Subscribe
Notify of
guest
224 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
polidori redux
polidori redux
3 months ago

How the author thinks that bringing energy suppliers under the control of the “authorities” will enable these authorities to better control the price of energy, defeats me. Our problem is that we haven’t got any energy: A situation deliberately engineered by those self-same authorities acting in pursuit of an insane ideology. It is far too late to save the people of Britain from a rather serious degree of discomfort. They will have to be satisfied with a rather serious degree of retribution.

Last edited 3 months ago by polidori redux
Paul O
Paul O
3 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

My thoughts exactly. I was in almost complete agreement with the whole article until that point and then that piece of nonsensical thinking popped out. Shame as I think do much of the rest was very well put, particularly the bit describing the EU and how membership takes away that the democratic will of the member states people.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  Paul O

Are you forgetting the obscene profits and vast salaries these leeches are grasping?

Cobbler 91
Cobbler 91
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Under the current cap of £1,971 per annum that makes up a households bill, only £25 or so of that is profit. The problem isn’t the suppliers but those who produce the energy and sell it on at vastly inflated prices. Maybe governments should tell them to stand down or their assets will be seized…

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago
Reply to  Cobbler 91

How are you going to sieze US, Norwegian, Qatari, Algerian and Saudi assets? War?

Cobbler 91
Cobbler 91
3 months ago
Reply to  Roger Ledodger

I was referring to the assets in British territory.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Are you forgetting the obscene salaries and vast pensions that would result from “public” ownership? Not to mention the mind numbing mismanagement?

JR Stoker
JR Stoker
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

The profits are a tiny percentage of turnover and not relevant to the economics of the issue, and the top salaries even less so. But they are highly relevant to the politics of the situation, and any business with any sense of survival would cut top salaries and bonuses, and at least delay dividend payments.

If they don’t they will prove what I strongly suspect, that they are not fit to run a business. The government should leave the suppliers in private hands but remind them that they are quasi monopolies and may be punished if they take advantage of that. Ms Truss mistepped I think when she so firmly ruled out a special tax in these circumstances.

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
3 months ago
Reply to  JR Stoker

Corporations don’t pay taxes. They merely act as a tax collector. A tax is no different than any other cost of doing business and has to be paid the same way – higher prices, cut other costs (usually labor), or cut dividends. The latter is the last and least likely place those taxes will come out of people’s pockets. And don’t forget that many of those holding shares in the energy companies have seen it as the safest haven for the retirement savings they depend on to pay the bills. It’s usually the one industry that always pays dependable dividends.

Oliver Wright
Oliver Wright
3 months ago
Reply to  Diane Merriam

Absolutely right. The trouble is, only a tiny fraction of the population seem to understand this.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
3 months ago
Reply to  Paul O

Yes, it was a complete let down when I read the final pitch…..socialism is not the answer.

Orlando Skeete
Orlando Skeete
3 months ago
Reply to  Paul O

I missed out on that when I read it as I typically don’t really read the last few lines of an article. I figure by that point the important stuff has already been said and I usually just give it a very quick skim

David Owsley
David Owsley
3 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

Correct, it is literally only the 2nd half of the penultimate sentence. The rest is fine. Almost makes me think someone else, a sub editor or something, slipped it in just before publishing.

Dennis Boylon
Dennis Boylon
3 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

But think of how clean the air will be? Especially if all these mouth breathers with their nasty CO2 emissions freeze to death. Klaus and Bill will be very pleased.

Fred Paul
Fred Paul
3 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

Canada has developed a new form of nuclear power called a molten salt reactor. In truth, this idea was available in the 50s, however, the technology wasn’t available to make it work. It is much safer than the nuclear naval technology that the Americans pushed. The reason why we don’t have it is the word nuclear. And the fossil energy providers made sure that the politicians would walk away from it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
3 months ago
Reply to  Fred Paul

One was running for four years in the late 60s at Oak Ridge. No real problems. The Netherlands has had a test bed molten salt reactor that they have actually built and run. The two problems they have left at this point is corrosion in the pumps and the constant chemical processing as it’s running.
So no, It’s not new. And no, Canada didn’t develop it. Molten salt reactors don’t produce the plutonium that was needed to make bombs. Plus, the navy had settled on the water cooled system. So that’s what the AEC authorized and all that it authorized. We still can’t get permission from the NRC to build even a test bed. Got to be water cooled. You can make a small one instead of a big one, But you can’t build anything else.
So China is experimenting with doing it and The Netherlands. China is also developing another promising design called the traveling wave reactor. I guess we’ll just have to license it from them.

Gabriel
Gabriel
3 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

Taking the streets, the mob may be much easier leads to push “authorities” then energy private companies – author may think, pointing to that solution.

Martin Terrell
Martin Terrell
3 months ago

Not sure about the solution. The analysis though is fair but incomplete. Another factor is the failure of the left – who should be the conscience and safety valve of a capitalist society. The left has abandoned the cause of labour and taken up the fashionable causes of academia. It therefore has no answer to any of our problems except to make them worse.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Terrell

Sadly, yes: especially since the crucifixion of Jeremy Corbyn by all comers not least his own!

Cobbler 91
Cobbler 91
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

If Jeremy Corbyn was a genuinely patriotic Brit, he would have won in 2019 hands down.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  Cobbler 91

But he actually would have won if his own didn’t stab him in the back!

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Corbyn committed political suicide, but by accident. He was a brexiteer so it is claimed, yet allowed Starmer and Lady Nugee to drive Labour as a Remain force. Either he was completely stupid (and his regular support for Palestinians and Terrorists mean I wouldn’t rule that out) OR he thought power was a suitable end to justify the means of abandoning his Brexit views. Either way they all suffered for it. Fortunate, I think, otherwise the whole of the Government might be struggling to answer honestly ‘What is a woman?’

Martin Terrell
Martin Terrell
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

The problem is that Jeremy Corbyn was more at home in Islington or Palestine than provincial Britain – and not that different from Keir Starmer and the rest of the party.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Terrell

The argument/analysis seems good but I am wary precisely because I have nagging suspicion it feeds into my confirmation bias. What alerted me was the comment about energy suppliers being brought back under public ownership and then my mind harked back to the mention of Gramsci and “fundamental contradictions” I and wondered whether I was reading a marxist analysis – the clash of elite/corporate bourgeoisie and the proletariat and a kind of seizing the means of production proletariat ownership with maybe some civil disobedience chucked in for good measure..

