It was a summer's day a few years ago, and I got a phone call from someone called "Andy" who was so obviously not British.
As much as I was tempted to tell the guy that I was also called Andy, I chose not to.
Instead I just let Andy talk. Apparently he was trying to save money on my energy bill.
Andy asked if I was with British Gas, to which I replied no.
Then the conversation went something like this- Eon? No. EDF Energy? No. Npower? No. Scottish Power? No.
So Andy piped up with the question, "Well who are you a customer of?"
I informed Andy that I was a customer of Quacki Gas!
As I am sure one could imagine, Andy was totally ecstatic and prepared for my answer. In fact he replied, "Erm, sorry what are they called again?"
So I reconfirmed the words Quacki Gas.
At this point Andy sought clarification that I was actually the bill payer. When I confirmed that I was, all Andy could do was say his goodbye. RESULT!
On that note, this is the final post of the WattoTalk Blog. It has been an enjoyable six months. I will now be moving on to new blogging interests. Thanks for reading.
Monday 10 March 2014
Sunday 9 March 2014
Vince Cable wrong on EU Referendum!
Liberal Democrat Leader and British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has been critical of the plans by Conservative Premier David Cameron for an in-out EU referendum, should Mr Cameron's party secure an outright majority at next year's general election. That criticism was backed on March 7 by Clegg's cabinet and party colleague, Vince Cable.
I consider myself to have a fair bit of common ground with the Liberal Democrats, especially when it comes to Britain being part of the European Union. However as previously stated in a post on September 30 2013, I do believe that the question of Britain's EU membership will at some point in the foreseeable future need to be put again to the British people! The issue has moved on so many times over a couple of generations, and it is now a minority of the current British electorate who were actually eligible in 1975 to cast their vote in Britain's only previous referendum on Europe. Therefore, I am very disappointed in the line taken a couple of days ago by the Business Secretary Vince Cable.
I feel a particular need to address what Mr Cable says when he speaks of business leaders informing him that referendum talk is deterring large scale investment into the UK. Don't get me wrong, I am just like some ordinary Joe Bloggs on the ground- no Captain of Industry is likely to come and tell me directly that this talk of an EU referendum is deterring investment into the UK. But an ordinary Joe Bloggs I may be, I can still broadly be aware that the British economy is slowly picking up from what has been a very deep recession. Unless the Government in which Mr Cable is a part of is substantially fiddling the figures on various economic data, I believe Mr Cable is exaggerating this point!
The Liberal Democrats may well not be looking over their shoulders in the same way as the Conservatives at the potential threat posed by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). But as an ordinary Joe Bloggs, I can say that some people who support centre-left parties like the Liberal Democrats and Labour, do also want out of Europe! Surely that means it would be desirable to offer the eurosceptic voter the opportunity to have their say on the matter, which would in turn tell that eurosceptic voter that a vote for the Lib Dems will not necessarilly deny them a much needed say on a most crucial national issue.
After all, Mr Clegg and his party had been previously in favour of an in-out referendum. This was ironically at a point prior to the 2010 general election, when both Labour and the Conservatives did not support this position. The biggest hole in not supporting the in-out referendum is the challenge Clegg has made to UKIP Leader Nigel Farage in having a national TV debate on Europe.
ONLY A REFERENDUM CAN ULTIMATELY DETERMINE IF BRITAIN IS TO REMAIN AN EU MEMBER FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. IF THE MAJORITY DISAGREE WITH THE PRO-EUROPEAN VIEWS OF MYSELF AND MESSRS CLEGG AND CABLE, THEN THAT IS DEMOCRACY! THE REAL UNCERTAINTY IS BY LEAVING THE ISSUE UNRESOLVED IN THE MINDS OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE.
I consider myself to have a fair bit of common ground with the Liberal Democrats, especially when it comes to Britain being part of the European Union. However as previously stated in a post on September 30 2013, I do believe that the question of Britain's EU membership will at some point in the foreseeable future need to be put again to the British people! The issue has moved on so many times over a couple of generations, and it is now a minority of the current British electorate who were actually eligible in 1975 to cast their vote in Britain's only previous referendum on Europe. Therefore, I am very disappointed in the line taken a couple of days ago by the Business Secretary Vince Cable.
