Nuke subsidies galore

The coalition will fracture on nuclear power. Already the facts are embarrassing the rhetoric. I have tabled the following EDM. It lists an impressive number of fat subsidies that the taxpayer is already shelling out for New Nuclear.

The latest on how the only New Nuclear plant is doing should sober up the coalition from their wild infatuation with an energy source that has never managed without huge subsidies. The Olkiluoto 3 reactor was supposed to start producing power in May 2009. However, "the plant is at least three and a half years behind schedule and more than 50 percent over-budget” According to Professor Stephen Thomas, "Olkiluoto has become an example of all that can go wrong in economic terms with new reactors". Areva and the utility involved "are in bitter dispute over who will bear the cost overruns and there is a real risk now that the utility will default".  So far so disastrous. EDM 150 

NUCLEAR POWER AND PUBLIC SUBSIDIES

03.06.2010 

Flynn, Paul

That this House notes that successive energy Ministers have said that there will be no subsidies provided for new nuclear plants; further notes in particular the comments made by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change that his scepticism on nuclear power `is based on whether or not they can make it work without public subsidy. One of the things the Coalition agreed with some passion in the current circumstances of fiscal restraint was that there will be no public subsidy for nuclear power'; further notes he stressed that even support in the event of a disaster was out of the question, insisting `That would count as a subsidy absolutely. There will be no public bailouts...I have explained my position to the industry and said public subsidies include contingent liabilities'; further notes that chief executives of private power companies operating in this country, such as Vincent de Rivaz, Chief Executive Officer of EDF Energy, have said that they are seeking no subsidies for any new nuclear plants they may build in Britain; believes that comments by such chief executives are disingenuous and misleading because many nuclear subsidies paid for by British taxpayers are already in place, including the multi-billion pound underwriting of insurance liabilities, the research and development for long-term nuclear waste management and facility decommissioning, the donations made to international nuclear research and promotional bodies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency, the EU's Euratom nuclear agency, and to national bodies including the National Nuclear Laboratory, the Nuclear Academy and the Nuclear Institute; further believes in addition that loan guarantees will be sought by companies planning to build new plants; and calls on the Government to exclude all taxpayer-funded direct and indirect subsidies from companies who have expressed interest in building new nuclear power plants in the UK for such construction and operation.

Worthy exposure

Chris Gale has written a persuasive blog on why Labour should harness the deep compassion that exists for animal welfare. Soon we will see the hideous sight of Tory MPs rampant for blood sports. Exposing their indifference to animal suffering when sport is to be had, is a worthy aim.

 

 

Comments

[Steve]

'The coalition will fracture on nuclear power'

Paul, mate, much as I respect your views I must point out that your own party is as much a supporter of nuclear power as the Conservatives, yet has not fractured becase of the views of those like yourself who oppose nuclear power.

At least with the Lib Dems as part of the government, and Chris Huhne at the helm at DECC, we will see nuclear subject to much more critical rigour than it was under the Labour government.

[DG]

"But if they were to act cruelly there will naturally be consequences..."

Elevation to the House of Lords for one, I expect.

[Patrick]

PF
"Tory MPs rampant for blood sports. Exposing their indifference to animal suffering when sport is to be had, is a worthy aim."

Meanwhile the wildlife loving Labour led Welsh assembly are presently trapping, shooting, and lethaly injecting a protected species.

You speculate about what the Tories might do and totally ignore what is actually happening right now.

You are obviously so concerned about the anti-scientific ,West Wales blood festival that you haven't even mentioned it.

[Chris Gale]

Hi Paul,

Many thanks for featuring my blog post.
It is time for all of us who value compassion and decency to stand up to those who want to torment and kill sentient creatures for kicks.

Chris

[HuwOS]

Doctors helped to ensure that torture in Guantanamo was not too little and not too much. They helped to ensure Bush administration guidelines that wanted torture to be just right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/world/07doctors.html

[Ad]

A correction of the last paragraph. Should have read:

Vilifying the poorest for requiring the necessaries of life just because the country IS IN DEBT is cruel and unnecessary.

[Ad]

'I'm open to non-violent suggestions on how this could be achieved, assuming things are going to go the way it now looks.'

Well I am not calling for sedition, there clearly is a problem with the country's debt which must be tackled. But if they were to act cruelly there will naturally be consequences, and hopefully those who implemented such measures would get a taste of their own medicine.

To give him his due, some of the things Cameron is saying are correct, such as:

"Because the legacy we have been left is so bad, the measures to deal with it will be unavoidably tough, but people's lives will be worse unless we do something now."

Some austerity now instead of greater pain in the future. How ‘unavoidable’ and how ‘tough’ are the questions that concern us. I want them to get it right for the country as a whole, not castigate and harass the easy targets for ideological reasons. We must as a country be realistic, and part of that is accepting measures that can and need to be taken. We cannot as a country have everything that we want, but I do believe we can have everything that we need and be comfortable enough. This is the crucial balance that I hope the government can plan for.

Vilifying the poorest for requiring the necessaries of life just because the country is cruel and unnecessary. Yes we want the country to be more prosperous, but it is going to take time. We must develop the right conditions so that it is easier for the country to be prosperous in the longer term. Part of that should be trying to reduce debt and budget deficits and not spending well beyond our means. This must be balanced against what we CAN have, and not attacking pensions, benefits etc, as an apparent easy target.

[D.G.]

True, but we'll not have to maintain the bases.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see where the axe falls, won't be long now. I suppose there's not a chance in hell of the financial services transaction tax.

[HuwOS]

I believe that was a proposal of the Tories, Dr Fox, now the secretary of state for defence, so I guess there is some chance of it happening.