Last edited 3 months ago by michael stanwick
Martin Terrell
Martin Terrell
3 months ago

I can see the cause for conflict arising as the headless elites cling to their old certainties as the mob bays at their door. Bringing energy supplies into public ownership doesn’t create more energy, just moves power (literally) from one elite to another.

A Glover
A Glover
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Terrell

Since leftism is based on marxism, it always makes things worse instead of better.

There will always be hardship. The left argues that doesn’t have to be the case and therefore relies on the good will and natural care most people have to propagate the lie that life is often inherently unfair.

What system or approach offers the best outcome for the most people?

History and current affairs has answered that question time and time again but enough people do not comprehend the evidence that they continue to make decisions not based on their own self-interest.

Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
3 months ago
Reply to  A Glover

Most Leftism isnt based on Marxism. British socialism was its own beast. American progressivism is just a secular American religious revival.

Jad Adams
Jad Adams
3 months ago

Correct – Marx came to London in 1849 because it was a congenial location; there had been a significant socialist project underway for generations, led by the likes of Robert Owen. British socialism long preceded Marxism and to a large extent always rejected it, with the exception of tiny political groups which never got anywhere close to power.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
3 months ago
Reply to  A Glover

Well stated.

Peter Buchan
Peter Buchan
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Terrell

Perhaps. But its deeper than that, sorry. With respect (for British history, not the present) a collective look in the mirror might prove useful. Because it has been the misplaced but unshakeable belief by Britain’s citizenry in the UK’s “special place amongst nations and cultures” that created the conditions under which the current tawdry brood of “leadership” could emerge at the top of its bureaucracies, academia and political processes. The opportunities to have averted this lie far in the past, so all the daily handwringing on display here at UnHerd is in vain. All that can fix things now is a system wide “reboot”. And here it comes…

Last edited 3 months ago by Peter Buchan
Nick SPEYER
Nick SPEYER
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Terrell

The analysis is certainly complete. But not fair.
Yes, multinational corporations have beome vastly more powerful but this has not been due to any choice by the ‘elite’ (lizard people??). It is simply a consequence of technology (computers, logistics, communications) which have permitted the building of bigger empires.
Goverments still, theorically, have the whip hand as they alone make laws. Therefore, democracy should still prevail and rule. In practice, it certainly is much diminished. Certainly corporations do have significant influence over politicians due to their economic power – to say puppets and direct representatives is an exageration, however.
One reason is that there is currently a lack of politicians of vision and ability. Such people have always been rare and today for a capable individual, a multinational corporation is far more attractive than a life in politics. Further, the left side of politics which might in previous generations have taken the side of ordinary people, does not currently exist in any useful meaningful sense in the UK and US. In these countries, the left has been taken over by a small number of metropolitan self appointed elites who give us only gender politics, political correctness and similar complete nonsense and these people have nothing in common with ordinary people..
There will not be civil disobedience or revolt. This would require someone of vision that people coalesce around (and thus, such revolution would work through democratic mechanisms). Where is such a person? There will be grumbling and complaints but energy prices will return lower (pragmatism on ‘net zero’ would help). Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way …….

Last edited 3 months ago by Nick SPEYER
Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
3 months ago
Reply to  Nick SPEYER

Well said, Nick.
I do think Corbyn’s heart was in the right place, but he was maligned by Murdoch (who is such a wonderful, selfless man of course…..)

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
3 months ago

I was quite enjoying this rant and agreeing with much of the complaint about the democratic deficit that has lead to politicians pandering to big business and other special group interests but the idea that brining energy supplies under state control to control energy prices is a piece of socialist idiocy. What he means is some parts of the population will subsidise the prices of energy for other parts.

Of course our politicians have been short term idiots in failing to get a nuclear industry underway years ago and permit fracking and other oil exploration endeavours. They have been seduced by the lure of so called green energy. Do we have any political parties with sensible energy policies and not other daft policies to compensate that we can vote for? I fear not, but would be delighted to be corrected.

Last edited 3 months ago by Jeremy Bray
Andrew McDonald
Andrew McDonald
3 months ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

I suggest that your comment misses the underlying point of the rant. The idea of bringing energy provision under state control follows from bringing the state itself under democratic control – is that what you mean by ‘socialist idiocy’? And I am puzzled by your idea of ‘short term idiocy’ – few plans could be more short term and idiotic than nuclear backed by fracking, with the outputs being financial bliss for the energy oligarchs and the usual abyss between budgets, timetables and the real world. Have a look at EDF’s performance on ‘new nuclear’ so far this century.

Christian Moon
Christian Moon
3 months ago

So, don’t invest in fracking/nuclear because the market needs new supply so badly that it will lead to profits for companies who do.
Calling this a short-term solution rests on an assumption that ZeroCarbon is going to last the winter doesn’t it? Is that what you believe?

Doug Pingel
Doug Pingel
3 months ago
Reply to  Christian Moon

If Nett Zero last beyond the first hour of the new PM’s first Day then I think She will be in big trouble and her successor will likely be Starmer.

Andrew McDonald
Andrew McDonald
3 months ago
Reply to  Christian Moon

My point is that if the UK ‘market’ needs new supply so badly, commissioning EDF to fill the gap with EPR nuclear will be a very poor decision, based on past history. They will need huge subsidies (see the legislation on RAB funding), huge price guarantees for future supply pricing, and if they say a new plant will be functional in 10 years, they will need at least 15 and probably 20 (see Olkiluoto, Flamanville, Hinkley). At Sizewell they haven’t even allowed for a secure supply of water, FFS. I see no issue with profit-making companies, but nuclear power in the UK makes no profits without subsidies that could be better spent on newer and more effective technologies. Sharpen up the downvotes, fellows.

A Glover
A Glover
3 months ago

We don’t care how rich oil producers become if there is a cheap and plentiful supply of electricity and fossil fuels.

