« The great Adam Smith | Main | Appeal for funds »


More "green" nonsense.

More paperwork. More bureaucracy. Which means more snooping by Town Hall bureaucrats which in turn means - higher council-tax [to fund not only the jobsworths themselves but their final-salary pension schemes too].

We as a party really need to get off this 'green' bandwagon before it hits the buffers big-time. Among my friends the backlash is already being heard, and is growing.

Would there be a rebate for growing lots of lovely GREEN Marijuana in the loft, Mr Cameron?

More than happy to make my house greener if the commensurate cut in my already excessive council tax is equal to or greater than the initial conversion outlay. Otherwise, Dave, forget it.

Rather too early in the technological process . There is great mileage in energy saving terms to be made from solar and non carbon burning technologies but , as of yet , just a bit too soon .
Solar is ( ? ) about to make a break through which alter the economics in its favour but all salar panels - and windmills - at present available are not really competitive and it will be money wasted .
Wait for the technology in about 5 years time .

Is there VAT on cavity wall insulation, double glazing, solar panels etc? I think so, just as there's VAT on house repairs. An obvious first step, therefore, could be to remove that VAT. Oh, I forgot, we can't, because VAT is under EU control.

However council tax is not yet under EU control, so here's the cunning plan - we'll continue to collect VAT on householders' energy-saving measures, and then we'll send round inspectors to see who's done enough to be eligible for a green rebate on their council tax. During which inspections, they can also check up on who's still using any of those illegal incandescent light bulbs, and hit the environmental criminals with on-the-spot fines - let's say:

£100 per bulb for each incandescent bulb in a socket, ready for use
£20 per bulb for other incandescent bulbs being stored on the premises
£10 per bulb for the cost of its safe disposal, minimum £100
£150 administrative charge for recording details of the offence, fines levied etc

I am very worried that the Party is falling into the Labour mindset of imposing taxes as the first solution to every perceived but not necessarily proven problem.

I am also very concerned about some of the practical problems that are unforeseen by our political masters. A couple of small instances:

Make your house draught-proof, to cut heating demand! - and watch the condensation and damp rise.

Insulate your loft, to cut heating!- and dangerously overheat the wiring in your loft.

Use energy-efficient lightbulbs to save the planet! - and who funds the extra cost of disposal because of all the noxious mercury in them, etc?

How private citizens use electricity in their own homes is their own business!!!

i find this 'green' policy disturbing. The onus is on the public ( householders) and naff-all is said about business. I would bet that business would probably use more electricity ( and create more waste) than the households. But then, wouldn't want to upset 'business' would we? I'ts perfectly alright for us 'joe public' to light our homes with candles ( health and safety alert) and keep our heating at 5 degrees in the home; get fined £100,000 by the local council for not using the correctly coloured bin for recycling ( a choice of 150 colours- all plastic- the irony!)....

or cavity insulation."

You cannot do this to houses built prior to 1930 since the building regulations only requires single-skin walls ie. no cavity

Human beings contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere. We breathe out about 900 gm a day, that's about .33 tonnes a year and there are 60M of us in the UK. So, if we breathe half as much we, collectively, save about 10,000,000 tonnes a year. So, stop all this running about, playing football, rugby and so forth. Sit on the couch and watch telly, but breathing more slowly; what a reduction in your carbon footprint!
Seriously, the very idea that we insignificant humans can affect the way the earth functions is ludicrous; it's a debate started to create a whole new academic industry and anyone that has a different view is not treated respectfully but with derision. That's just not the scientific way!

The Party is wrong to jump on the climate change band waggon. I do not dispute that, generally, our climate is getting warmer - indeed I have been saying so for 20 years now. My objection is to the absurd assumption that the casue of this change is increased carbon dioxide. The public have been brainwashed into unthinking acceptance of the alleged connection.

I would like the conservative Party to take a firm stand on this matter and be honest enough to say that we do not know what is causing global warming, except that it is probably the result of changes in the sun. Changes in the amount of carbon dioxide which man produces are wildly unlikely to have any effect at all on the climate. There is a wealth of scientific evidence to show that the climate has experienced enormous changes over time. There have been various ice ages, none of which departed because of man's use of cars !

Instead of following the herd, please let us stand on principle, and give a lead.

Dave's bureaucratic schemes continue to dismay. What's next? Incentives for farmers to give their cows anti-fart tablets?

As a retired Energy Consultant, I have put into practice mosst of the recommendations I have made to my clients. Consequently my bungalow is one of the most energy efficient in the county of Cambridgeshire.
I would love to see this reflected in the ever increasing council tax I have to pay out of a fixed pension income.

During which inspections, they can also check up on who's still using any of those illegal incandescent light bulbs,

Sorry Denis - noone proposes making using them illegal, merely selling them. It is already working as shops here are having a Clearance of incandescents and poor deluded fools are out buying CFLs without realising they are not "full-spectrum" so damage eyesight when reading

You can stockpile them and use them for ever more

"Dave's bureaucratic schemes continue to dismay. What's next? Incentives for farmers to give their cows anti-fart tablets?"

Efforts to control bovine flatulence would make this site far more enjoyable and worthwhile reading as it would eliminate the mindless drivel posted by the trolls and malcontents that clogs up so many of the threads on here.

When DVA have his sense of humour surgically removed?

Well, if it costs me less to alter my house than the savings I make from taxation then sure thing!

thatcherite is correct.
Will Conservatives give Council Tax reductions to owners of listed buildings who seek to make energy saving improvements e.g. double glazing or putting a wind turbine on the roof but are not allowed to do so by the planning authorities?
Another bureaucratic mess

TomTom @ 16:21 - "noone proposes making using them [incandescent light bulbs] illegal, merely selling them" The proposal is to BAN them. "You can stockpile them and use them for ever more" Maybe, but maybe not.

