The Times wants you to believe that the story here is a spiv, not a form of politics that created the opportunities for armies of spivs -- a form of politics that The Times has supported.
Although *I* should have been watching more closely (although I was not working in the field at the time), the first I realised of this was when I switched to a new energy retailer. I got a good deal and though no more of it until they started doubling my monthly DD payments.
My account was significantly in credit -- £hundreds. But the retailer (Toto) refused to refund or reduce the payments. They said it was because I had missed a payment, and that the fact that I was in credit made no difference.
Then it was obvious: they were offering new customers artificially low prices to get new business, and ripping off existing customers to cover the loss and grow the business. I demanded the money back, and they said it would take months.
So I reclaimed all the DDs through my bank, declared the contract voided, and complained to the (useless, toothless) @ofgem & got a ~£100 credit and a promise of an apology, which did not arrive, so I continued to withhold payment. They tried to reinstate the DD without consent.
Then Toto went bust because their reputation was so terrible.
It was *policy* that created this problem. Politicians believed that they could break the "Big 6" monopoly with "competition", and achieve lower prices.
But it was policy that was driving generators down & prices up.
Politicians with responsibility for energy & climate policy have been MUCH more keen on destroying capacity than building new generators.
And it is @andrealeadsom who let the cat out of the bag: government has had no idea how to achieve the targets it had set. She and her colleagues had left it to businesses to work out how to deliver the POLITICAL agenda.
Where are the solutions?
We can see £10bn a year going to green energy spivs.
We can see a constellation of dodgy energy retailers, many of which are going to go bust.
"Instead of depending on the market", says the eco-moron, "let's organise society around the weather! That will solve the problems we have with changes in the market!"
It's a very special, dangerous kind of idiot that we need to kick out of public life.
But it was institutional science & global agencies that had salivated over the possibility of pandemic, year after year.
It was 'Science' which vacillated, failed to acknowledge its errors, retreated to the precautionary principle, and departed from principles of Enlightenment.
The version of "Science" advanced by Roberts is not value-free investigation of the material world, of transparent, open debate, free of hierarchy and the corrupting influence of power and politics, 'on the word of no one'.
It is might-is-right.
It is scholasticism.
It could have been otherwise. The precautionary principle could have been ruled out. The resources of society could have been used to protect the vulnerable, rather than to police all of society. Academics could have allowed debate between themselves.
The green blob has stood against the consumers' interests at every turn of energy policy for two decades, and the government has conceded to them to the fullest extent possible. This disingenuous piece attempts to re-write/erase that history.
Governments have shut down coal-fired power stations, cancelled nuclear plans, close strategic storage, and committed £billions per year to endless failed green schemes.
The result is that prices have risen, the grid is less stable and the consumer more poorly served.
Shame on @ConHome for letting such blob-funded junk propaganda onto its pages. Shame on the @Conservatives for allowing MPs to be involved in such shameless, blob-funded activism against the public.
The UK government's approach to new energy infrastructure is to buy it when the price is highest.
They would probably need to build one or more a year between now and the time this plant will be operational to cope with the new demand on the grid from EVs and boiler bans.
Hinkley Point C was rightly dubbed 'the most expensive power station in the world'. But it didn't bother the coalition government or Ed Davey much. Because who cares, right?
The price was high because the bidders knew the government was desperate.
Vapid poseurs, they have had nothing to offer but to depart from representing their publics, to instead champion the green cause, which the voter expressed no interest in.
Air pollution is to local government what climate change is to national government. These issues excuse administrators from the duties they were appointed to execute, but are not equal to. So they preoccupy themselves with higher goals: stopping traffic, rather than enabling it.
In the case of Khan, the opportunity to champion air quality was given to him by billionaire Chris Hohn, who spent £millions turning climate change into a local issue -- air quality -- thus enabling the Mayor to have something to say.
No, it's not Brexit. And no, it's not because there aren't enough wind turbines.
They are both simple questions of logistics, the experts with solutions to which are (or were) in great abundance in this country, but which Westminster would sooner spit on than take advice from.
MPs would rather hear from teenage truants who did not graduate from primary education than they would hear from the septuagenarians and octogenarians that designed, built and managed the Grid and its generators about what they did, why and how, and how essential it is.
They would rather hear from -- and appoint -- actual anarchists who stood against road building than hear from people who can explain the importance of mobility to basic human welfare, and for meaningful human life.