Author Archives: grumpy

Kate Green and Top Totty

Dateline 12th February 2012:

Kate Green, card carrying lefty MP with the depressing title of Minister of State for Equalities, objected to a beer in the House of Commons bar called ‘Top Totty’ on the grounds that the pump label featured a woman in a bikini with rabbit ears, a la Playboy. Apparently she considered this offensive to women. Of course, if she wanted to be offended by scantily clad women she probably only need visit the centre of her own constituency on any Saturday night to see women, scantily clad of their own volition to titillate men, probably drunk and vomiting – or worse – in the street.

It’s actually quite hard to envisage many – or indeed with the exception of said Ms Green, any – MP’s being either perverted or seriously offended by a beer pump label, but if she wants a target, she might look to the National Gallery in London, which features galleries of women in a whole range of stages of undress.

Grumpy was visting one of his favourite sections containing paintings by Poussin and Claude, when a gaggle (if that be the collective noun) of pre-pubscent school girls appeared with their teacher. There are many bare bosoms on display with no bikinis in this section, but one painting in particular is of note, “Landscape with satyr uncovering sleeping nymph”. The accompanying description indicates that the nymph is unaware that the ogling beast has disrobed her because she is not so much sleeping but absorbed in her activity. Looking at her left hand, this seems to be what the Victorians might have called pleasuring herself. The 12 years old girls didn’t seem to be troubled by this and there was no evidence of snickering or giggling, and they were obviously made of far sterner stuff than Ms Green.

This is maybe because this is art (which used to be the FHM of the aristocracy) and hence unlikely to be found offensive by the intelligentsia, unlike the beer label which is seemingly likely to corrupt the lower orders, such as Kate Green’s fellow GMB members and left wing MPs.

For this act of mind-blowingly narrow minded, statist intervention, this equality harridan (who actually looks quite normal) gets this slot. I’d be happier if Labour MP’s had focused more on the financial obscenities they perpetrated whilst in office.

Smart Meters from hell – part II

As Grumpy has noted before, any time either the government or big business promotes something said to be of value to a consumer, you can be sure that it is anything but. The plan to spend an estimated £11 billion on rolling out ‘smart meters’ is no exception to this rule. The oligopoly energy suppliers don’t spend that kind of money unless it is going to produce a real return for them; you are going to pay – and heavily.

In fact this is an unholy alliance between “I wasn’t driving” Huhne (Lib-Dem Energy Secretary) and the energy companies. Touted as a something which is going to save consumers money (“We are doing this to benefit you”) in actual fact the program will allow the energy companies to earn more revenues and get Huhne off the hook of his mad wind power strategy by limiting peak power. Without this cap, Huhne will have to up conventional CO2 heavy generation or sanction more nuclear stations to meet peak loads, ruining his green cred.

The story goes that consumers will become more aware of their energy usage profile via the meters and change their behaviour. Now, when Grumpy comes into the kitchen first thing in the morning he switches on the kettle for his first coffee and drops two slices of bread into the toaster,making the meter wheels (currently hidden) no doubt whiz round. So how will seeing this on a meter change his behaviour?

The first mechanism is that the meter can contain over a 100 pricing rates and that early morning coffee will be much more expensive than one at, say, 15:00. It’s changing behaviour by pricing policy (“Time of Use rates”), forcing people to switch off because they can’t afford to use it, but the marketing treacle doesn’t put it that way. [Notice how the policy of the lefties tends to hit the less well off?]

Grumpy, however, is not going to be deterred from his coffee and toast by price and will carry on as before – or will he? Actually, no, because the meters can limit the power the consumer can draw. If you exceed this for a given time the lights go out – yes, you get cut off. [Don’t believe it ? The specification says “the supply to the consumer shall be interrupted”]

Grumpy is relatively relaxed about the principles, but feels as strongly as ever about the sheer sophistry and opaqueness in the communications with consumers. If only politicians would realise that the vast majority of the electorate can take the truth, the political scene would be far less repulsive than it currently is.