Those two things are directly correlated with happy, prosperous, healthy and productive people.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago
Reply to  A Glover

Some people do. Curiously they never express sympathy when the oil producers make losses. So far the 2 quarters of record profits have not made up for last years record losses. Add in the fact that thanks to Western Kamikaze sanctions on Russia, so far BP and Shell have used up their ‘record profits’ in discounting the price of their Russian assets that Western Leaders said to sell to ‘punish Putin and his allies’ – If only HMRC would punish me by giving me a $25 Bn discount 😉

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  A Glover

..correlated too I fear to the near extinction of the human race or the better part of it. And I mean the better part in the usual sense of that word. Survivors will be brutal, evil, subhumans: any decent folk will be eaten!

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

We have a lot of subhumans already……

harry 0
harry 0
3 months ago
Reply to  A Glover

An example comes to my mind here — a company that became very very rich by selling a software product that everybody knows. If the software product is the best service for the money that one can get, I do not want to decide here.

But there is another problem: Very, very rich companies have a lot of power to steer things in order to further their interests. In the case of this very very rich company, or rather the man who founded it, he now uses this money, which he put into a foundation, to give “generous grants” to every institution he thinks is influential enough to further his business plans. The staggering figures of his grants are not a secret since one can download the data from the website of the foundation.

The total sum of these generous grants between 2000 and 2021 amounted to 74 billions $, the largest share going to the US, but 3 billions going to the UK (also: Canada 791 millions, Germany 465 millions, France 435 millions, China 405 millions, Australia 363 millions, etc.). Every mayor university or institution or NGO received such a grant.

By the way: this man also announced on camera in 2019 that his return on investment was 20:1, with the company investing 10 billions over a ten year span. Maybe he forgot to include the grants into the calculation, but the return on investment is still reasonably good I guess.

Last edited 3 months ago by harry
Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago

Putin and the CCP funded the anti-fracking Greens and Extinction Rebellion. In those circumstances one might wonder what oligarchs you are referring to?

Matt C
Matt C
3 months ago
Reply to  Roger Ledodger

XR was also generously funded by Chris Huhne’s “The Children’s Investment Fund” (when you want to make something appear benign, invoke the children).

Coincidentally, I’m sure it just is happens Rishi Sunak used to work there….

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
3 months ago
Reply to  Matt C

You want murky, check this one out: https://news.sky.com/story/staggering-russia-report-reveals-why-government-batted-off-brexit-interference-claims-12033171
I wonder why the Tories refused to look into Russian support for Brexit? Ha ha
See also – Russians funding Tories to fund Loyalists to agitate about the Protocol:
https://twitter.com/Turloughc/status/1510700609590243332

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
3 months ago
Reply to  Roger Ledodger

You don’t know that, maybe these people have a different world view to you?

Carl Valentine
Carl Valentine
3 months ago

Good point, why are people down ticking this? Our governments are useless at managing large projects.

Jerry Smith
Jerry Smith
3 months ago

Don’t worry abut the knee-jerk crop of downvotes whenever someone mentions socialism. You’re absolutely right.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
3 months ago

Oh dear Andrew, you’re not allowed to say bad things about fracking or nuclear. Wrongthink alert

Matt C
Matt C
3 months ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

There are none. The Greenblob have ensured that all three main political parties are signed up to the NetZero agenda.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago
Reply to  Matt C

The irony is the Greens are likely to bring down the EU. Perhaps that is why Putin funded them.
The CCP fund extinction rebellion, maybe because they use a lot of Chinese glue?

A Glover
A Glover
3 months ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

The People’s Party of Canada and some of the current Conservative Party of Canada’s leadership contenders are all for killing the ridiculous and economy killing carbon tax, now sitting at 11 cents per litre of gasoline in Canada.

Outrageous.

David Owsley
David Owsley
3 months ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

agree entirely, I mentioned something similar in a comment above, that it is only the 2nd half of the penultimate sentence which seems entirely out of kilter with the rest of the article.

Adam McDermont
Adam McDermont
3 months ago

The author is on to something when he advocates civil disobedience. This might actually work. The big question is: how bad are people willing to let things get?

Our problems could be assuaged by a benevolent nationalist government. Such a government would treat the body politic almost as a single organism, and never do anything to harm even a part of it.

In this paradigm, the current energy crisis would not exist, or its effects would be less felt. The UK would also be a country without mass immigration and associated welfare parasitism, “grooming gangs”, and terror etc etc. All our problems are exacerbated by open borders.

Neoliberalism is awful.

https://theheritagesite.substack.com/

Last edited 3 months ago by Adam McDermont
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  Adam McDermont

I’m tempted to agree – just look at the result of the immigration of the Sunaks et al – but I can’t. The truth is immigrants are generally more, not less productive than the indigenous population: also younger, fitter, healthier and so less of a drain on social welfare and the health service.
The truth is the indigenous population is unwilling to work hard and reproduce so unless you allow immigration there’ll be no one to pay your pension!

polidori redux
polidori redux
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Sell your soul for a mess of potage.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

I fail to see ANY linkage between immigration and selling one’s soul! Ireland’s population has increased by 25% in recent years thanks to immigration: and we are prospering as a result. Hardworking Eastern Europeans are everywhere here: young, fit, keen, law abiding, tax-paying folk by and large. I cannot understand how you can crave workers and eschew keen, fit, able and willing immigrants! You complain that illegals are all fit young men while your country is crying our for fit young men! As the Yanks would say: go figure..

polidori redux
polidori redux
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

You wouldn’t.
Don’t treat you country as a get rich quick scheme. It’s your country. Ok?
.

Emma Horton
Emma Horton
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Well it all depends on what kind of immigrants they are, doesn’t it? Do they contribute or drain the country? Do they become proud citizens (even though they may quite rightly maintain many of their own cultural traditions, do they nevertheless feel a unity with their fellow countryman of other backgrounds), or do they isolate themselves from other cultures in the country? Do they create social disharmony? Sounds like your experience with Eastern Europeans has been good (me too, my man is Hungarian), but of course Britain has experienced some outrageous rape-gang behaviour from some other immigrant groups of late. Humans from all groups are of course on a spectrum, hence the importance of a good filtering process that allows in those that will likely be assets and rejecting those that will likely be bring net harm. I’m sure that’s not an easy process, but it does highlight the importance of going through the proper legal immigration channels.