Remember that when the EU banned 81 garden pesticides, it didn't stop with phasing out production and taking them off the market. It went beyond that,
so that after a certain date anybody who used whatever they had left in their shed, or even kept it rather than arranging for its safe disposal, became liable
to prosecution. Similarly with creosote.

True, I've not heard of anybody being prosecuted for still having any of those products, which had been tested and were previously considered safe enough
for amateur use, but which then became so unsafe that they had to be classed as prohibited materials. But it would be much more difficult for environmental criminals to conceal the fact that they were still using incandescent bulbs.

The concept of giving council tax reductions for behaviour that benefits communities should not be dropped in principle. Aside from the green issues I beleive strongly that we need to find a practical mechanism to achieve this as we need to find ways of achieving our social responsibility agenda which is the right agenda,


Solar energy? A great idea but at todays prices it makes no economic sense.(unless there was some tax deduction or grant). Typical quote is £7000 to save £300 a year...

Isn't it strange, a few years ago the calamity was... the ozone layer!!! Everythng was blamed on CFC's- remember them, what were they anyway?. So, governments panicked and rushed in new legislation banning all forms of ozone depleting chemicals (which incidentally, no lay member of the public can possibly understand or challenge). Now it's carbon dioxide, which as was said earlier is what we breathe out..

Funny how it's always the same. A scientist comes to the end of a research project, wants more funds for more work (so that he can pay his mortgage). So, a lurid report is published in August, when everyone is on holiday and nothing much else is happening, and lo, The media fall for it hook, line and sinker. The BBC run breathless articles blaming everything under the sun on carbon emissions (which of course no member of the public can realistically check to see if the reporters are- as usual- talking rubbish). The next thing that happens is an apparently bright young aspiring politician jumps on what looks like a promising bandwagon before a tired and discredited politician seeking to revitalise a flagging reputation gets there first.

Suddenly everyone is looking for the sky to fall in under the weight of all this carbon, all comments seem to include the phrase carbon neutral (whatever that means). Meantime a child in the corner says..." The emperor is naked!!!"

Haveing shot off both feet over the flight tax ideas, Green Dave and his fellow GW zealots are floundering around to try and defuse the mess.

Yet as others have said, all they can come up with requires still more official oversight and Tax to pay for it all.

This is showing a very "nanny knows best" attitude and even worse, it all looks very expensive to run.

So far Brown has shown the most market driven solutions, which seeing as he is damn near a pure commie, shows just how far removed Green Dave is from reality.

That both of them are competing to solve a non problem, with our money only makes the situation even sadder.


see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6449059.stm

What happened to Acid Rain (we cleaned up our act rediced sulphur in fuel, emmissions from power stations)

What happened to the Ozone Hole (still there in fact biggest its been as it takes time for CFC to go but we'll find out in next couple of years if the co-opertion across the globe bears fruit)

What happened to... well read it yourself.

Common theme though - scientists point out the danger, publicised, people/governments respond, damage limited.

Could point to London smogs - smoke free zones, smokeless zones. Cost householdrs more in alternative fuels (almost a green tax but applied stealthily) but London healtheir. If only something could be done about particulates and traffic pollution....

If only something could be done about particulates and traffic pollution....

The new Euro IV standard for particulates is very clean. Of course very clean is not as good as zero, but it is a massive step forward. With vehicle life 10 years plus for cars and 20 years plus for buses though, it's gonna take a while to really bear fruit......

Keeping the debate on pollution and encouraging efficient technologies is the answer as everyone will benefit from the technologies and we will save fuel costs. Which incidentally will also make us more competitive. This language and approach is better than ending up too focused on taxes,


The news this morning is that the Prudential are sending Office jobs abroad. Now having experienced our State Education System, it could be because we have produced so many uneducated that they can't find the staff, but more likely is that they are Taxed so much it is cheaper to go abroad. Yet do we hear any revolutionary Tax proposals (reduction of?) from the Tories? No, so I'm off to UKIP or anyone else who is going to reform Tax, preferably something revolutionary like a flat tax that also reduces the Civil Service and forces very clever tax accountants and lawyers to do something productive with their brains.

I would confidently predict that following today's press there will be a concerted attempt to ditch the illconceived Air Tax ideas.

Andrew Pierce summed this up when reviewing the papers this morning.Dave and the Camerrons may think this is an excellent idea from their Notting Hill bunker but the hard pressed over taxed electorate simply see it as a further tax.

There is no belief that this would lead to TAX reductions elsewhere which is hardly surprising given our recernt experiences.Why Dave can not see the inherent dangers in banging on about environment and climate change is beyond me.It is not this that has put the Conservatives ahead in the polls it is the absolute meltdown of the Labour Party.Cameron's only success is a positioning of the party.In the end hard policy idease will be required.

Contrary to the belief of some the Conservatives are not in control of the agenda.We need to make the case for lower taxes and show how this will be achieved.We need to expose the waste and obscene abuse of public money within our public services and show how we will stop this.Public servants should be forced to earn their inflated salaries and a whiff realism imposed upon our town halls.

On the streets we should commit to reclaiming large swaths of the inner city from the criminal.This requires a zero tolerance policy aimed at low level criminal action aimed at cutting of future problems.

These are things of real politics that concern all.Taxing our annual holiday on the back of questionable science is no way to win the ultimate prize.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker