Amid a global storm of events and flux, debate rages about Donald Trump’s Great Reset of the world order with his tariffs. Britain has got off somewhat lightly but may not be immune from the further consequences of the President’s attempt to repatriate industries, wealth and power. Here on this island, however, there is no sign that the Government is capable of responding to this new reality besides Keir Starmer’s larping as a world leader.
It is Ed Miliband that we must turn to first to glimpse this Government of fantasists at work. On Friday, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero wrote in the Independent an article with the title, ‘Why I promise green wind will save Britain’s economy‘. “Families and businesses have seen their energy bills rocket in the years since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,” he explained, “and this week, energy bills have risen once again as a direct consequence of the latest spike in global gas prices.”
Miliband was talking about the UK’s energy price cap, which, as reported here was indeed increased in February. On February 25th, Ofgem announced it was increasing the amount households will pay for their energy from April through to the end of June. Ofgem’s CEO Jonathan Brearly said, “Our reliance on international gas markets leads to volatile wholesale prices, and continues to drive up bills, which is why it’s more important than ever that we’re driving forward investment in a cleaner, homegrown system.” In the Independent, Miliband echoed the claim: “The only way to protect families and businesses in the long term is to sprint to clean homegrown power that we control – so we can increase our energy independence and bring down bills for good.”
But there is a problem for both Miliband and Brearly. And it is a problem for those customers who, on the news of the price rises, rushed to lock the prices they pay to energy retailers with fixed price contracts. The price of gas soon fell.
When Ed Miliband claimed on X that Ofgem’s looming price rise was “due to a spike in global markets” (18th February), gas prices on the UK market had already peaked (on the 15th) at £1.42 per therm, and had fallen to £1.15. On the 25th, as Ofgem announced the price rise, the price had dropped further to £1.06. By the time the quarterly price cap came into effect (April 1st) the price had dropped again to £1.02. And when Miliband published his article (April 4th), the price was £0.89. On the day I am writing this article, the market opened at £0.85, and went as low as £0.82. This later price is a whopping 42% less than the peak of “spike in global markets” that Miliband blamed rising prices on back in February, and again last week.
Markets go up. Markets go down. Surely everybody knows this? Not Ed Miliband. He doesn’t even know that there’s no such thing as a ‘global market’ for natural gas. As I explained back in February, natural gas prices in the UK were four times higher than in the USA. But this notion of ‘global’ rather than regional markets helps Miliband’s mythology of things being beyond the control of the Secretary of State with the brief to manage those things. And central to Miliband’s narrative, of course, is the spectre of Putin, pulling the strings. Because he does have control over ‘global markets’, according to Miliband’s story.
Let’s choose a different commodity, then, to make the point more neutrally: houses. Since Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown promised “no return to boom and bust”, and that he would “not allow house prices to get out of control”, we have of course had all three. House price rises were of great delight to those who saw their paper wealth multiply many times over throughout the early part of the century, offsetting the deep pain that this caused to those who were not well served by low interest rates and asset inflation – i.e., renters, who spent more and more of their income on less and less.
The government and the Bank of England, to which the responsibility for setting interest rates Brown had passed, between them had a number of levers they could have used to control the housing market. First, immigration could have been controlled. Second, with or without immigration control, governments (of all legacy parties) could have been more forceful in allowing greater scale of housing development – planning law restricted supply. (We need not be detained by the rights and wrongs here – the point is about the possibility of policies, not a preference for this or that policy.) Interest rates could have been used to stop the rush towards buy-to-let extracting wealth from young people who could otherwise have been buying their own home and starting families. And so on. In summary, the state of the housing market was completely and totally caused by policies.
The same is true of energy. Scarcity has been sought by UK and EU-member state governments’ policies as well as that of Brussels. Continuing in that hostility to abundant and affordable energy, at the COP29 climate meeting in Baku, Azerbaijan, Keir Starmer boasted that “we committed to no new North Sea oil and gas licences”. That is functionally equivalent to not allowing new houses to be built in order to meet growing housing demand. Had Europe’s politics not been held to ransom by green scaremongering for decades, the continent’s oil, gas and coal would have flowed as freely as it does in China, with comparable prices to show for it.
