  But there is a much more important question that should be asked.  If that increase in cost, to subsidise a real terms benefit to a minority of people who don’t need it at the expense of the majority, is such a problem for Cameron then why aren’t we reading something like the following in the papers…?

The Prime Minister claimed that “a family with reasonable energy consumption” was “actually subsidising super wealthy landowners and profitable renewables companies” because energy providers were increasing the price of electricity and gas to fund excessive tariffs that are paid for energy which is generated by wind and solar power.

If it is so outrageous and unacceptable for binge drinkers to benefit from food price subsidies footed by responsible ordinary consumers, why isn’t it equally outrageous and unacceptable that a small cabal of opportunist subdidy farmers benefit from artificially high tariffs for energy, also footed by responsible ordinary consumers?  If he feels so minded to have a cause, then why isn’t Cameron focussing on something almost identical that costs families significantly more money each year?

Perhaps the problem is that Cameron is a stinking hypocrite who not only exhibits the worst kind of moral equivalence but is also in thrall to environmental lobbyists; not to mention a band of influential wealthy people who play host to lucrative wind turbines while gifting money to fund his rapidly shrinking party.

About these ads

10 Responses to “Important question – If this is such a problem for Cameron, why isn’t this a problem too?”


  1. 1 Joe Public 16/12/2012 at 10:52 am

    All politicians are hypocrites.

    The (relatively easy) challenge is to simply match their conflicting policies, statements or (in)actions.

  2. 2 PeterMG 16/12/2012 at 11:45 am

    You should add also that he is looking to relieve the large energy consumers from the Carbon Tax so that they don’t move over seas. Who fills that gap in the tax take?

    Mere words are no longer adequate to describe the hypocrisy that is our energy policy. Dysfunctional comes close but there is not one redeeming feature you could look at and say, well at least they have that right. Even the go ahead for fracking shale gas has a ludicrous limit on seismic shocks and any shocks 0.5 or higher on the Richter scale may trigger a halt. That is like a hand grenade going off and impossible to detect without the most sensitive of instruments.

  3. 3 Jim 16/12/2012 at 12:12 pm

    The money to be made on these renewable energy schemes is eyewateringly large. I am a landowner/farmer and several of my neighbours have gone in for these schemes, and I have been approached by solar park developers with a view to doing the same on my land too. They are offering £1000/acre rent, index linked to RPI for a 25 year contract. This is on land you would be lucky to get £250-300/acre return, in a good year, from farming. In a poor year you could make nothing, so £1K/acre guaranteed and indexed linked is serious money.

    I have refused to sign up to any of these offers, because I feel its immoral to take the money, which is being paid for by people considerably poorer than I am, through their energy bills. Effectively I could be making £100K/year on the back of people in council houses and bedsits up and down the land paying through the nose to keep warm. I couldn’t sleep at night and do that.

    But there are plenty who will. A neighbouring farmer from me has just got the go-ahead for an 80 acre scheme. I’m sure he’ll be very appreciative of your contribution when your next electric or gas bill arrives.

  4. 4 PeterMG 16/12/2012 at 12:32 pm

    Jim I applaud you and you will have the last laugh. Ask you neighbour to read the fine print very carefully.

    Fact: None of these turbines will run for 10 years let alone 25. The mechanical and electrical issues are many, and their is a point at which they are no longer viable. At present I would say 10 years is the maximum useful life all being equal. That mean at least 50% will not make it that far.

    Couple the good old mechanical issues with the fact that the subsidy becomes a larger burden every year and it won’t be too many years before we have to ditch the subsidy. Where will the money come from then?

    There has to be something in that contract that allows the energy producer an out. Perhaps they will do just what they have done in Hawaii and declare bankruptcy and walk away. Ask your farmer friend who then returns his agricultural land back to it original state? Because one thing is for sure that the public clamour to have our country side cleaned up will become very vocal indeed.

    And once it become compulsory to clean up the prices will treble, And our poor old land owners who put their noses in the trough of public subsidy will no longer be able to claim they can’t afford the clean-up. And if any of them think they can sell their land with these monstrosities on they must be joking.

  5. 5 Jim 16/12/2012 at 3:54 pm

    @PeterMG: I quite agree with you, especially about the end of life clean up. Thats one thing that I wondered about. The contracts all specify the energy company are responsible for it at the end, but as you say, if they go bust, who’s left holding the can? The man with solar panels all over his fields thats who!

    And I wouldn’t be surprised in years to come (if as we all pray) the whole AGW scam goes the way of all flesh that people who have signed up for these schemes find the State has some way of wriggling out of its commitments.

  6. 6 Bertie Dugger 17/12/2012 at 11:09 am

    “Perhaps the problem is that Cameron is a stinking hypocrite who not only exhibits the worst kind of moral equivalence but is also in thrall to environmental lobbyists; not to mention a band of influential wealthy people who play host to lucrative wind turbines while gifting money to fund his rapidly shrinking party.”

    To paraphrase Sesame Street: “This Government policy has been brought to you in association with the words ‘father’, ‘in’, ‘law’ and ‘inheritance’.”

  7. 7 Richy 17/12/2012 at 3:55 pm

    I think another hidden bill for erecting these turbines is for the police officers that accompany each load down the motorway, usually at least five officers and vehicles. All being paid a wage by us to help transport turbines that we neither want or need.

  8. 8 Vanessa 20/12/2012 at 4:15 pm

    A very good point and one, I am sure, will never be addressed by any other media mogul !

  9. 9 nzrobin 24/12/2012 at 1:38 am

    Thanks for the post Autonomous Mind.
    Cross subsidisation, between an essential / inelastic commodities (delivered energy and food) and luxury items (alcohol and wind / solar subsidised power) is unfair, wasteful and immoral. It is subterfuge, and one of the ways that the rich extract wealth from the poor. It is a very sad state of affairs.


Comments are currently closed.



Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive