Oct 28 2013

Jeremy Says: Labour telling porkies and half-truths about Energy Prices

jeremy_zeidI’m amazed that Glen Hearnden the Labour candidate for Harrow on the Hill is “shocked” at the latest hikes in energy prices.

We have volatile wholesale prices which no amount of political posturing can affect, and 12% of our Bills are made up of Red Ed Miliband’s “Green” taxes and Gordon Brown’s “Climate Change Levy”.

We have the “Green” subsidies for “renewables”, paid to windfarm owners when there is no wind, too much wind and insufficient demand, paying them NOT to generate power and when they are generating, paying more than the market unit cost. We are paying over the odds for “feed in” tariffs for solar panels, acres of them in fields and on roofs, that don’t work at night.

The EU “Carbon Floor” pricing and “Large Combustion Plant Directive” have resulted in viable Power Stations closing, leaving us vulnerable to brownouts, blackouts and Grid instability. “Carbon Trading Permits” and
“Carbon Credits” put up bills with Al Gore and the climate charlatans getting extremely rich, while the “Greens” and z-list know-nothing “celebs” tell lies.

The EU is currently attempting to stop the UK exploiting our own resources, fracking, citing “Global Warming”, a safe process that would guarantee Britain energy security, while Germany and France ignore them.

The Climate Madness is such, that Drax Power Station in Yorkshire, the biggest and most efficient coal fired station in Europe, is being converted at a cost of £700million (added to our bills) to burn WOOD, harvested from
4600acres of “sustainable” American forest. Cut down, processed into useable form, shipped over the Atlantic and into special humidity controlled storage to prevent spontaneous combustion, before being burned. We are told that this is “carbon neutral”. CODSWALLOP.

Which brings me on to “windfall taxes” invented by financial genius Gordon Brown, the Saviour of the World, and that Tory dipstick John Major wants to resurrect: These state rip-offs resulted in money being diverted from new
power plant, gas storage and energy exploration and passed on to the consumer, lock, stock and two smoking barrels.

The lack of investment in adequate gas storage renders us vulnerable to price fluctuations and being held to ransom by suppliers with only about 2 weeks supply available. Home produced gas is exported for lack of storage, while gas tankers sit off the ciast waiting for world prices to rise, before docking. France and Germany have MONTHS of gas in storage, and no “windfall taxes”.

We need new Nuclear Plants, but Gordon Brown flogged Westinghouse our last Nuke Builder, to the Japanese and “invested” the proceeds on electoral bribes. We are now in thrall to the grossly inefficient French state owned
EDF who for a piffling £16 BILLION will build two new European PWR reactors at Hinckley Point, a design mired in problems and cost overruns, without a single properly working example.

Here is a question. How come Bangladesh are about to get two new safe Nukes built for £2 Billion partly funded by a loan or £500M from the Russians?

Meanwhile Ed Davey the LibLoon in charge of the Department for Energy and Climate Change, baldly states that “the cost of the new Nukes will “not be borne by the taxpayer” and yet this wally who thinks that we are all idiots,
has just signed an agreement that EDF will be able charge at twice the normal rate per unit. So who will be paying that bill, the Martians??

How do I know so much about this? I used to work for the then Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) computing and stats dept. at Bankside. For truthful information on Britains energy needs and the Great Global
Warming Scam, look no further than UKIP’s Roger Helmer MEP. As for Glen Hearnden, if he is prepared to patronise you with simplistic regurgitated soundbites and selective data to divert attention from his party’s utter failure in Harrow, he should be dismissed accordingly as should his whole incompetent party.

Jeremy Zeid, Chairmand UKIP Harrow

UKIP Candidate for Harrow on the Hill

(Visited 8 times, 1 visits today)


Skip to comment form

  1. Jeremy Zeid UKIP Harrow

    I see that Labour are using their hijacked “One Nation Labour” slogan. Who do they think they’re kidding?

    Socialism, although sounding like a cuddly fluffy social club, is the most divisive, jealous, larcenous class obsessed political ideology of all, and obvious to anyone with a nose on their face. Predicated on authorised State theft of, errrrr, I meant “redistribution” of one person’s possessions or money to bribe others to vote for the malignancy, is anything but “social”.

    Sadly, we have seen a sense of entitlement inculcated from early years, an expectation that “socialism” can cure all ills, when it is clear that “socialism” has caused more misery and death than any other ideology. In its various guises “socialism” was responsible for deaths of140 million people out of the 170 million bumped off by their own governments in the 20th century alone. The remaining 30 million were down to the Nazis, the National Socialists………..

    It would be a joke if it wasn’t so serious, and still the Left cling to this ideology that has failed everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE. It cannot work without stealing Other People’s Assets to fund it. Every bankrupted “socialist” Banana Republic relies on aid, charity and bailouts although their propagandised and impoverished people are never told, while their bellicose “Leaders” live the High Life protected by armies paid for by others in return for plundering their resources.

    Any private business with such a lie of a mission statement would be prosecuted under the Trades Descriptions Act and still Labour peddles the Magic Money Tree paid for by fleecing Peter to bribe Paul.

  2. Jeremy Zeid UKIP Harrow

    Still no sign of the LibDems or any literature, not a sausage. I fully expect one offering, probably a recycled and reheated version of the West Harrow one where the highlight was a “Mansion Tax” on the “Rich”.

    Make no mistake, this, like every other piece of political larceny would eventually creep down to us all, especially in London and the South East, where homes owned for decades now breach the £2m barrier. It’s not a “mansion tax”, it’s an ASSET tax payable every year, a Mafiosi protection racket, “pay up or we’ll take it tax”.

    The LibDums who are to the far Left, state that it is “only 1%”, it’s always “only”.

    Firstly 1% of £2m is £20,000 every single year, whether you have it or not, and is on top of the larcenous Council Tax.

    “But it only applies to £2m of asset” bleat the naïve types. True, FOR NOW. If the DumLibs get away with £2m, then soon it will be £1m, them half a million, then quarter of a million, and as usual, on threat of fines, court, bailiffs and forfeiture, all property rights GONE.
    All of these “bash the rich toffs” wheezes end up hammering us all.

    There are those who yammer on about “having done well, and want to “give something back”” and high handedly state “I would pay more tax”, I’ve met them, the types who shout loudly how “charitable they are” to impress the neighbours, canvasser, friends etc.

    Fine, then write a cheque to a charity, just don’t include me in your public posturing. Better yet make it 1% of the total of your assets, after tax of course.

    If the LibDems ever get this through, make sure you have this posting stuck to your fridge.

    Your assets will plummet as the “tax” collapses the market making properties unsalable. The “official” valuation will never change so the theft will continue while you live in a now worthless pile and no money to look after or heat it, unless you are a billionaire where the money is of no consequence.

    At that stage, with revenues dropping and the State in the first phase of confiscating the homes of “tax avoiders”, the rest of us will become fair game for this State Asset Theft by Stealth impoverished while the politicians of all stripes claim it on exes.

    They will claim that the Asset Tax is “helping the poor”, something unprovable, but fluffy sounding, while you shiver and worry where you are going to find the money to pay for these “poor” and stopping the State coming for your home.

    Don’t let anyone con you that this won’t happen. There are asset taxes elsewhere and all of these economies are propped up with borrowed money to preserve the illusion while the politicians the super rich, corrupt officials and top bureaucrats are immune.

  3. Jeremy Zeid UKIP Harrow

    I missed a bit earlier on….

    One Nation Labour, One BROKEN Nation Labour, shurely?

  4. Praxis Reform

    Would you care to enlighten us all on UKIP’s flat tax policy, and whether that would only benefit the ultra-rich or just penalise the poor?

  5. Jeremy Zeid Chairman Harrow UKIP

    UKIP’s Flat Tax policy would benefit everyone. Firstly it would take many out of tax. It would reduce tax for virtually everyone too. Citing “the rich” is a cheap way to stir up jealousy. Yet if the”rich” were allowed to keep more of their own money, they’d spend more in the economy and would be less likely to offshore. You are obviouly unaware that Russia in introducing a flat tax and no special allowances led the way in virtually eliminating tax evasion and a tax rate that wasnt worth avoiding. In other words their exchequer was awash with money whereas ours isn’t and their economy is growing faster than ours. Every regime that “progressively” confiscates high taxes ends up stagnating or worse.

    By the way Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all have flat tax regimes. The simple system has meant that their economies are growing fast.

    The leftist government of Slovakia by contrast has just scrapped the flat tax with the result that an economy that was growing at 10%, unemployment down, has now ground to a halt.

    But what do they know, theyre only bloody foreigners, eh??

    What is it with the Left that they have to keep repeating fatal errors in the misguided idea that eventually the wrong becomes right. Is it idealism or or is it just pig headed blinkered abject patronising stupidity. I go with the latter.

  6. Praxis Reform

    You’re right, I know very little about UKIP’s flat tax policy, hence why I ask. I’d heard your Gerald Batten

    saying something about it at the Bilderberg event earlier this year, but people weren’t taking him seriously,

    and it didn’t make sense based on what little I know about taxation… Anyway, just for clarification, I use

    “the rich” as shorthand for people with large incomes (including those evading taxes) that currently pay (or should pay) a lot of taxation to the Government… No pejorative is intended, since we all need something to aspire to.

    But, here’s the thing, I think we’re both agreed that excessive taxation originates from wasteful Government

    spending. So, whereas someone running a business has to justify that businesses continuing existence to the

    bank, with business plans and sales projections etc. the Council just prices up what it wants to spend,

    divides by the number of households in the borough and voila, the money pours in as if by magic – no worries about meeting sales forecasts, marketing its wares, or having to compete with other organizations.

    This being the case, if we’re all going to pay less tax under UKIP, where does the rest of the Council /

    Government funding come from? More stealth taxes? More fines? More cuts?

    Possibly the differences in our positions stems from the fact that I believe that if we give “the rich” a tax

    cut, they’ll just squirrel it away in a bank account somewhere, probably Monaco, Panama or the Bahamas, where

    it’ll neither benefit the shopkeepers of Britain nor HMRC. Whereas, if we give “the poor” a tax cut, there

    will be less reliance on food banks and other charities, less worry about energy prices, and most likely the

    money will be spent in Britain (by people that can’t afford overseas travel), thereby helping British

    businesses and contributing to Government coffers via the VAT take.

    Now, I’m fortunate enough to work with some Eastern Europeans, and whilst they know almost nothing about

    Politics, they do tell me that prior to the transition to free market economics, there was massive levels of

    corruption in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics, but once the Communist regimes collapsed,

    people were generally more prepared to report their incomes and pay taxes appropriately.

    What occurs to me though is that _any_ tax system should raise money more effectively than Communism. And, at

    the turn of the century, when these new republics were forming, Eastern Europe was a wreck, so all the states

    you mention were coming from very low levels of GDP, thus it’s only to be expected that GDP would be growing

    at a comparatively fast pace as they recovered. Wages would also be increasing sharply, compared to Communist

    era wages, and that increase would undoubtedly result in increased tax revenues.

    Politicians also would likely have used the opportunity to mark a new era and separate themselves from the

    former regimes; thusly they would be all hands to the pump, doing anything and everything to prove that their

    free market ideas created more growth and GDP than command economics did.

    But anyway, thanks for the explanation. UKIP’s policies still seem to me all too much like the Tea Party movement in the States.

Comments have been disabled.