In my earlier, more strongly Leftists days, I would have hated looking at people like that. But I’ve had to learn in my personal life that you can’t save everybody, and you have to assert boundaries to protect those people you have already taken in, as well as yourself! Hence why the distinction between legal and illegal immigration is important.

This extends to refugees as well, who I think should go to the nearest safe country and wait in a camp there to be processed and offered a new country to call their home. My boyfriend’s parents escaped to Austria from communist Hungary in the late 80s, where they waited in a camp until they were given the choice of Australia or Canada. Amusingly, my boyfriend’s father thought Australia was still so undeveloped that he brought tools to build the house he thought he would have to build himself. But that does show the willingness to work to help themselves make a new life in the new country. Their family maintains many Hungarian traditions but they are damn proud Australians, and are forever grateful they were given the opportunity to have a go here.

Many immigrants are just like my boyfriend’s family, and indeed Western countries have a collapsing population and would benefit well from fresh young people from other countries. But there are problems too, and we shouldn’t white wash or ignore serious and legitimate grievances because we have a self-image of being inclusive and non-judgemental. We must practice discernment if we are to act in the best interests of the people of the nation.

And I don’t think nationalism should be a dirty word. It is not racist – you don’t have to have traditionally have been from the nation to now be proudly a citizen. It is not synonymous with Nazis, no matter how much certain people might like you to think it is.

You don’t need to think you are superior to other cultures/nations to want to protect your own. I love to travel (why I used to love the EU – it made it so easy!), largely because I love to see other cultures and their art and ways of living. If we continue this push towards breaking down national boundaries and attacking the backbone of the traditional culture of the land by attacking people like farmers, we will lose all that beautiful difference. I want the Dutch farmers to succeed, because they perpetuate the beautiful traditional Dutch culture the most. Plus it’s downright evil to be just taking their livelihoods and property like the government is, and it will worsen the famine coming to Africa and the Middle East. The author of this article was right when he said the elites in government seem to excel in creating more crises.

But you don’t have to agree with the government’s actions to feel a proud citizen (I’m largely here thinking of the US) – your allegiance is to your fellow countrymen, not the out of touch elites who run the country. It saddens me that people are so disengaged in politics nowadays (though maybe less so recently) – I was the same but now I see how important it is that we actually take back our democracies to function for the people. People are indeed diverse, diversity is beautiful and should be protected, which requires the most local form of decision making possible with the most influence of the people it will directly effect. Hence nations are still important concept, and worth fighting for, even as they rightly allow (legal and discerning) immigration.

Last edited 3 months ago by Emma Horton
jane baker
jane baker
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

This is just a thought. In 1971 or so,all the Ugandan Asians arrived in Britain and most quite literally without a penny to their name. After five years some were already rich. After more years a lot more were. And now all those families,the sons and daughters generation they are prosperous. A lot of them started off with a market stall and what were they selling that got them rich. I remember those market stalls,they exist now too. They were selling cheap crappy plastic tat items of all sorts. Things that break five minutes after you get them home. The British public seems to have an inexhaustible,insatiable appetite for cheap plastic tat. Its made China rich too. The thing is,if you’ve got stuff to sell,you need someone to be buying.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  jane baker

That’s capitalism for ye. Are they paying taxes? Are their children doing well? Yes you say: sounds like the Sunaks and so many like ’em. How many Brits sell watery beer and frightful music in the Costa del Sol? Sauce for the goose..
We Irish have 140m people around the world calling themselves Irish (eg Biden!); how many have you? There are plenty Brit immigrants in Ireland and all are welcome. Yeah: I know: Brits abroad are expats: no immigrants among them! Lol..

Kat L
Kat L
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

if you mean this in the scope of your area of the world then i have nothing to say however if it was a general truth statement then i have to inform that we here in the USA have taken in millions due to open border policies by our administration. all these destitute people have to be fed and housed and provided medical care and their children have to be educated at our expense. plus the fact they are bringing truckloads of fentanyl with them which is killing our people in droves. there’s always been a cure for ‘indigenous’ laziness; stop welfare with notable exceptions. hunger is a fabulous motivator. establish pride in your history and offer up advantages for family formation. it can be solved they just don’t want to do it.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
3 months ago
Reply to  Kat L

“They” don’t want it to work because it would prove that we don’t need “them” as much as they want us to believe we do.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  Kat L

The USA is populated 82% by immigrants and their offspring.. the near genocide of the indigenous population saw to that. Another 13% are the descendants of slaves abducted from Africa. But now you guys are all set you don’t like immigrants? Gimme a break!

Emma Horton
Emma Horton
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I think they don’t like illegal immigrants, with no ability to discern who is coming into their country as they stream illegally across the borders.

Martin Spencer
Martin Spencer
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Studies a few years ago in both Norway and The Netherlands showed that the only immigrants who make a net contribution to the public finances are from other similarly developed states.
The idea that Somalis, Roma and Afghans are economically beneficial is absurd.
If the indigenesous are so lazy how come they have significantly lower unemployment rates than people of African, West Indian and South Asian ancestry?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Spencer

Simple answer: no one colonised you or the Nordic states you refer to: nor continues to exploit you like you do those independent (but not financially) states..
It’s strange that our experience in Ireland is so different. Our immigrants are net contributers to our economy within a very few years. How could we justify not accepting immigrants when 140m Irish immigrants (+ descendants) populate so many counyries around the world including yours.
The same goes for you guys and you also have to make reparation for your colonisation too. Had you not done so most would be prosperous, self-sufficient countries now. Look at the state of Afghanistan! And Iraq! Sorry but it’s payback time..

K Tsmitz
K Tsmitz
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

If the indigenous population did not have the option to choose welfare parasite as a lifestyle choice, perhaps they’d be more willing to work and we wouldn’t need to rely on immigrants to fund our pensions? Welfare itself has underwritten far too many of the domestic problems we face in the West.

