Only 35% of Tory MPs are gibbering idiots

Dods, a political publishing house, interviewed more than 100 MPs and found that only 35 per cent of Tories in Westminster believe green energy programmes are good for the economy.

Of the Labour MPs surveyed, 86 per cent believed that renewable energy programmes are good for the UK’s finances.

For of course the green energy schemes are not good for the economy. They make energy more expensive than it otherwise would be and thus reduce the size of the economy: we lose the other things we could have had instead of the expensive energy.

Do note that this has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether these schemes are a good idea in totality or not. That would depend upon your views about climate change, carbon emissions and so on. It’s entirely possible to say that these schemes are bad for our current economy but that they will be beneficial to us all at some point in the future. Which is roughly what M’Lord Stern said to us for example.

Or indeed you might not take that view.

But it is absolutely bleedin’ obvious that the current green schemes are damaging our economy now. Thus only 35% of Tory MPs appear to be complete gibbering idiots but 86% of Labour ones are.

16 comments on “Only 35% of Tory MPs are gibbering idiots

  1. “It’s entirely possible to say that these schemes are bad for our current economy but that they will be beneficial to us all at some point in the future.”

    It’s perfectly reasonable to believe that and to, in answer to a question “does this help the economy?” say “yes” (meaning, “yes, in the long term, we will be better off”, not, as you appear to believe “yes, it’s helping right now”).

    As for “benefit the UK’s finances” – you’d have to be a gibbering idiot not to believe that increasing taxes helps the finances of the UK Treasury.

  2. As for “benefit the UK’s finances” – you’d have to be a gibbering idiot not to believe that increasing taxes helps the finances of the UK Treasury.

    The debate around that assertion is almost as strong as the debate around the green taxes.

    You can test your assertion by setting taxes at 100% and see how much the UK Treasury takes in.

  3. As for “benefit the UK’s finances” – you’d have to be a gibbering idiot not to believe that increasing taxes helps the finances of the UK Treasury.

    But, frankly (and noting the discrepancy between “increasing taxes” which normally means increasing the tax rates, and “increasing the tax take”), you would have to be a gibbering idiot (see Ritchiebollocks passim) to equate the finances of the UK Treasury with “the UK’s finances”.

  4. Does selling all of my possessions to buy crack make me better off today? Yes.

    Is it good for my finances? I’d probably go with “no”.

  5. Only 35% of Tory MPs are gibbering idiots as opposed to 86% of Labour MPs and (although not stated, it is clearly true) 100% of Lib Dems.

    As a Tory who has on occasion, shall we say, struggled to justify a vote for the Conservatives, I’ll take this as the final word on the subject.

  6. “Does selling all of my possessions to buy crack make me better off today? Yes.”

    No, it doesn’t really. You have merely traded one thing for another thing of the same value. You’re in the same position.

    You had (say) £100k worth of stuff and now you have £100k worth of crack.

    Of course, if you then smoke all that crack today then I would agree that you’re then in a worse position but you probably wouldn’t be in any state to notice so all’s well that ends well.

  7. A question. Slightly off topic, but still on gas/leccie prices.

    If Milliband is a raving lunatic/Maoist/opportunist for saying “Let’s freeze energy prices”, why is Conservative pensions minister Steve Webb not the same for saying “Let’s freeze pension fees”?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/10413446/Excessive-pension-fund-fees-capped-by-minister.html

    Tim adds: Don’t think capping pension fees is an entirely wise idea myself but two differences:

    1) They’re capping them as a percentage. This is different from actual price fixing, like you can only ever charge #5 for doing a share trade.

    2) There’s some decent theory behind it. Humans get better at evaluating a deal the more often they do it. So there’s very little need for regulation of the price of bread for example. We all buy it several times a week, we’re used enough to it that we are the most efficient people at working out which type we like, at what price, from whom and so on.

    The corollary of this is that we’re less good at this the less often we purchase a particular product. And given that we usually purchase a pension only once in our life there’s a reasonable case to be made for more regulation of how we do so.

    I would, of course, put electricity at the bread end of this spectrum……

  8. Ta. I can see 2, and that does explain a lot about fin services. Not sure where I’d put electricity on the bread – annuity spectrum, but fair point.

    Not so convinced by 1, though. In some circs a cap on amount rather than % might be appropriate I’d have thought. But for my two examples I agree there’s a difference.

  9. @John B ‘“Does selling all of my possessions to buy crack make me better off today? Yes.”’

    No, it makes you worse off – to sell all your stuff in a day you’ll have to sell plenty of it cheaper than you might if you took time over it.

    But the better analogy here would be: you have some perfectly serviceable possessions, but you take all the money out of your bank, and then borrow lots and lots more, to make some new, not-as-good possessions to replace the existing perfectly serviceable possessions, which you will ban yourself from using for no very good reason.

    Are you better off?

    The answer is no.

    Any more stupid questions?

  10. @JohnB
    I suppose if you thought that the crack you bought was being sold at a discount to its realisable value, you might be right. However, you would have to be a dealer or a user. From the intelligence of your comment, I would suspect the former.

  11. Surely if John B sells stuff, buys crack and smokes it, he is in the same position as he started? He has less cash, but has the accumulated wealth/happiness of a good crack session. Otherwise no one is better off (or as well off) for spending money, whether on cars, wine, women,song or unit trusts?

  12. I think you are ignoring are all ignoring John B’s utility. Perhaps John B would gain more utility from Crack that from his possessions, therefore from a personal perspective he is better off today.

    Then again maybe the crack just makes him think he is better off. Don’t know not being a crack head myself.

  13. I suspect if it had been asked before the current concern with electricity price rises the public admission of gibbering idiocy ratio would have been at least 14% higher on each side.

  14. Conservative pensions minister Steve Webb

    Steve Webb jumped ship? And he one of the wetter Lib Dems, too.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.