If anything, ‘global markets’ have come to the rescue of people under the boot of green idiots. In the 2010s, despite the EU and UK’s best efforts, the world faced an energy glut, which really upset green economics. As data from Ed Miliband’s own department show, his and others’ claims that dependence on gas is responsible for rising prices is simply false. Between 2014 and into the pandemic, gas prices fell, whereas electricity prices increased.
Miliband’s claims are dependent on the extreme situations caused by lockdowns (supressing economic activity and printing vast amounts of money), and by the sanctions imposed by the West against Russia, which restricted (but did not eliminate) energy supplies to the West. These conditions did indeed make, for a very brief time, green energy ‘cheaper than gas’. But those conditions were thankfully not sustained. “Today,” said Miliband last Friday, “we have taken another step forward by granting consent for the Rampion Offshore Wind Farm.” And this, the Minister believes, is progress: “This secures 1.2GW of clean electricity – which is enough to power one million homes, whilst supporting an estimated 4,000 jobs in construction.”
But if Rampion II goes ahead and produces power at the same rate as the offshore wind farms commissioned at the sixth Contracts for Difference auction round finalised in September last year, then its owners will receive 7.6p for every kilowatt-hour it produces. At today’s prices, the wholesale price of power from gas would be 5.7 pence per kilowatt-hour. And two more facts need to be kept in mind when understanding that 33% increase in price. First, the given price of wind power does not include the cost of backup and balancing the grid – i.e., when the wind isn’t blowing, or the power it is making is not required, and so on. Second, the current price of gas is still high, in historical terms. In April 2016, gas prices were as low as a third of today’s price. Taking inflation into account, that amounts to a bit less than half of what they are today. The new wind farm therefore offers the hard-pressed British consumer nothing at all except greater expense. The Minister should be seeking to halve the costs of gas. Instead, he is seeking to lock-in higher energy prices. Ed Miliband simple has not run the arithmetic on his promise that “green wind will save Britain’s economy”.
Or is he simply a liar? A perhaps even more bizarre missive was penned at the weekend by Miliband’s boss. In response to Trump, Keir Starmer promises in the Telegraph that, “My Government will champion the voice of British industry on the international stage.”
What British industry?
“From the car manufacturers of the West Midlands to the whisky producers of the Western Isles, free trade is a galvanising force for British export businesses,” claims the Prime Minister.
Free trade?!!
Who does he think is he kidding?
On Monday, Under-Secretary of State for Future of Roads, Lilian Greenwood MP appeared on GB News to discuss Labour’s continuation of the Boris Johnson government’s policies. “What we’re setting out today is our plans to give the British car industry certainty, stability and confidence,” said Greenwood. “We are formally confirming our manifesto commitment which is to reinstate the 2030 date for the phase-out of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars.”
That’s not “free trade”. That’s exactly a prohibition of trade.
Moreover, it’s a prohibition of a trade in an attempt to ‘transition’ to a technology that, as has been explained here recently, the UK and Europe have simply no capacity to sustain a position in. Despite extremely generous UK and EU-member Government support for solar PV and wind energy, Chinese manufacturers, with substantially less support, very quickly dominated the global market. And they are doing the same with EVs, while British and European Governments destroy the advantages and the markets that domestic producers enjoy.
Amid turmoil on actual – rather than imagined – global markets, two missives from senior politicians show that the Government has no connection to reality whatsoever, and thus no plan. They show that it believes that it can sustain its position by fobbing the public off with very obvious lies and hollow waffle.
Some say that Trump’s radical interventions have signalled, if not yet caused, the end of the era of globalisation – the integration of markets and cooperation between governments on policy agendas that the publics of those governments have no say in, mostly in the interests of Big Money. If that is true, then the UK Government, which has long established itself precisely on the mores and ambitions of globalism and attempted to situate itself at the centre of global agendas, needs very urgently to escape the fantasy.