R Wright
R Wright
3 months ago

There is no democratic solution as the author seens to almost offhandedly mention. The two parties are nearly indistinguishable, and British democracy has been hollowed out for decades. Our institutions are beyond any hope of reform.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  R Wright

..nothing left but Armageddon or the Lemming Cliff you think? Personally I think Localisation is the key: ie the principle of Subsidiarity. Take back control from central govt right down to village/district level where practicable. This can cover a surprising number of vital life supports. It worked reasonable well for a million years or so! Of course control must be ceded upward when ‘local’ cannot work; to county or even regional level: but only to national (or up to UK) level when absolutely necessary. Power to the community.. oops is that communism? Or is it Direct Democracy.. labels, labels

Iris C
Iris C
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I don’t think more government – with the resultant additional non-productive costs to the state – would help.
In fact, worse than that! Disputes between the different tiers of government would hamper and slow down decision-making even further..

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  Iris C

Local govt officials should not be paid! Many retirees will be happy to give back to the community on a voluntary basis. It’s alteady being done in many areas of life. Why not in local govt.? You’ll find many talented retirees are willing and well able to do that. At county level ditto plus expenses.. it used to be that way!
The rules is: all decisions are taken at the lowest feasible level: that can be defined. This goes on in Japan and the US right now! Just think: housing/planning: 1st/2nd level education. Local infrastructure, lighting, communal heating, amenities etc etc.
It already happens, very successfully in some places. Far, far too much is decided at much too high a level with the resultant lack of involvement and out if control, detached very expensive, inappropriate exercise of centralised power!

jane baker
jane baker
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I think you’re right. I was sceptical for a long time with that Russell Brand advocating it but now I see its right. But it wouldn’t be easy,but then good things never are. I think that’s our problem now. Over decades we,collectively,opted for the easy option. Having someone else sort it out for us,and I’m as guilty as anyone.

Tina D
Tina D
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

It’s already happened in the last federal election in Australia. The ‘teal’ (a lighter colour than the traditional conservative blue) independants grabbed long held conservative seats in almost all states.
Some of those seats were legacies from past Prime Ministers.
Each of those candidates won on the basis of representing their community. The entire campaign was focused on community needs. 
There has been a huge shift in the way the public wants to be represented. The main parties have failed to recognise this shift and have lost favour with the public – their primary vote has decreased each election cycle.
These new teal backbenches will also be able to debate bills during parliamentary sitting. In the past only the main parties were able to do that.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  R Wright

A bottom up approach will work: take back control from central govt in a myriad of ways, not least power generation and food production. Localise is the only hope now!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
3 months ago

Thank for that synopsis of the possible consequences of the mismanagement of our so-called energy policy.
However I do not share your optimism that the soon to be frozen, down trodden masses are going to rise in revolt.
If the recent Corona scam has taught us anything it is that “most people would rather die than think and most do”. So pathetic, supine and stupid have the wretched demos become that there is sadly, absolutely no chance of rebellion, as the ‘Blob’ knows only too well..

Vae Victis!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago

..not so sure! Look at what happened in Ireland when the govt tried to charge households for water.. remember the poll tax riots and the miners’ strike? And the race riots etc. Sure, they were put down: but they generally only affected a minority (except the poll tax). This time it’s a overwhelming majority being taken for a ride by the fat cats. Cold and hunger have a galvanising effect, esp when when Marie Antoinette is telling ’em to eat cake and wear sweaters!
Don’t be so sure.. sometimes supine is really crouching ready to attack, and stupidity is no bar to rebellion!

Last edited 3 months ago by Liam O'Mahony
Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

More to the point, look what happened in Northern Ireland in 1969 when Orangemen Loyalists steadfastly refused to address gerrymandering and discrimination, and civil rights issues, and continued so to do, and Whitehall, whilst sanctifying the ” causes” in South Africa and Rhodesia took a similar Nelsonian blind eye approach?… They bred and created one of the largest guerilla war conflicts in European history. It is worth remembering that the devotion of Republicans got as far as hunger strikes and the ” dirty protests” to demonstrate to politicians just how far people will go when pushed?

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago

The IRA only won because the US stopped the UK from winning & Major & Blair were – well Major and Blair. At one point there were reputedly more IRA leaders working for British Intelligence than for the IRA because the UK had done so well in eavesdropping and blackmailing them. But the politicians stepped in and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
3 months ago
Reply to  Roger Ledodger

Absolutely spot on, NORAID and Kennedy’s were the victors and even Lady Thatcher was unable to stop them.
However “every cloud has a silver lining “, and it did provide magnificent training for the British Army, particularly at junior commander level for nigh on thirty years.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  Roger Ledodger

The IRA prevailed because they had the support of a large percentage of the population: like the Taliban in Afghanistan. Wars can be won with sufficient brutal force ala Putin: but winning the peace is a different matter. Look at Iraq as well. The Irish army is powerful as one of the best peacekeeping forces on the planet. Any fool with a gun can kill an enemy. That kind of winning is easy. Winning the hearts and minds is far more difficult. We Irish have also won the World Cup more than once! Not our team of course: our supporters as best behaved! Success is not about brute force. Not nowadays.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Siege of Jadotville, Katanga, 1961? Not a good report. Have things improved since then?

jane baker
jane baker
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Well we all obediently donned masks,stayed home and didn’t visit Grandma so now they know how rebellious spirited we are.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Yes, a good point, perhaps my pessimism is unfounded.

Matt C
Matt C
3 months ago

How the author can go through the whole article about the energy crisis and not once mention the greenblob, NetZero and climate change, is beyond me.
This has been the inevitable outcome of Miliband’s disastrous Climate Change Act since 2008.
The likes of Friends Of The Earth pretty much wrote the act, and all MPs (bar 5) voted it through. Within the text, there are plenty enough covenants to make sure the green blob and their philanthropist billionaire funders can (and do) sue the government at even the slightest deviation. Then we have ESGs which ensure companies’ feet are held to the fire, and ensure funding – which the oil companies desperately need to ramp up production – is steered well away from anything which would negatively affect climate policy.
Of course the green blob are screaming loudest about the lack of energy, seemingly oblivious to them being the cause. They could be well on the way to NetZero, if they had allowed nuclear, but apparently that isn’t an option either.
Not to mention that shutting down 20 power stations in 20 years without viable alternatives will do that. We aren’t using less energy, we’re now just dependent on importing more.
As for bringing it into govt hands. I cannot think of many examples where govt ownership of an industry does anything except ruin it, and it certainly won’t magically produce more energy without building power stations, or fracking. And you can guarantee the green blob lawyers would be all over that to make sure they aren’t viable options.

