On Monday, Ed Miliband addressed the Labour Party Conference. He started off by claiming that “things can and must be better for the British people” and that we must “build a country that puts working people first”. He framed his speech around the key themes of economic justice, social justice and climate justice.
The full speech can be seen here.
His ideas for more jobs and prosperity centre around more expensive intermittent energy that will be the inevitable consequence of his mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower by 2030. It is interesting that he recommitted to the 2030 Net Zero grid target, because it was only last month that he and his sidekick Chris Stark sent out an SOS to the National Grid ESO asking how to deliver it.
Miliband eschewed the free market and instead called for massive spending on what he termed an armoury of clean power. These technologies include onshore wind, solar power, offshore wind, nuclear, tidal, hydrogen and carbon capture. He said he wants to break the power of the petro-states.
The trouble is that the only technology on his list that can deliver firm power is nuclear. The others are either expensive, unreliable, intermittent sources or expensive technologies to try and mitigate intermittency or emissions. Every single contract awarded in AR6 was awarded at a higher price than the market rate so far this financial year. No wonder he doesn’t want the free market anywhere near electricity generation. Carbon capture applied to a gas power stations will increase the quantity of gas needed to produce the same amount of electricity. With Miliband’s ban on offshore drilling and the continuing fracking moratorium, carbon capture will increase the power of the petro-states and increase energy prices.
Miliband hailed the return of industrial policy under the Labour Government. He failed to mention that thanks to him, we have had an anti-industrial strategy since the Climate Change Act of 2008 that has pushed up energy prices and destroyed highly productive jobs. He wants to use the (debt funded) Great British Energy and National Wealth Fund to build new industries for Britain and deliver a British jobs bonus. These jobs are going to be in carbon capture and storage, nuclear, floating wind and making electrolysers for hydrogen. As has been discussed before, we have seen six times as many jobs lost in energy intensive industries as have been created in green power. Miliband’s plan to reindustrialise Britain will kill off what is left of our productive industries.
Miliband conjured the image of the post-war Labour Government that created the NHS as a source of inspiration. He is more likely to lead us down the path of the 1970’s Labour Government that led to a bailout from the IMF.
Finally, in an act of stunning hypocrisy, Miliband is going to fly to the UN to demonstrate that Britain is back in the business of climate leadership. Yes, he’s going to fly there, because curbing emissions is just for the little people. He is going to use his plan as a stick to beat other countries and demand they follow suit in some sort of grand economic suicide pact. There is no sign that this ‘global leadership’ is working.
David Turver writes the Eigen Values Substack page, where this article first appeared. The podcast version of this article can be found on these links to Spotify, Apple and YouTube.
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.
But there’s certainly no need to worry that programmable digital currencies will be used for social control. Just a conspiracy theory, folks.
https://www.gbnews.com/cash if you haven’t signed it already.
If that carries on, £50 notes might be in demand. Organised social groups with cash in hand, no invoices etc won’t be popular with the Treasury.
Of course cash is the solution and the last lifeline to some semblance of freedom.
Which is why we can be sure all sorts of legislation is in the works to limit and ultimately eradicate its use.
It will come disguised as something that no-one can argue against, like the anti-corruption billl or the financial integrity bill or some other Orwellian term.
We are going to have to fight extremely hard to keep out right to use cash.
An enlightened government (ha! ha!) would boost our sagging economy by making all cash transactions non-declarable for tax purposes. A thriving black economy would provide the roots for the overall economy to grow (on the basis that cash eventually finds its way back into the bank, at which point it becomes taxable – but meantime the quantity of released, entrepreneurial energy would be tidal).
Financial institutions destroying more of their business and nobody thinks this is odd? Just woke overzealousness?
Not very likely.
Nudge, nudge, nudge.
Here comes the Central Bank Digital Currency in all it’s gory Chinese-style social credit scoring glory.
Slowly but inexorably we will all become prisoners of a digital panopticon.
Our every thought, word and deed monitored for ‘wrong-think’ by an unelected bureaucracy of Common Purpose graduates.
Orwell would have rejected this plan as being too dystopian, too depressing, too hopeless.
I actively deplore hunting purely from the animal cruelty perspective.
That said, I often wonder why hardly anyone seems to get upset about the huge increase in the number of animals that suffer horrific injury and death in the name of progressing medical research especially now with mRNA/vaccines. Lots of bigpharma even grow their own literally/genetically.speaking.
How many miracle cures have actually arisen from this “essential research” – especially set against the actual harm the animal tested product actually cause (see the criminal fines paid by bigpharma in that regard.
