Gordon gets it right
Most of the newspapers, with the honourable exception of The Independent, seem to be reporting Gordon Brown's retreat from cash help for those in "fuel poverty" as further evidence of the Prime Minister's uselessness.
I may be a Blairite - even what Charles Clarke calls an uber-Blairite - but I praise Brown for getting something right.
A cash payment is a terrible idea, and the Prime Minister is to be commended for dismissing it as a gimmick, although it is worse than that because, once again, it is public money that the Government does not have. If it were linked to fuel bills, it would provide little incentive to save energy. The Government is quite right to focus on direct help for insulation and conservation instead. As Brown said last night,
Not short-term gimmicks or giveaways - but firm steps towards making every home in Britain more energy efficient, thus reducing bills not just temporarily, but permanently.
At last.
It would have been TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE. It was merely a token to appease his detractors and would have done little if anything to help those most in need!
Ernergy efficient? Please don't make me laugh Mr Rentoul. I suggest that you go and take a look at an ordinary home in Norway, Sweden, Germany or Denmark to see what energy efficient means and not the joke that passes for such in the United Kingdom. To make the average UK home energy efficient, as required in Norhern Europe would cost in the region of £10,000 to £20,000!
Brown like Blair is a self serving buffoon and the elderly will pay for their subservience to business interests.
Posted by: flipped | Friday, 05 September 2008 at 01:26 PM
I agree that the cash handout would have been a bad idea, but Brown's retreat was more to do with the energy companies not playing ball rather than Brown doing the right thing.
As for short-term gimmicks - they have been part and parcel of the Brown administration from the beginning.
Posted by: Peter Wilson | Friday, 05 September 2008 at 01:56 PM
It's irrelevent Labour are heading for the extermination they deserve.
Its a case of too little too late wer'e sitting on huge amounts of Coal here succesive governments have failed to exploit the resource since Thatcher closed the mines for Political reasons.
Modern Coal fired power stations have the potential to be -are - much cleaner than the old designs.
Again Labour have made a mistake in exploiting the green agenda creating a political atmosphere difficult for manouvre in that respect.
It's about reality , the reality is we need energy to maintain our society even at the basic level .
The concentration of population on such a relatively small Island demands it .
Insulation works of course but you have to create heat within that space first.
Not to mention the relliance on Russian gas Arab oil etc.
Posted by: Colin | Friday, 05 September 2008 at 04:12 PM
Is this a tongue-in-cheek article to get people going? Or are we suppose to take you seriously?
People are worried sick about rising fuel bills. They are fed up with the greedy energy companies. What do we get - insulation!
It's this kind of Blairite nonsense that got us in the mess in the first place.
This has been a lily-livered cop-out from the government in the dying days of the New Labour Project.
If the trade unions can get their act together, maybe we haven't got long to wait, as I observe here:
http://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/cut-fuel-bills-ditch-lily-livered-brown.html
Posted by: the orange party | Saturday, 06 September 2008 at 12:37 PM
Gordon's reduction of the VAT on domestic fuel was one of his first moves at the Treasury. To claim to be concerned about the environment and then cut the cost of the biggest source of greenhouse gas was a little cynical even for him.
There was an opportunity at the time to use the revenue to fund fuel saving but it was not taken. Ten years on the opportunity is gone and poorly insulated buildings are still heating the streets.
Posted by: Forlornehope | Sunday, 07 September 2008 at 11:57 AM
A windfall tax on energy companies to fund a handout to those in fuel poverty is a controversial move, and it seems that the government favours pressing them to help householders insulate. This is not always easy or cheap, and solid brick-walled terraces, of which there are some 4 million, are a big headache. Internal insulation is hugely disruptive, and external insulation very expensive, in excess of £10,000 per house. There is thus a need for a much simpler and cheaper method, allowing a “quick win” with rapid payback and simple installation.
Terraces have an advantage over other houses, that their exposed wall area is smaller, with two party walls. However, many terraces are fitted with “walk-throughs,” a passage to access the rear. These are usually open and effectively increase cooled wall area by up to 50%, as cold air passes through them. I propose that simple doors be fitted at each end of the passage, stopping cold air for getting in. The temperature in the walk-through will then rises close to that indoors, and losses through the house wall will drop by over 80%. As each walk-through has two walls, two properties benefit. Fitting a couple of doors should cost around £500, if done on a large scale.
I have calculated that each householder would save around £100/yr on gas bills. This would also save over a ton per year of CO2 emissions. There are around a million walk-throughs in the country, so this simple measure that could save a million tons of CO2 emissions, making a serious contribution to fighting global warming. It would also enable householders to save as much as £200million/year for an investment of around £500million.
One major advantage of such a proposal is that the work of fitting doors to the houses can be done with no disruption to the householder as we do not even need access to the house. There is no need for specialist materials or special equipment, and the reduction in construction activity now must make it easier to find joiners who could tackle this work right away. I would like to hear from energy companies who might be interested in implementing this simple idea and would be glad to review my calculations with anyone.
John Dunkley FREng, Sheffield UK
Posted by: John Dunkley | Sunday, 07 September 2008 at 10:32 PM