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
3 months ago
Reply to  Matt C

Beautifully summarised. Thank you.

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
3 months ago
Reply to  Matt C

With religious zeal, the Green blob and their lawyers, can be counted upon to insure that the energy crisis will deepen. Any backsliding would be tantamount to heresy, and ostracism at the next WEF gathering – an outcome too shameful for any of the elite to bear.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago

The only Civil Disobedience that I can think of is going to have to be the blowing up on windmills Or Canning Town like response to the next Extinction Rebellion Glue in. Just pull them off whatever they’re glued to, even if it means leaving a glued finger or hand behind. Then when it comes to trial, opt for a Jury and ensure no greens are on it.

AC Harper
AC Harper
3 months ago

Historically taking organisations into ‘public’ control has replaced one set of problems with another. Would ‘authorities’ better control energy prices or would they create more long term problems due to their interference?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  AC Harper

While I hate to say it but Thatcher’s “Privatise + Regulate’ may be the best model.. but the lack of effective regulation is what led to the current rip off. Sadly, regulation is anathema to Toryism!

Last edited 3 months ago by Liam O'Mahony
Colin MacDonald
Colin MacDonald
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

What was closing down coal stations if not regulation? Or banning new gas fields? Or fracking?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago

To “Regulate” means to control how something works: banning is not regulation!

Tina D
Tina D
3 months ago
Reply to  AC Harper

Perhaps not.
Australia exports gas and coal at premium prices. During this winter consumers were paying export prices, which were 54% more than usual.
For years prices averaged $64 per megawatt hour. But in the first two weeks of July 2022, it averaged $433 while also withholding demand to maximise profits.
That was until the regulators, both state and federal, stepped in and put a price cap and reminded retailers that there are set price mechanisms in place to prevent companies from overcharging consumers.
The regulator wrote to the energy companies reminding them that price gouging is illegal and there’s legislation to preventing anti-competitive conduct in the electricity market. So far so good.
We are in uncharted waters. Global demand is great but the push for green energy is threatening reliability due to a lack of dependable infrastructure.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago
Reply to  Tina D

There are some very interesting reports regarding LNG tankers. These ferry LNG across the globe from various sources. The US is one (tho’ Biden’s Democrats seem intent on ensuring that is short lived) At one point a tanker of LNG was heading for China, and was hijacked to the UK because Europe began to outbid the Chinese. Outbidding the Chinese is some feat, they are loaded with US Treasuries and all that presumably stopped them outbidding Europe was they weren’t desperate enough for the gas. Heaven help the price of LNG if China decides its desperate for it. The UK may have been acting as a staging post for the EU in that instance. Our 3 LNG terminals have, I understand been pouring gas into the EU to try and help keep it going and stock up reserves. Unfortunately I believe Putin simply reduced his supply to match the amount we supplied. We shall see soon enough. About 3 or 4 months?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  Roger Ledodger

Isn’t it curious that oil and gas are extracted from the ground at the same cost but the price has quadrupled? Usually, a commodity is only worth as much as people are willing to pay for it: correct? So if all the Nato countries agreed a buying price, just as Opec sets a selling price what would happen? Which is the stronger Opec or US/Nato? Who supplies Opec with weapons etc? Generally the stronger decides the price. Is Opec so strong? Who are they: these guys who hold the mighty, invincible Nato counyries to ransom?
When a shyster charges blackmarket rates for scare goods (during war) it’s illegal right? If Nato blockaded Opec ports until the price came down to a fair level and withdrew weapon parts etc who’d win that one?
Qui bono one ask? Why are the shysters allowed to get away with usurous rates? Qui bono? Not even powerful nation states: just the oligarchs I guess. I’m only asking..
Just because oil and gas are scarce is no explanation. And why not force (yes force) Opec to double its production? I mean if you can invade a country and kill a hundred thousand people for a lie, surely putting the gun to the head of Opec countries is small beer? Just wondering…
How come Biden went cap in hand to Saudi Arabia and was sent away with a flea in his ear? Who holds the power? The Saudis? I don’t think so! Curious..

Last edited 3 months ago by Liam O'Mahony
Ben J
Ben J
3 months ago

“In the short term, this means forcing the government, including through civil disobedience… for example by bringing energy suppliers into public ownership.”
Is Mr. Fazi running top cover for the assorted hoary Corbynistas and hard-left re-treads behind the ‘Don’t Pay’ movement? If he isn’t, he’s certainly doing a good impression. And, to me, the UK Government’s position on Russia isn’t “gung-ho”, it’s principled, decent and correct. He betrayed where he’s really coming from right there.

Christian Moon
Christian Moon
3 months ago
Reply to  Ben J

Sure, it is principled and decent, but that doesn’t mean it is correct. To decide if it is correct we also need to calculate the consequences,
Once you can see that the harm in the consequences outweighs the harm of accommodating Putin’s ambitions, then what seemed the decent thing to do becomes instead emotional self-indulgence of the most immature kind.

Ben J
Ben J
3 months ago
Reply to  Christian Moon

I doubt we’re going to agree, but not appeasing a country that’s committed acts of radiological terrorism on our soil strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  Ben J

Was that really the only alternative?? Shooting oneself in the foot? Is prohibiting negotiation decent? Is formenting a coup to depose a democratically elected premier decent and principled? Can you outline the principle involved please…

Last edited 3 months ago by Liam O'Mahony
Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago
Reply to  Ben J

Whatever terrorism Russia has perpetrated on our soil, doesn’t mean it isn’t in the right when it comes to the Ukraine and NATO’s Eastward expansion. Peter Hitchens is a good read when it comes to Russia and who is to be blamed for what.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  Christian Moon

A welcome voice of reason!

James 0
James 0
3 months ago
Reply to  Ben J

Sanctions don’t work. They may make you feel better, but they don’t work. Often, they have the opposite effect to what is intended, as causing economic harm to a population only drives them further into the arms of authoritarian leaders.

It doesn’t matter how “decent” and “principled” the UK and other governments want to be if the only thing they acheive is immiserating their own people and leaving themselves weaker than before. There is a well-known phrase for this: virtue-signalling.