As welcome as the fall in the price of gas might be, it does not reflect good news. Stock markets are tumbling and commodity prices are collapsing. The gas price is down because demand is down. And that’s a bad thing.
Starmer and others will no doubt blame Trump’s intervention for our gloomy future. But that would also be a lie. It was not Trump who destroyed Britain’s coal-fired power stations, nor signed the death warrant for North Sea oil and gas exploration, nor banned fracking. It was not Trump who decided that UK manufacturers may no longer produce and sell petrol and diesel cars. It was not Trump that bought and closed down British steelworks. Those were the result of agreements between all three legacy parties, to align with and push the global agenda, no matter that it undermined our interests, destroyed our industries and transferred the initiative to China. It is those parties, not Trump, nor even China, nor even Vladimir Putin, who have acted against our interests and need to take the blame. The longer the dawning of this reality, the more traumatic it will be.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I started in tech long before it was ‘cool’. There is indeed good and bad. It depends on the actors and the actors running our ‘systems’ are for the most part, quite evil, totalitarian and in my opinion in many ways, rather idiotic as most totalitarians are. These actors will use technology to tie you down, censor you, track you, make sure you comply and if not, you will lose your bank account and job. The actors, not the underlying technology is to blame. Akin to the use of guns, or cars, if you drive drunk and stoned.
We see the abuse of technology and ‘data’ in the Rona scamdemic and Climate bollocks amongst many other examples. I would say it is more the cult of $cience and $cientism, using technology as a means of control to lever power and profits and kill off our freedom.
Trust big tec at your peril, even if, and it’s a very big if, it appears benign and helpful.
The death of spontaneity is already upon us – try just going to your local train station/airport to go somewhere – No can do without bigbrother knowing all about you.
Submit to change What is your Vax staus – that will be the new normal of course for the Greater Good. (Blair you utter bastard, I pray you rot in Hell).
I often wonder what George Orwell would have made of Clown World.
The RPTB never stop. Control of the MSM is the key.
RPTB? I’ve seen this a few times recently, but unclear about the initialism’s meaning.
I assume ” … powers that be”, but the R?
“Real”
“Modern technology teaches man to take for granted the world he is looking at; he takes no time to retreat and reflect. Technology lures him on, dropping him into its wheels and movements. No rest, no meditation, no reflection, no conversation – the senses are continually overloaded with stimuli. [Man] doesn’t learn to question his world anymore; the screen offers him answers-ready-made.”
“The world of tomorrow will witness a tremendous battle between technology and psychology. It will be a fight of technology versus nature, of systematic conditioning versus creative spontaneity.”
Joos Meerloo
To be clear I think we cannot blame technology much the same as we cannot blame science. It is always people, whether it’s malevolence or stupidity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltjI3BXKBgY
Ascent Of Man, episode 11 – Knowledge Or Certainty
“It’s said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That’s false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance, it was done by dogma, it was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.
Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: “I beseech you in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken.”
I owe it as a scientist to my friend Leo Szilard, I owe it as a human being to the many members of my family who died here, to stand here as a survivor and a witness. We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to touch people.”
Is that Bronowski from the 1970’s? It’s very good.
Regardless of the technology, the same wisdom applies to all ages of homo sapiens.
It is he and I fully agree. I find the last sentence the most important and moving, especially against the backdrop of all the tyranny of Covid where human contact was outlawed. In contrast to Jacob Bronowski’s plea above, here is an excerpt from Klaus Schwab’s book about resetting Humanity.
Page 156 – Accelerating the digital transformation
In one form or another, social and physical distancing measures are likely to persist after the pandemic itself subsides, justifying the decision in many companies from different industries to accelerate automation. After a while, the enduring concerns about technological unemployment will recede as societies emphasize the need to restructure the workplace in a way that minimizes close human contact. Indeed, automation technologies are particularly suited to a world in which human beings can’t get too close to each other or are willing to reduce their interactions.
