Whose cash cows?

And so it continues.  The BBC has been given an advance copy of Ed Davey’s forthcoming speech to Energy UK:

Gas and electricity customers are “not just cash cows” to be “squeezed” to create bigger profits for shareholders, Energy Secretary Ed Davey will say.

In a speech later, the Liberal Democrat minister will call on the industry to “open up your books” to show how it is trying to minimise tariffs.

But it’s OK with Thick Ed that gas and electricity customers are ‘squeezed’ with visible and hidden government taxes and levies – being used as cash cows to enrich corporations and land owners with rental fees and grossly inflated feed-in tariffs for the most inefficient and unreliable energy generation available… wind turbines.

Perhaps it is time Davey and the Common Purpose-loving, human-hating drones at DECC opened up their books to show us how much is really taken by government, through energy bills and general taxation, as they pursue the Agenda 21 inspired strategy to force down energy consumption as part of the campaign to achieve a warped version of ‘sustainability’.

Yet this man will have the nerve to utter these words:

You deliver an essential public service, so your industry must serve the public – and the public must have trust in what you do.

And what of government?  When will government serve the public? When will we ever have trust in what government does?  Ed Davey and his fellow troughers should get their own bloody house in order before engaging in this ‘nothing to do with us guv’ nonsense and telling others what to do.

5 Responses to “Whose cash cows?”


  1. 1 Rossa 12/11/2013 at 9:44 am

    Just downloaded our Scottish Power bill this morning. Shows clearly that 15% is for green obligations. The MSM has been promoting the idea that consumers should shop around so I took a look at Ovo and First Utility. Prices are cheaper but then I read that that is because if you have less than 250,000 customers they don’t have to charge the renewables tax. Once enough people switch to these so called independents what appears superficially to be cheaper will soon change.

  2. 2 jeremyp99 12/11/2013 at 1:21 pm

    Yes, Heard this on the radio this am. My immediate reaction – well, maybe if your government didn’t treat us taxpayers as cash cows to be milked on demand, I might agree with you. Davey is an arsehole that needs reaming with a splintered broom handle.

  3. 3 grahamwood32 12/11/2013 at 5:02 pm

    Agree with all and particularly about the ideologically challenged  ‘thicko’ Ed Davey.  You may be interested to read this pity comment about the so called “carbon” problem. Simply substitute ‘UK’ for ‘Australia’:

    COLD TURKEY  >Repealing the Carbon Tax >- the Way Out, is the Way we Got In: >Simply Repeal all of the 25 Clean Energy Bills. > >This is the text of a submission by the Carbon Sense Coalition to the Australian Government on the Proposed Repeal of the Carbon Tax. > >The Case for Repeal > >We support the immediate repeal of the carbon tax. This tax was introduced by stealth, and the justification for its introduction is spurious. It should be repealed or made ineffective immediately. > >We are told its purpose is to “reduce carbon pollution” – just three words, each of which is based on a lie. > * “Reduce”: The effect of Australia’s carbon tax on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is so tiny as to be undetectable and any miniscule reduction would be totally swamped in the far bigger natural seasonal variations of carbon dioxide levels. The effect on global climate, if any, would also be too small to be measured and of no benefit to the climate or life on Earth. > * “Carbon”: It is NOT a tax on carbon. Carbon is a solid – either soft and black like graphite and soot, or crystalline, hard and beautiful like diamond. It is definitely not the colourless gas created when carbon is burned. The “carbon” tax falls mainly on carbon dioxide, a colourless, harmless natural gas which has always been present in Earth’s atmosphere, usually in far greater amounts than at present. The use of “carbon” when referring to “carbon dioxide” is a deliberate deception. It would be like calling liquid water by the name “hydrogen”, a major element in the water molecule which is a dangerous explosive flammable gas. Based on the carbon example, a tax on water vapour (another “greenhouse gas) would probably be called “The Hydrogen Tax” by government propagandists. > * “Pollution”: Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and should never have been called one. It is the essential gas-of-life for all plants and they support all animals on Earth. It is no more a pollutant than oxygen, which is the gas-of-life for animals, or water vapour which is essential for all life. All three gases have effects on earth’s surface temperature, and on surface life, and such effects are usually highly beneficial. Additional carbon dioxide has been improving and will continue to improve the growth rate and drought tolerance of all plants on earth. Far from polluting the Earth, extra carbon dioxide has been greening the globe for decades. >There has been no attempt at an independent cost benefit analysis to justify the tax.  > >The costs of the carbon tax are substantial and will increase every year it remains. It will increase the costs of locally produced coal, gas, electricity, cement, steel, timber and everything made using these essential products. If these businesses are exempted or compensated, the tax will be totally ineffective and taxpayers in general will bear the cost of the extra red tape, bureaucracy and churning of funds. If they are not exempted, value-adding businesses such as further processing, fabricating and manufacturing will be forced to close and relocate to more sensible business environments. 

  4. 4 Johnnydub 13/11/2013 at 10:08 am

    But it’s not just the green obligations bit of the bill – that’s the explicit green cost. You’ve also got whacking rises in transmission costs – which is the investment needed to attach all the windmills to the grid…
    And the biggest cost is the simplest – the cheapest form of wholesale energy generation is coal… and it’s being phased our for green reasons as quickly as possible. When you substitute the cheap sources for more expensive sources e.g. nuclear, well you can’t be surprised that your bill rockets..

    But these bastards knew all this was going to happen before the climate change act was even signed. It’s just being cowardly politicians they won’t justify their decisions (apllying to all three parties) they just blaming the energy companies. And as we know we have a serious shortfall in generating capacity. Who’s going to make this investment if you keep demonising the potential investors?

  5. 5 Alec 14/11/2013 at 12:00 pm

    In the interests full disclosure I work for First Utility and just wanted to clarify the point by Rossa about the obligation to pay the so called ‘green levies’. First Utility does qualify (we have more than 250,000 accounts) and we’ve been included in the scheme for a year now. We’re also committed to passing on any savings to customers should these levies be removed.


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