Energy as a Rural issue?

Now that Green Dave (as was, until his Chancellor persuaded him otherwise) is thinking of withdrawing support from Onshore Wind; and in the aftermath of the fracking threat in West Sussex,  energy is now a rural issue.

 

Wind Farms are rarely found in urban environments, requiring space, wind, and low impact on people [because of the number affected]. Therefore they must be located, if anywhere, either at sea ("OffShore") or in the countryside ("Onshore"). Dave's Mates own most of the latter, though, and are starting to make noises. Now that those who wanted to cash in on the generous compensation for hosting turbines have done so, he is persuaded that supporting this form of wind energy generation, the lowest cost one, is no longer attractive. One must not upset one's friends, must one? No matter that the country appears to need both more energy and lower costs.

So should Labour now take up the cudgels for Onshore Wind all the more strongly, as the lower-cost renewable energy source currently available? Or should Labour take an environmental stance against further rural eyesores? Who are we to please - or displease, most?

 

Labour seems at last to be moving towards a devolution agenda, which may enable local communities to develop their own strategies and even to invest in their own infrastructure needs, energy included. The sorts of energy local authorities could afford whilst responding to local geography, would include on-shore wind, fracking and solar. Labour could usefully consider developing policy in this area whereby not only land-owners receive compensation but so do affected local communities.  This could take the form of discounted energy prices for those most affected,  not just the land-owners.

 

Rural Labour supporters do not often seem to count in determining policy, small in number as we are, but here is an issue where combining rural viewpoints into a coherent lobby might make great sense and carry some weight. 

 

 

Accountability - a thing of the past?

It is time we looked more closely at accountability and how it applies [or not] to matters of strategic concern. Energy companies seem to be allowed to create inflation without redress, basing their case on the wholesale prices they control themselves and without reference to any evidence of generating cost inflation. The Government has failed to require transparency, with the result that nobody can argue against the retail pricing. Looking at the rise in Big 6 share values plus dividends may be the best clue as to the destination of the higher prices charged - in other words, the consumer's loss is the investor's gain. This is why Labour's policy is right: we must take time to reset the market, with effective regulation, putting the consumer interest at the top of the priorities. If the energy companies do not like it or comply, then they or generation must be taken into social ownership.

Even more concerning is the accountability in education. Free schools are said to be accountable to their communities. Are they, though? In effect, when they start to fail, they answer to the Secretary of State, who has an  ideological agenda preventing him from being critical but without the capacity to do anything anyway; and all this in the name of decentralisation. Governors who set up free schools may (but probably do not) start with competence in governance but what happens when the initial cohort move on as their children grow up? Where do amateur governors get their expertise in running a school, recruiting teachers, understanding learning? If there are no rules for this, there is no accountability. If governors fail, how can the community have redress when the next level of responsibility is in Whitehall? Local Education Authorities were just the seat of expertise which is now so desperately needed and should be rebuilt as a priority by the next Labour government.

Then there are the probation service, the justice system, the care services - accountability is simply being accepted by Government only for their destruction.