Personally, I’d simply call it a herd mentality, a consequence of the kind of transformation the author describes when politicians draw legitimacy not from public approval but from the approval of their peers in other governments and surpranational institutions. It leads to this kind of collective idiocy.

Also, talk of “appeasement” is a crutch, and a failure to face the reality of the situation. It also acts as a smear to shut down your opponents, painting them as Russian stooges. As vicious as he is, Putin is not Hitler, and this is 2022, not 1939. The situation is entirely different and calls for a much different response.

That is, unless you want to go the full Tugenhat and declare war on Russia, which I suppose would do *something* for the economy.

Last edited 3 months ago by James
Ben J
Ben J
3 months ago
Reply to  James 0

I notice nobody wants to discuss Litvinenko or Skripal and the collateral harm to third parties (in the Litvinenko case it was in the hundreds of people who had to present for testing for cancers after radiological substances found their way into water supplies at the hotel in question). Russia, under Putin, is a hostile state. Pretending it isn’t is delusional.

James 0
James 0
3 months ago
Reply to  Ben J

I notice you didn’t engage with any of my points, but anyway… No one is talking about those events because they are not relevant to the topic under discussion. So Russia is hostile and Putin is a nasty piece of work. So what? We’ve known that for a long while.

What is worse that our leaders knew this but made us dependent on Russian energy supplies anyway. And when the cries of “something must be done!” went out, they responded in the worst way possible, harming everyone *except* Putin.

It seems to me that the only delusional ones here are our political elites, unmoored from reality, cheered on by liberals who think they can inflict economic sanctions on our chief energy supplier without consequences and by conservatives who are convinced this is a replay of the 1930s because they can’t think in any other terms. Both are utterly divorced from reality.

William Adams
William Adams
3 months ago
Reply to  James 0

Russia is not our chief energy supplier. It is Germany’s chief supplier but that’s their self-imposed problem.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  William Adams

So solidarity with Ukraine is good but solidarity with Germany is not? Germany in good faith sought mutual dependency to improve bilateral relations. Okay it turned out to be a mistake: but they are still closer allies surely than Ukraine?

Last edited 3 months ago by Liam O'Mahony
William Adams
William Adams
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Not sure about that nowadays. We’ve fought two bloody wars with Germany whereas we’ve never had any problem with Ukraine. I admire the Ukrainian gung-ho spirit far more than the pusillanimous Germans. What’s more, many Ukrainian women are real stunners in contrast with Germany’s frumpy fraus.

Last edited 3 months ago by David Bell
Christian Moon
Christian Moon
3 months ago
Reply to  Ben J

Nobody here is claiming that Putin is not evil and murderous. We all agree about that and that’s why we don’t need to discuss it.
The question is what we should do about that. That is a matter of evaluating our different choices, and estimating their likely costs.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago
Reply to  Christian Moon

Here is Madeleine Albright, one of the righteous (?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  Roger Ledodger

To understand this you need to understand that brown non-Christian lives have very little value, especially children: probably1:100 given 300,000 died in revenge for 3,000 US lives in the Twin Yowers (not that Iraq was guilty of anything other than having too much oil).
Non American white Christian lives do have considerable value but still at maybe 1:10 compared to white American lives.
Ask an American this question (and demand an instant answer): “How many died in the Vietnam War: you’ll get the answer 50,000. They don’t count the 3 million gooks or whatever term they apply. They simply don’t matter. The Zionists have a very similar view of Palestinians. It gives racism a bad name!

Jeanie K
Jeanie K
3 months ago
Reply to  Ben J

Thank God we have nice friends such as Saudi Arabia and America who don’t send people to other countries to murder their oponents.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  Jeanie K

..and after all the fid agree to double their output when asked: oh, the didn’t ‘eh. ‘sent Biden home with a flea in his ear when he begged ’em to do so. Yep, good friends alright. But be fair, they are very busy murdering Yemen children: and their own dissidents. Can’t di everything right?

William Adams
William Adams
3 months ago
Reply to  Ben J

With the terrorist acts by Putin on our country that you mention, Russia declared war on Britain years ago. It’s time people realize the fact.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  William Adams

So America is at war with all the countries whose citizens they murdered in the own homes with drone strikes etc. Wow: that’s like the entire Middle East and much of South America as well! And bits of Africa too! Tough gig!

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago
Reply to  Ben J

It is a hostile state because the West lied to it regarding NATO expansion East in return for Russia breaking up the Soviet Union, dismantling the Warsaw Pact and retreating from and allowing East Germany to reunite with West Germany. It is all well know, but the MSM is now so politicised it won’t often tell you the truth. However, here is Der Spiegel on the subject.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html
and Hitchens
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10540829/PETER-HITCHENS-blame-arrogant-foolish-West-Ukraine-crisis.html
and then the hypocrisy of the US
https://mises.org/wire/yes-us-has-its-own-sphere-influence-and-its-huge
and finally why such opinions don’t mean apologists for Putin
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/03/09/its-not-putin-apologism-to-criticise-nato/

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  Ben J

Who is pretending that? When it comes to wanton killing of ‘enemies’ with scant regard to collateral damage I think the Yanks win hands down! Or are we only counting white Christians here?

Last edited 3 months ago by Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  James 0

…surely more of a sycophantic gesture to cost up to an alienated US was the real reason. Decent, principled my ass!

Jim Denham
Jim Denham
3 months ago
Reply to  Ben J

The term “proxy war” is a sure-fire indication that someone advocates appeasing Putin (it is also a highly patronising term that implies the Ukranians are mere pawns of the west and have no agency).

Christian Moon
Christian Moon
3 months ago
Reply to  Jim Denham

This is still the simplest of virtue seeking: who is the good guy, who is the bad guy?
Right or wrong, whether we like it or not, the Ukrainians do as a matter of fact actually have no agency. The West will not fight for them (deo gratia), and thus Russia has the preponderance of military power.
Ukraine is thus getting wrecked. That is the evil we should have worked to avoid.