I feel a particular need to address what Mr Cable says when he speaks of business leaders informing him that referendum talk is deterring large scale investment into the UK. Don't get me wrong, I am just like some ordinary Joe Bloggs on the ground- no Captain of Industry is likely to come and tell me directly that this talk of an EU referendum is deterring investment into the UK. But an ordinary Joe Bloggs I may be, I can still broadly be aware that the British economy is slowly picking up from what has been a very deep recession. Unless the Government in which Mr Cable is a part of is substantially fiddling the figures on various economic data, I believe Mr Cable is exaggerating this point!
The Liberal Democrats may well not be looking over their shoulders in the same way as the Conservatives at the potential threat posed by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). But as an ordinary Joe Bloggs, I can say that some people who support centre-left parties like the Liberal Democrats and Labour, do also want out of Europe! Surely that means it would be desirable to offer the eurosceptic voter the opportunity to have their say on the matter, which would in turn tell that eurosceptic voter that a vote for the Lib Dems will not necessarilly deny them a much needed say on a most crucial national issue.
After all, Mr Clegg and his party had been previously in favour of an in-out referendum. This was ironically at a point prior to the 2010 general election, when both Labour and the Conservatives did not support this position. The biggest hole in not supporting the in-out referendum is the challenge Clegg has made to UKIP Leader Nigel Farage in having a national TV debate on Europe.
ONLY A REFERENDUM CAN ULTIMATELY DETERMINE IF BRITAIN IS TO REMAIN AN EU MEMBER FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. IF THE MAJORITY DISAGREE WITH THE PRO-EUROPEAN VIEWS OF MYSELF AND MESSRS CLEGG AND CABLE, THEN THAT IS DEMOCRACY! THE REAL UNCERTAINTY IS BY LEAVING THE ISSUE UNRESOLVED IN THE MINDS OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE.
Saturday 1 March 2014
Manchester biomass incinerator highlights English democratic deficit!
The incinerator in question is not actually in Manchester; it in fact lies in Davyhulme in the borough of Trafford, the home of Manchester United FC. But moving away from geographical anomalies, the serious issue here is that an elected council's planning committee had voted unanimously against permitting Peel Energy from building a biomass incinerator in Davyhulme, against a backdrop of strong local feelings. Yet, the unelected Environment Agency took a different view, which subsequently led to a Government Inspector backing the plans. A High Court Judgement on February 24 in support of building the plant has come as a crushing blow to many Trafford residents.
On the other side of the coin, many people will sympathise with the notion that the Country does face future challenges in keeping the lights switched on. But quite clearly balancing any economic benefits the incinerator would bring to the area against environmental risks, needs to have an input from a more locally democratically accountable body, rather than some so-called Central Government expert or an unelected quango like the Environment Agency.
There is another way. It is called Germany. Or perhaps I should say Britain needs to embrace some aspects of the German Devolution Model, taking on board that England is in fact the only nation within the UK not to currently have any form of devolution (London aside). German States or Lander can pass laws across many policy areas, with Defence and Foreign Policy as two notable exceptions which are handled solely by the Federal Government in Berlin.
I have previously stated my views on English Devoultion in my post on 1 November 2013 entitled "An English Devolution Perspective." To summarise my perspective, a dramatic reduction in the number of English MPs at Westminster could pave the way for Regional Parliaments be set up in the English Regions. Following the German model, Westminster could still legislate in policy areas covered by the regions. However, this would only be when it is clearly in the national interest to do so.
A sensitive local issue such as a biomass incinerator needs the accountability of elected politicians. Unfortunately, the High Court decision in backing the position of the Westminster Village is yet another example of the ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT!
On the other side of the coin, many people will sympathise with the notion that the Country does face future challenges in keeping the lights switched on. But quite clearly balancing any economic benefits the incinerator would bring to the area against environmental risks, needs to have an input from a more locally democratically accountable body, rather than some so-called Central Government expert or an unelected quango like the Environment Agency.