Anyway, back to the article. It’s deplorable that any bank should have this sort of power – because surely only the Government should have this sort of abilty (sarc).
Cash rules and if we lose it, it’s welcome to a dystopian future.
”You took the words right out of my mouth..” 100% concur, well said and bravo, Sforzesca!
I’m not accusing any individual hunt of anything, however some hunts are using trail hunting as a cover for continuing to hunt foxes illegally. In this case they should be treated the same as any other criminal organisation and have their assets frozen or cut off, and I’m just talking about financial assets.
In my experience all hunts use the trail hunt loophole as cover. It’s amazing how many hounds just happen to lose the trail and well, unfortunately, end up hunting a fox instead.
If anyone happens to think the fox doesn’t suffer, they ought to be there at a “kill” in order to see and hear how humanely the dogs tear the fox to bits. Not that I blame the hounds though. Some human beings actually enjoy it…
And another niceity is the blocking of and interfing with badger sets by the brave terriermen lest the fox go to ground. Completely illegal also.
That may be so, but if it is a loophole or actually illegal then that should be put right through the normal channels. Its nothing to do with the banks or their card payment providers
“I actively deplore hunting purely from the animal cruelty perspective.”
Ever seen a pregnant ewe after a fox has attacked it, or a chicken run after a fox has got in?
Psst … don’t tell these guy we’re animal predators with an instinct to hunt, too. He very likely doesn’t want to know that.
We have all sorts of instincts left over from our evolutionary past, e.g. rape and racism (or at least hatred of people who aren’t part of a small social group) have a lot of evolutionary advantages. The vast majority of people have managed to overcome these instincts and society is so much better as a result. Most of us have also overcome the natural instinct to hunt, shame not everyone can.
Hunting with dogs is completely different to controlling foxes humanely e.g. by shooting. Foxes attacking livestock are simply following their instincts and have no concept of morality or right and wrong. Surely a big part of what makes us different from animals is our sense of right and wrong and our ability to overcome our base instincts.
Would sooner subscribe to the Beano than the DT so I can’t read the link to find out who the financial company in question relates to. Does anyone know?
DS and Telegraph both identify the company as being called SumUp. They’re described as a card reader provider, my response would be “Who, never heard of them”.
Looking at their website they seem to be one of the many companies that have set up in recent years using mobile phone technology to connect a simple card reader to the banks by way of an app. The only difference I can see is they might be a bit cheaper than others.
So same as a Zettle (now owned by Toby’s favorite organisation, PayPal).
For hunts, cash is best, surely?
If fortune-telling is also prohibited business, when are we going to hear about Neil Ferguson’s debanking?
Haha.. that made me chuckle..
This is significantly different from the Farage case. Sumup are withdrawing their services because they would be supporting an activity they disapprove of and there are plenty of alternatives. This is much closer to the woman who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage because she disapproved of it (and I think that was reasonable even though I have no problem with gay marriage).
Coutts disapproved of Farage. Same thing.
This is significantly different from the Farage case. Sumup are withdrawing their services because they would be supporting an activity they disapprove of
You’re misrepresenting this. Sumup is not a being and cannot disapprove of anything. This is another case of people employed by a publically-traded company abusing their accidental position of power (which is based on handling lots of other people’s money) to harm some other people because these probably engage in activities which are not compatible with the political program of the US democrats. And they’re absuing it to the financial detriment of the business they’re working for.
There are also no workable alternatives to a financial services provider which choses to stop providing this service to someone without advance notice in the middle of a fund-raising event.
You are comparing apples and oranges. individuals, like bakers, have personal feelings and attitudes. A company is not an individual.
Company = The Members In Company = those who own the company stock = shareholders.
A company is not a person except for legal reasons and therefore it or ‘they’ cannot approve of/disprove of anything. Technically all of the shareholders could at a general meeting by passing a resolution to that effect.
Instead we have managers making decisions based on their personal prejudices, rather than what enhances shareholder value, in breach of their fiduciary duty. There is a strong case for shareholders to start suing these idiots.
Hang on though, SumUp isn’t a bank, it’s a financial service. Surely private companies are allowed to deny services to whoever they want? De-banking for political reasons is clearly dangerous and appalling, but is that what this is…?
Sumup is one of a number of payment providers. Just at Natwest if one of a number of banks. If you’re a trader or any kind of organisation and none of the digital payment providers will do business with you, you cannot take card payments and you are screwed.
Hang on though, SumUp isn’t a bank, it’s a financial service. Surely private companies are allowed to deny services to whoever they want?