Miliband’s hypocrisy beggar’s belief

Inevitably, Ed M tried to paint the fiasco of the ‘save the Euro’ negotiations as being wholly down to Dave’s incompetence and the Eurosceptic hardliners on the Conservative back benches. Nothing could be further than the truth; the seeds for this disaster were sown by the cowardice and sophistry of his erstwhile boss, Gordon Brown, in signing the Lisbon Treaty in 2007.

Dave walked out not because he was trying to avoid a Financial Transaction Tax (which can be introduced anyway), but because he was seeking to avoid the more catastrophic impacts arising from the Lisbon Treaty in what is a a new scenario of a 26 member ‘Euro’ block.

Critically, this agreement paved the way for the introduction of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) in almost all every area of what should have been domestic UK matters, undermining democratic accountability in the UK. Admittedly, he was following in the footsteps of ‘history re-writing’ Blair and ‘Beano’ Vaz, amongst others.

Listen to the proclamations of Gordon on this Treaty

“If we needed a referendum we would have one. But I think most people recognise that there is not a fundamental change taking place as a result of this amended treaty.” — Gordon Brown, The UK Prime Minister, interviewed by the BBC, 24th September 2007

Compare this with the views of Angela Merkel on exactly the same treaty

“The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact.” — Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, speech to the European Parliament, 27th June 2007

Are they talking about the same document? It is the irritating propensity of politicians to seek to describe black as white which devalues the democratic process in the eyes of citizens and ferments apathy – ultimately parliamentarians get the voters they deserve.

Read Gordon Brown’s statement to the House of Commons on 17th December 2007 in Hansard, for a cringing obscuring of the impact of Lisbon.

Further, all the parties repeatedly promised referenda in the event of any material transfer of power, and all parties (but particularly Labour, being in power during much of the treaty revisions) then reneged on those promises, even though it is surely self evident that the Lisbon Treaty fundamentally eroded the primacy of parliament. This included the UK signatory, the slippery Scot.

We will put it to the British people in a referendum.” — Gordon Brown, General Election Manifesto, 2005

… or listen to the real villain of events, the 21st century Napoleon, Sarkozy

“A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK.” — Nicolas Sarkozy, French President, The Daily Telegraph, 14th November 2007

We should not be surprised by this. The EU is fundamentally anti-democratic (and admittedly so by the leading figures)

The end result of Gordon’s treachery was that Dave took the hit for trying to claw back some of the QMV provisions that would have been used by the Franco-German alliance to punish the UK. Dave should have figured that in an election year Sarkozy would wish to fudge the notion of having to submit French budgets to Brussels (read Berlin) and was given a perfect opportunity to avoid this and shaft the English big time by blaming them. Even better, with Dave out of the room, he could take revenge on the City for – well, not being in Paris.

There is a telling item on Gordon’s speech to the house, cited above. It is worthwhile reading slowly to remind ourselves of the unstable base on which our standard of living and even fundamental democratic freedoms depend.

“All 27 member states agreed at the Council – and this was expressly set out in the conclusions – that this amending treaty provides the Union with a stable and lasting institutional framework and that it completes the process of institutional reform for the foreseeable future.

The conclusions of the Council state specifically that the amending treaty ‘provides the Union with a stable and lasting institutional framework. We expect no change in the foreseeable future’. “

That hope lasted less than 4 years. Who would now bet on the Eurozone surviving the next 4?

What’s wrong with Dave’s policy wonks?

“The government is to look again at the HS2 high-speed rail line between London and Birmingham, which could mean a new tunnel being built in the Chilterns” BBC news 03.12.11

A pattern is becoming clear with the libo-conservocrats, which is on the following lines

* The government announces some policy

* A lobby group of (typically) conservative leaning voters becomes vocal

* Claiming to be a ‘listening’ government, Dave backs down.

The Forestry Commission fiasco was another example of this at a minor level and NHS changes at a structural one.

The government presumably believed they were following a sound policy when they announced it, with it no doubt having been having been pored over by teams of policy wonks at No 10, lawyers, and whoever in the cabinet was responsible for the area – oh, and I guess Dave sees most things before they go out.