Not sure it will save much really though, we will still be paying (or underpaying) and equipping, or under equipping those same soldiers.

[DG]

We could bring the troops home - from Germany. I think we can safely say that a functioning democracy is now in place and they won't be terrorising their neighbours again any time soon.

[HuwOS]

Sorry, that was long and rambling,
the key items are government can reduce the deficit by bringing in more money and whether they make serious efforts to do that or not indicate their fair dealing.
Equally important however is that cuts will still be needed.
Where can they come from?
Bearing in mind we need about a hundred billion from them.

[HuwOS]

We will know a lot about the genuine intentions of the government, if they fixate only on cutting expenditure.

Everyone knows now and indeed knew before the election that the banking crisis has caused some very real problems and unearthed some others and that the books were going to have to be balanced.
This should take the form of both decreasing expenditure and increasing income.

If the government focuses solely on decreasing expenditure and allows unpaid taxes to remain unpaid, doesn't close tax loopholes and doesn't clamp down hard on tax evasion then they are not genuinely trying to resolve problems we are facing but are dicking around with public expenditure for the benefit of certain sectors only.

Those kinds of actions could increase government income by 50 billion pounds*.

*Based on being able to collect 50% of estimates of lost revenue
breaking down as
tax avoidance, believed to be against the spirit of the law - £25 billion
2009, Treasury Select Committee report that Revenue&Customs was sitting on £28 billion of unpaid tax debt
and illegal non-declaration of income on which tax might be due or fraudulent
claims for tax relief for which relief is not justified – might cost HMRC £70 billion a year.

Worth pointing out, that if that last figure in particular is true and recoverable, that in itself is a sum greater than the yearly bill on welfare which stands at about £57.7 billion.

Also worth pointing out that even if we did manage to collect £50 billion from those, the deficit is still £120 billion.

I haven't looked at this in any great depth, but where do people consider cuts can be made, to what extent and how much can be saved by doing so or what other ways of increasing government income do you see to balance the budget.

My favourite of legalising narcotics, would both help government coffers and reduce expenditure on prisons and courts.
But I have no idea by how much in either case but certainly not enough to close the circle (in 2008 illegal drugs trade was considered to be worth about 6.5 billion), quite aside from the fact that it is not going to happen anytime soon anyway.

It should be noted that earlier this year new rules on VAT were brought in which may help to reduce fraud there which is estimated to be worth about £9.2 billion pounds of which we could hope to get or save maybe £4 billion.

All of this is possible, if however HMRC and other relevant bodies face frontline cuts, it is hard to see how they could increase their effectiveness and again cuts like that or natural wastage or anything else shows a lack of commitment to balancing books and a greater commitment to acting on an ideological basis against those in need of government support.

[DG]

"they should be made to feel the consequences of their own cruelty"

I'm open to non-violent suggestions on how this could be achieved, assuming things are going to go the way it now looks.

[Ad]

'Not forgetting of course, each and every one of them, elected.'

Indeed. I reckon I could 'vote HuwOS' though if you stood for election. I liked your manifesto from the June 02 blog discussion. There seemed to be a theme of natural equity in your proposals.

I'm sure you could do a better job than quite a lot of them if Cameron's proposed edicts are anything to go by. The theme of the government’s manifesto appears to be one of grievous injustice. The government and the house of commons generally appears determined to deliberately afflict the poor in particular. Its not like they can get any decent bribes out of them after all is it? The wealthy and powerful tyrannising over the poor is not a new theme. But as you say Huw the people elected this house of commons and therefore they become its accessories.

'The first area of "waste" he identified was the welfare bill. He's going to go after housing benefit, isn't he?

There'll be tabloid pages full of "chav" families with 8 kids that have never worked in their lives in the next few weeks. Then he'll put those kids on the street while we continue to pay the mortgage on his xth house.'

The poorest are not given assistance and their rights are taken away from them for the sake of the rich. Those who have wealth, connections and privilege oppress those who do not because they feel their wealth is in danger. ‘As men intoxicated by prosperity are wont to despise haughtily every danger’. The poor are unable to defend themselves. All this and the country remains allied to America and Israel in doing it to others too. I get the impression that the government is indifferent to anything except wealth and power. If they choose to neglect, or even plunder the poor they should be made to feel the consequences of their own cruelty.

[DG]

Cameron's speech on the economy SO nearly fooled me - he seemed to talk a lot of good sense about the long-term benefits of reducing the deficit - but then he had to go and reveal his true colours with this:

"By publishing the information about how your money is spent, we are now shining a spotlight on that waste and it is a scandalous sight to see.

A Department for Work and Pensions that increased benefit spending by over £20 billion and gave some families as much as £93,000 in Housing Benefit every year"

The first area of "waste" he identified was the welfare bill. He's going to go after housing benefit, isn't he?

There'll be tabloid pages full of "chav" families with 8 kids that have never worked in their lives in the next few weeks. Then he'll put those kids on the street while we continue to pay the mortgage on his xth house.

I hope I'm wrong.

[HuwOS]

" I do wonder at the whole institution of parliament and politicians. Arrogant and presumptuous, precocious and cloistered"

Not forgetting of course, each and every one of them, elected.

[Ad]

There is just nothing about the man except privilege and PR. Now he is supposed to lead a government? I do wonder at the whole institution of parliament and politicians. Arrogant and presumptuous, precocious and cloistered.

Of course that doesn't include those like yourself Paul who tackle real problems and have real principles.

[Ad]

'The coalition will fracture on nuclear power.'

I think the sooner Cameron's 'prime ministership' is taken off him the better for us all. Cameron needs to be replaced. He is a product of priviledge and PR.