Let’s use a contrived example to illustrate this: Assume there’s an actual private enterprise (not the case in the real example) and it’s a plumbing service. Some customer arranges for an appointing to have a leaking pipe fixed. The plumber who’s the owner of the business shows up and does half of the job, ie, takes everything apart. Then, he suddenly notices that his customers owns a book by Jane Austen, an author he absolutely deplores. Therefore, he declares “I’ll now deny service to you because I hate Jane Austen!” and leaves on the spot. The next day, a bill for the work he did before chosing to deny service arrives.
Do you think that’s an acceptable way to conduct business? Or that it should be an acceptable way do conduct business?
Are they allowed to deny services based on race, sexual orientation, sex? Companies are regulated in a number of ways. And… before we get into ‘Rights’, the Common Law principle as one may not enjoy his/her Rights at the expense of another’s. Under Common Law, Rights are passive. Nobody has a Right to demand a service, but nobody has a Right to deny it if it deprives them of their right to go about their legitimate activities.
There is also the law of contract. By offering a service on certain terms and conditions which are excepted by the other party, and the transaction takes place, there is a contract. Exclusion clauses in Co tracts have to be ‘reasonable’ or cannot be upheld in Court.
I think there needs to be some legal action in these matters.
Whatever services these companies supply, finance, paint or coffee, previous causes for access restriction was for proven criminal activities and disruptive behaviour, which has now been replaced with not being in the same group of thought. A Stonewall banner published recently says it all. “Acceptance without exception” total submission to their theme is the ultimate aim, you have no right to freedoms of action or thought or to object, only to capitulate. That is to where we are sleep walking.
The most sensible way to deal with this issue is for those Hunts affected to go on the attack. They should issue statements declaring that they will NOT be accepting card payments and they are CASH only.
If banking services are subsequently withdrawn they have the bank bang to rights, the card provider has lost business and as a Brucie Bonus gained much negative publicity and the Hunt can polish its halo.
Win, win chicken dinner as the kids say. Or something like that.
That’s a nice idea. But it’s not really practical until UK businesses are legally required to accept legal tender (including £50 notes, BTW), which they are not. There are even businesses who refuse to accept cash payments in Reading and in London, you’ll have serious trouble finding some which accept it.
And… people want to pay in cash. I don’t.
The last cashless payment I made voluntarily went this way: I was at the counter in Sainsburys Broad Street (Reading) and had just packed all of my stuff into my backpack. I put my card in, entered the PIN and waited for “Approved. Remove Card.” to appear. I removed the card, grabbed by backpack and wanted to leave when the counterstuff person stopped me: “The payment hasn’t gone through! You removed the card to early!” (always blame the customer, part I) I protested that I didn’t but this obviously didn’t help. Then, I retried this a couple of times and the payment was rejected every time. As I knew I had £30 on the account, I then said “Ok, I’ll go to the cash machine to get £30 to pay my stuff” but the cash machine wouldn’t give me any money, either. Headscratching … I then came to conclusion that I must have misremembered my balance. I left the full backpack at the store, ran home (in summer) and checked my bank account — £30 had been debited from it at the time of the original transaction. No wonder it was empty now! I transferred enough money from my savings account to my current account, ran back to store, asked for the manager to come and demanded an explanation of this mystery. Instead, he started ranting loudly about my card being somehow bad (always blame the customer, part II) and that I’d need to pay all my things again (But make sure to use a different card this time!! — always blame the customer, part III). I ignored the ranting moron, put be card in, entered the pin again, waited for … and removed my card and this time, it worked.
Back at home, I contacted the bank about this. The answer I got was the Sainsburies computer had caused my bank account to be debited but then, refused to accept the payment. Hence, it went into a special account where it – unless claimed by the Sainsburys computer again – would remain for two weeks and then, I’d get it back (which I did).
I can perfectly do without adventures of this kind when shopping for groceries and hence, since then, I (again) always pay with cash.
Those people who reject cash payments are taking the rest of us to a digital hell.
I look forward to reading the list of “worst offenders” Nigel Farage is compiling with regard to financial institutions who are playing politics with their customers instead of serving them. I see also a huge commercial opportunity opening up for those financial service providers who actually want to run a business and make profit by providing customers with good services instead of acting as would-be tin-pot dictators trying to shape society through discrimination and persecution. This could be the banking sectors bud-light moment.
Stop Central Bank Digital Currencies
Just a thought about the Farage/Coutts dossier. He exercised his right to access it, and then published its content, also his right. But in so doing, under current and intended legislation, does the content of that dossier, now in the public domain, constitute a hate crime against him?