So why didn’t they foresee the protests? Surely they were expected – and it smacks of incompetence if they were not ? If Dave thought he was right first time, why the change of heart – something Lady Thatcher would never have done. It doesn’t bode well for when times get tough in the near future, as they surely will.

Princes Charles champions ghastly carbuncle

We all know because of his pronouncements on the subject that Prince Charles is not a fan of brutalist architecture. All the more strange therefore to look at this building on Hong Kong island, by far and away the most grotesque construction in Central

Now have a closer look at the building name

Yes, named after our good King-to-be. How he came to give his name to this concrete monstrosity is anyone’s guess.

Smart Meters from hell – part I

The UK government is in the process of ordering the compulsory installation of ‘smart’ metering devices for electricity and gas in every home in Britain. The first question that might come to mind is why the government is mandating that these intrusive (and sinister) devices are placed in every home; however, when one realises that the uber-architect of this plan is one Chris Huhne (the chief proponent of government policy to cover half the land with windmills in the name of green energy), all is explained.

Mr Huhne, Liberal democrat MP for the constituency of Eastleigh, is Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. He comes from an identikit ‘Conservocrat’ mould i.e. wealthy family, Westminster School (a sort of Eton for intelligent children), First in PPE at Oxford, and the Sorbonne.

The issues this plan raises are complex, and hence Grumpy plans to devote no less than three posts to cover the aspects of the policy which concern him most.

The first warning signal comes because the government is promoting the installation of smart meters as something which is really going to benefit the consumer. Anyone who has been through at least one election knows that in reality this means that it is going to benefit one or all of the government, consultants, large business, and most usually, HM Revenue and Customs first, and the consumer not at all.

Grumpy’s checked his electricity supplier to see what the consumer advantages were, and their web site lists the following as the key benefits of smart meters

“you can claim credits towards the Code for Sustainable Homes – helping you meet your environmental obligations”

Grumpy had no idea that he had any environmental obligations, and as at of the time of writing he could not indentify any legal requirements with regard to energy use – what does the provider know that is yet unpublished?

“smoother handover to the new occupier”

This is scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of benefits … how often do people move? And when Grumpy last moved house 12 years ago, he called the utility company and informed them – that was it. How much smoother can it be?

“there’s no need for you to manually read the meters or send us readings”

It currently takes about 60 seconds per quarter to read the meter, and 5 minutes to key the reading into the internet. Done. If Grumpy were looking for savings of either cost or time in his life, this would be about number 1000 on the list, if that. They cannot really believe this is a serious consumer benefit.

“make a great selling point when marketing your properties”

Who writes these things? Every home will have a Smart meter, because the government is going to make it compulsory. So what’s the selling point? This guff must be written by Westminster School alumni in Chris Huhne’s department.

Even more bizarrely, the website also claimed that a benefit would be ‘accurate bills’. The clear implication is that bills are not currently accurate; this is certainly news to Grumpy, and rather disturbing. Moreover, if the provider has known that it hitherto has furnished inaccurate bills, it’s frankly unacceptable for them to have been silent on the topic until now.

The paucity of logical and credible benefits dreamed up by the pathetic copywriter of this rubbish clearly hides a less benign rationale for their introduction – and the odds are that what it won’t bring is any free will benefit to a consumer. Further, this is a plan which involves changing over 50 million meters in domestic homes at a cost which is estimated at over £11 billion – and we all know what credence to give to government estimates.

No, this is a serious heavyweight project, rather than something giving dubious and at best frothy consumer benefits; in the next two posts Grumpy will examine the real drive for this plan and how it links to the fantasies of ‘Windmills” Huhne.

Trabant versatility

Whilst the precision minded West German motor industry turned out reliable and possibly even stylish cars by the million for their citizens, their counterparts east of the border had to make and do with such cars as the famed Trabant, made by the now defunct VEB Sachsenring Automobilwerke Zwickau. It was the personification of the communist ideal. Grumpy came across a Trabant on his travels which was clearly being used by someone to move home (a student?)