Royal PR Stumble

Energy Revolution

At last some really good news from Gordon.

Is it really a conversion to the sanity of renewables? I put a question on where ‘nuclear’ come in this lot. As it depends on a finite fuel that will soon face a price hike, nuclear is not renewable in the war that wind, tide, solar and wave are.

He is promising that £100 billion will be spent over the next 12 years converting to a low carbon economy involving a 10-fold increase in power generation from renewable sources.

These are big ambitions on a scale that matches the big crises of global warming and peak oil.

It will mean 7,000 more wind turbines being built - often in the face of local opposition - across the countryside and around the coastline.

It’s fair to call it a revolution in political thinking. All parties have their green zealots. This is the strongest commitment by a party leader.

Of course the daily Mail has done scare mongering on cost.  But those with a clear view of the challenge have welcomed Brown’s courageous stand. This week I will be chairing a British-Irish Parliamentary Body inquiry into renewables. This announcement will give us all a huge boost. What we recommend will soon be mainstream Government policy.

Green sense is winning.

Royal PR stumble

Have the Royal Spinners spun themselves into a hole?

Back in the dark days of Camilla-gate, the royals set up a high-powered body of news manipulators named the Way Forward. A Mori's confidential report said the public thought the royals were ''wasteful,'' known for their ''conspicuous consumption'' and ''extravagant life style. They were thought to be ''arrogant, aloof, and spoiled -- and there were too many of them.

Since then every morsel of royal news has been carefully manicured into acceptable gobbets for public consumption. A bright wheeze was to disguise lavish spending by expressing it as pennies spent for every woman, man and child in Britain.

66p per person does not sound much. Or does it. Behind the headline figures are the details that are mildly shocking. 'The £40m total figure included an average cost of £46,000 per train journey, £138,000 for the Duke of York's to visit the US, and £18,900 for a single trip to the pub by the Prince of Wales as part of his 'The Pub is the Hub' campaign.  It also lists a £415,000 bill for the Queen's 5-day visit to the US in 2007, including a cost to UK taxpayers of £22,000 for a day trip to the Kentucky Derby.

As politicians have discovered it’s the details that matter. The public accepted global totals on MP spending but were scandalised by the price of small items.

There is still along way to go with royal finances. They still do not pay tax in the way that the rest of us do. These figures do not include the main cost of the royals that is in providing them with security for every public relations appearance they make. One event alone cost the taxpayer £2million. Every visit by a minor or major royal costs a fortune to the public purse. The press are begging to see the flaws in the Royal Spin.

The Way Forward has taken a step back.

file:///Users/paulflynn/Desktop/Arch.movfile:///Volumes/2nd%20drive/Movies/Arch.mov

Comments

[Tony]

Green sense may well be winning - and it is interesting to see that was announced a couple of days after the changes to the planning laws which as we know take power from elected officials and give it unelected ones. I hope it works (the wind farms I mean). I think I must just be out of touch here because no one I'be mentioned it to gives a damm - but they will just as soon as they are practically affected

On on the matter of the 10p tax debacle a Commons committe has concluded

It highlighted that the vast majority of the Government’s 10p rescue package – £2 billion out of £2.7 billion – had gone to people who had not even lost out from the original tax change.

So not only was the original change not worked through the response wasn't either and there are still swathes of people worse off !

Let me ask a question. Why does GB not get the government to fix what really bothers people right now. He was the only head of state at the oil meeting and that was aiming at economic measures - if anyone should have been there it was that glove puppet Darling..

And why is it that GB gets to announce everything - or is the Cabinet doing nothing ?

Sorry , bit if a rant but this country needs a leader not a technocrat right now

[Paul Flynn]

Thanks. Constituents who lost out of the 10p change have been vocal in telling me that they have not been compensated. Today's news is the second attempt to make this point - the first one was by Peter Kilfoyle. I am very surprised to hear that a large amount has gone to people who did not lose. That was not the intention. I await Darling's answer. I have already taken up a couple of individual local cases with the Treasury.

Not much hope that anything can be done about oil prices. The world market decide. If there is a tax change, the money will have to come from another tax.

[Will S]

I'm more and more confused over why the 10p doubling is going ahead anyway if he's got to compensate them through the expensive benfits system. Why not take the low earners out of tax and cut down on civil servants and their wages?

Perhaps I'm seeing this too simplisticly though...

[Bob Hill]

The government should also be making it economically attractive for individuals to buy renewable energy sources for their own homes. For instance, a small wind turbine and a fuel cell array on many houses could make a considerable contribution.

[paulflynn]

Agree entirely Will S. Those on the lowest earnings could be taken out if taxes on the highest earners increased. the reaction from the 10p debacle indicates that this would be a popular moe.

[paulflynn]

Thanks Bob Hill. Next week, we may make some progress on his following Brown's announcement. There is a roundtable discusion on Tuesday plus he hearing on Thursday. Many of us would love to make our own contributions. the present subsidies are helpful but the costs are still high.

[Will S]

You misunderstand me. I'm arguing that it would be better to simultaneously remove the same amount of working benefits for the low paid as is incurred by taking these out of tax. Quite apart from any views on who should be taxed more or less, it should be clear to people of any political persuasion that it is silly to have an expensive system in which workers pay into the system which subsequently reimburses them.