Yes. Superb. Still available on DVD I believe.
And free on Archive.org
https://archive.org/details/the-ascent-of-man-ep1
And here on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pMhqKVYNHA&list=PLVVydzWYmxcl5m0wXY5X176IvbJoLrz6q&pp=iAQB
i.e. Hubris on a monumental scale.
And as those of us lucky enough to have studied the Classics, Hubris (not “pride”, rather “breaking well defined boundaries”, is ALWAYS followed by Nemesis.
We all need to beware of what will be claimed in the name of AI. It is called Artificial Intelligence because it has no real intelligence. It is an artefact of human minds and is likely to embody their prejudices and preferences. This is already showing as left wing bias in Chatbot.
I recall an online discussion between a retired pilot and a young computer programmer. The programmer was proposing the removal of the ‘error prone’ human to be replaced with ‘reliable’ computers. The retired pilot urged the programmer that it is a very bad idea to replace the pilot. The programmer accused the pilot of trying to protect his job (the pilot was retired). The pilot’s age and years of experience was lost on the young programmer as lacking in years himself he had no concept of what experience actually is. The retired pilot was Capt. Sullenberger.
I picked up this discussion with another programmer and to back up the pilot story above I recounted a friends story about his father, a retired airline pilot. He was originally in the RAF and moved into civilian flying. Before a fight he would calculate his route, timings etc. He would then load the same inputs into the onboard computer and check if the computer gave the same result. If it didn’t he would ignore it. The programmer I was discussing this with asserted that this pilot was wrong and should always believe the computer.
“There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. But there are no old, bold pilots”
Anon
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.”
T. Sowell
“I’m not young enough to know everything”
J. M. Barrie
Back in the early 1990s New Scientist ran an article about automation and concluded that there were two different drivers which had profoundly different outcomes. Either automation was used to replace humans or it was used to enhance humans. In the case of aviation automation must only ever be an enhancement to the skills of the pilot (this also applies to Sub-Postmasters), although there are also mundane and reliably repetitive jobs where automation is a bonus. In the case of flying auto-pilots have been a great help by reducing the work load, but it is also understood that automation can lull pilots into carelessness, or worse de-skill the pilots. This was evident in the case of Air France 447. Following this accident pilot training to deal with ‘upsets’ was re-introduced as it had been reduced in the belief that the auto-pilots would prevent the aircraft getting outside the flight ‘envelope’. And then there was the two Boeing 737 Max accidents where the auto-pilot flew the planes into the ground and the pilots were unable to dis-engage the auto-pilot. Automation must always, always be our servant.
The graph below shows a graph from Hans Rosling’s excellent book FactFullness, showing the dramatic improvements in airline safety since the 1930s. This is how Hans described it:
“Back in the 1930s, flying was really dangerous and passengers were scared away by the many accidents. Flight authorities across the world had understood the potential of commercial passenger air traffic, but they also realized flying had to become safer before most people would dare to try it. In 1944 they all met in Chicago to agree on common rules and signed a contract with a very important Annex 13: a common form for incident reports, which they agreed to share, so they could all learn from each other’s mistakes.
Since then, every crash or incident involving a commercial passenger airplane has been investigated and reported; risk factors have been systematically identified; and improved safety procedures have been adopted, worldwide. Wow! I’d say the Chicago Convention is one of humanity’s most impressive collaborations ever. It’s amazing how well people can work together when they share the same fears.”
All good, but what is interesting is the lion’s share of improvements that happened before 1944 convention. In addition fully automated airliners start appearing in the 1970s except the general trajectory of improvements remains the same. All this safety has been achieved not through regulation or punishment, but through pilots sharing their experiences and through skilled and diligent analysis of accidents and the general application of the knowledge gained across the various contributing professions, and for the most part, across the planet. In every case it is humans that make it all work.
When we don’t have religion we don’t believe in nothing, we believe in anything.. I can’t even remember whose that quote is, but it’s one of the best!