There is another way. It is called Germany. Or perhaps I should say Britain needs to embrace some aspects of the German Devolution Model, taking on board that England is in fact the only nation within the UK not to currently have any form of devolution (London aside). German States or Lander can pass laws across many policy areas, with Defence and Foreign Policy as two notable exceptions which are handled solely by the Federal Government in Berlin.
I have previously stated my views on English Devoultion in my post on 1 November 2013 entitled "An English Devolution Perspective." To summarise my perspective, a dramatic reduction in the number of English MPs at Westminster could pave the way for Regional Parliaments be set up in the English Regions. Following the German model, Westminster could still legislate in policy areas covered by the regions. However, this would only be when it is clearly in the national interest to do so.
A sensitive local issue such as a biomass incinerator needs the accountability of elected politicians. Unfortunately, the High Court decision in backing the position of the Westminster Village is yet another example of the ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT!
Recent English flooding strengthens the case for Regional Devolution
Last month's floods saw frightening images for many Brits. Living in the North West of England, I have to say I am a very lucky boy.
Arguments ensued on how politicians on the Conservative side of the Coalition Government were slow to visit affected areas such as the Somerset levels, which happen to have four constituencies held by Liberal Democrat MPs. Other arguments put forward suggested that Prime Minister David Cameron conveniently visited flood affected visits to display his wellies in what happens also to be Tory heartlands.
This is all further evidence that Britain is too densely populated an island not to have further devolution in the English regions. The United Kingdom as a whole has a population in excess of 63 Million. Breaking this down, over two thirds of Brits live outside of either London, Wales, Northern Ireland, or Scotland. In addition to being the seat of Britain's Government, London also has an elected mayor and assembly. Whilst Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland each have a national parliament or assembly with devolved powers, English regions don't have any regional devolution at all presently!
I am not going down the route of claiming that devolution would have altered nature. What I am saying is that had the West Country (which includes the Somerset Levels) had a regional assembly, then arguments over whether Environment Secretary Owen Paterson visited affected areas a month too late, would be less significant.
The British flooding crisis has also seen disagreements between Lord Chris Smith (as Chairman of the unelected quango that is the Environment Agency) and Government ministers, who have been blaming each other. Once again my belief is that Regional Devolution in distributing more power away from central government, would make such disagreements largely irrelevant.
It doesn't make much difference over whether one is scrutinising the decisions made by the British Government or the Environment Agency. Both have come in for much deserved criticism. Whilst Regional Assemblies and Governments won't alter nature, they are better placed to respond to crises of an environmental nature with more local implications. THE WESTMINSTER VILLAGE HAS SHOWN ITSELF ONCE AGAIN TO BE TOO FAR DETACHED!
Arguments ensued on how politicians on the Conservative side of the Coalition Government were slow to visit affected areas such as the Somerset levels, which happen to have four constituencies held by Liberal Democrat MPs. Other arguments put forward suggested that Prime Minister David Cameron conveniently visited flood affected visits to display his wellies in what happens also to be Tory heartlands.
This is all further evidence that Britain is too densely populated an island not to have further devolution in the English regions. The United Kingdom as a whole has a population in excess of 63 Million. Breaking this down, over two thirds of Brits live outside of either London, Wales, Northern Ireland, or Scotland. In addition to being the seat of Britain's Government, London also has an elected mayor and assembly. Whilst Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland each have a national parliament or assembly with devolved powers, English regions don't have any regional devolution at all presently!
I am not going down the route of claiming that devolution would have altered nature. What I am saying is that had the West Country (which includes the Somerset Levels) had a regional assembly, then arguments over whether Environment Secretary Owen Paterson visited affected areas a month too late, would be less significant.
The British flooding crisis has also seen disagreements between Lord Chris Smith (as Chairman of the unelected quango that is the Environment Agency) and Government ministers, who have been blaming each other. Once again my belief is that Regional Devolution in distributing more power away from central government, would make such disagreements largely irrelevant.
It doesn't make much difference over whether one is scrutinising the decisions made by the British Government or the Environment Agency. Both have come in for much deserved criticism. Whilst Regional Assemblies and Governments won't alter nature, they are better placed to respond to crises of an environmental nature with more local implications. THE WESTMINSTER VILLAGE HAS SHOWN ITSELF ONCE AGAIN TO BE TOO FAR DETACHED!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)