Climbing on the shoulders of the giants of the Enlightenment of the past 400 years, we collectively, complacently imagine that we are so wise and intelligent.
The opposite is often the case and ‘knowing thyself ‘ remains as elusive as at any time in human history.
The cult of Science/Technology and the online/digital world of the past few decades deludes us into believing we are all knowing, with our super intelligent electronica to hand.
In fact the opposite is, as often as not, true. Hence the belief that computer modelling, based on the often highly questionable assumptions of the programmer, have more validity than mere speculation, or that any computer programme is somehow more able than the abilities of the human being that created it.
The evidence of the online age of the 21st century, with infinite distraction, and with the decreasing attention span of most of the population, is a return to pseudo religions and cultism, as witnessed with the, yet to be proven, climate emergency death cult, with it’s unquestioning belief system, and it’s need to silence and vilify heretics.
Science and technology are not cults. It is people that become cultish, and arrogant and hubristic. I think that we have been predominantly collectivist and cultish for most of human history. In addition when humans come up with better and more powerful ways of doing things these become targets for corruption, whether by an individual or the group. Thus we have Galileo being threatened with torture and death unless he renounced the idea that we lived in a Solar System instead of an Earth centred system. The Church had become cultish and malevolent towards any threat to it’s power. Jon Huss was burned at the stake for having Bibles written in English. Therefore, I’m not convinced that the predicament we are is entirely due to a lack of religion. Most people behave in a civil manner and not because of the threat of punishment if they don’t. The Rotherham rape gangs are not lacking in religion. Although I do agree with your last paragraph.
GK Chesterton. And boy, was he right. Climate Change for example; Marxism, all full-blown quasi-religious faiths, in which belief replaces reality. And Covidmania/Jabmania
Konstantin Kisin opened up his Substack for questions for one hour yesterday.
I asked him a question:
“What will constitute a meaningful life once AI takes over?
Jobs left will be in IT and regulatory bodies.
Shall humanity just eat and drink and be happy?
Will humans feel satisfied and meaningful in that world? Purposeful?
Sorry, feeling a bit gloomy on this wonderful sunny day!”
Konstantin Kisin’s answer:
“Humans will never feel happy or satisfied by eating and drinking and consuming. Life is suffering. Life is struggle. Without that, there can be no meaning. But, like all disruptive technology, I think AI will simply change the nature of the challenges we face. We will find new struggles and new challenges to overcome.”
Re. The Post Office scam, even the big banks have errors that affect people. Here’s a little extract from a recent document issued to me in my account with one of them: “Between 3 January 2019 and 27 July 2022, we have identified that as a result of an error some customers’ may have incorrect figures showing on their Return on Investment figures within their GIC costs and Charges statements. We’re really sorry about this. This issue has been fixed and all future statements will show the correct figures. If you have any questions about this or would like us to provide corrected figures or any previous Costs and Charges statements, please let us know by calling us on the number at the bottom of this statement.” It came to light on 16/1/2024 (sic). It won’t be in the press.
I think this article is good and quite true (he might have said that hugely increased use of technology is aided and abetted by the desire of so many for convenience, time-saving, whatever it might be, as well as just pure laziness). However, I believe that we need to acknowledge our sinfulness (inadequacy??) before God and turn to him in repentance – in the face of all that is going on in our world, we have no hope otherwise!
Top article on the flawed ideology of some of the major people behind it:
The Right Wing Progressives (RWP, like Elon Musk) and their commonalities and differences with conservatives, lefties and libertarians.
https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-the-right-wing-progressives
More here
https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-the-right-wing-progressives
You can all start by ditching your Smartphones (form which every piece of personal data is scraped off to be used against you). It will also help you to live in the here and now – someone on their Smartphone is not here, not present. Appalling effect on society
And this…
“The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for the Future at the New Frontier of Power by Shoshana Zuboff — Big Tech is stealing our lives”
https://archive.ph/D0dJi#selection-2527.8-2527.149