Michael Nott
Michael Nott
3 months ago
Reply to  Jim Denham

Well said.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago
Reply to  Jim Denham

Correct, one group of Ukrainians have wanted war since they started it with the Maidan Square Coup. The idea this is a ‘proxy war’ all depends upon how much of the Ukrainian poking of the bear was because Hunter Biden assured those Ukrainians that his Dad had their back. But as no US MSM actually wanted to dig into Biden’s laptop too much, it’s difficult to know.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  Ben J

Was the UK/US backed coup in Ukraine also principled, decent and correct? I think you need to dig a little deeper on that one. Gung ho will bells on I’m afraid!

Ibn Sina
Ibn Sina
3 months ago

I blame the rise of politics as a career.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  Ibn Sina

I blame the legitimising of greed ala Margaret Thatcher and indeed her philosophy that there is no such thing as “society”.
Track CEO’s salaries and you’ll get the picture. Track the huge transfer of wealth from those who generate it to those who control it and you’ll see it even more clearly.
Pur simply: greed replaced decency and elitism replaced society.. good old Maggie ‘eh? And now we has her ‘familiar’ (witch’s cat) about to take over the mantle. God only knows what she has in store after she relieves the tax burden on the already bloated rich and leaves the rest to freeze and go hungry..

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Thank you, Karl, for all the comments and replies. Please do us all a huge favor and find us an example in history where Marxism has worked to the benefit of the people?

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Try reading her speech. Your claim ‘there is no such thing as Society’ means you never read it and took the sound bite. The implication of the soundbite is that she didn’t believe in the benefits of people acting together. The speech was clear on that so you never read it.
My favourite return sound-bite for Socialists, Communists and Marxists – and now even more to the point, Greens is
“They love mankind (society) they just hate people.”
😉

Michael Askew
Michael Askew
3 months ago

Not that old chestnut! Nationalise the power industry and all our problems will be solved. Been there. Tried it. Didn’t work.

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
3 months ago

Reads like a doctoral thesis, but good observations are made. Especially the vertical Vs horizontal government by elites in thrall to the EU project, who once derived legitimacy from performance for a national electorate. Brexit was a step toward rejuvenation of democracy that failed under Johnson’s watch, as he fell in lockstep with other governments ruling by crisis and fear – from COVID to Ukraine, with Climate Catastrophe forming the backdrop for all policy.

By whatever means, control must be wrested back from the unelected bureaucrats who derive their legitimacy from “crises”, whose dictates now have a kind of religious power, and who meet any resistance with the kind of force once reserved for heretics.

Christian Moon
Christian Moon
3 months ago

The horizontal rather than vertical accountability of our elites is also evident in the following policies:
Zero Carbon
Covid (both as you identify)
Mass migration, open borders and anti-nationalism
Denial of hereditary effects on behaviour and capacity (human biodiversity)
LGBTQ+ pride and the Trans agenda rather than pro-family policies
These are enough to motivate the more significant right-populism (Trump/Orban) and for the same reasons. The author, however, ignores right-populism because of his preferred Marxist/socialist concerns.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago

I am intrigued, the current energy crisis has many facets, but the main ones aren’t Brexit and the EU per se. They are the insanity of the Greens agenda and the complete stupidity of political leaders (and how Merkel, a trained scientist could fall for it is beyond me) in believing that Net Zero could be achieved in the timescales proposed. OR the failure to understand that our whole global society, West, East, North and South are ‘fossil fuel’ based. From materials science, via farming chemicals including fertilisers, to transport, heat & light, we cannot do without fossil fuels. The Greens (intriguingly funded by Putin and the CCP) have eroded the ability and the profitability of the Oil Industry to such an extent that it is estimated some $3 Trillions worth of fossil fuel assets will never be exploited because it would entail a loss.
The irony is ‘record profits’ have the left frothing at the mouth – well how about some context? 2 quarters of ‘record profits’ has just about met half last years ‘record losses’ for BP and Shell. So unless they get another 2 quarters of these ‘obscene’ profits they still won’t have covered last years losses. Any outcry over that? No.
Next, and dealt with later is the fact that the ‘record’ profits, in the case of Shell & BP have just been used to sell off Russian based fossil fuel assets to Putin’s mates at a discount, a discount so far greater than the record profits.
Carbon taxes, Green taxes, Green levies and the frankly shocking propaganda aimed at children by children terrify so many into supporting insane Green agendas. These agendas meant that when the renewables failed last year (Wind power produced nowhere near the expected output and thanks to droughts in Brazil and Portugal even the Golden Child of renewables Hydro, failed.) the result was a dash for gas and the massive spike in LNG demand. This led to an equally large spike in prices because oil companies simply were not expecting it and they couldn’t adapt to the increased demand. Then Putin, seeing the opportunity to actually do something about NATO’s Eastward expansion, and solve the problem of the ongoing war in Ukraine – invaded and started using gas as a weapon in response to Western Governments (mainly US driven) weaponising the banking system.
While I’m not going to deny any of the claims of what the EU and our leaders wanted regarding democracy, I can’t see how any of that is related to the energy crisis produced by stupid energy policies. The irony is we are about to hit even more crises. The economic crisis coming is not going to help this energy crisis. The combination of QE/Low interest rate can kicking has for years been a subject for the non MMT economists to point out that if Inflation ever returned, unless we could wean ourselves of QE and low interest rates we’d have a crisis. China is the only reason QE/Low interest rates survived so long, it becoming the workshop of the world introduced deflation which QE/Low interest rates compensated for. However, the black swan event that our Central Bankers & Politicians never believed would arrive eventually did with Covid Lockdowns.
They introduced inflation (no doubt because they brought, and are still bringing Chinese production) to a halt. Now it is too late to avoid that catastrophe, add that to the current Green driven energy catastrophe and the world is in a mess.
Curiously the survival of the EU is in doubt, but to blame the EU for the energy crisis doesn’t strike me as being accurate, any more than blaming Brexit. We are suffering from the curse of Central Banker stupidity meeting the Greens stupidity. We can no longer avoid the consequences, but we should immediately be rescinding green taxes, Carbon legislation and telling oil companies to go and pump more oil/gas by opening new fields. IF there is anyone in this whole saga who should not be blamed it is oil companies they’ve been hammered by our leaders and they do not set the price of oil or gas except in the sense of not meeting demand, but then who could with the idiots who have been ordering our society over the past 22 years?
Then the idea we Nationalise Energy Suppliers is insane. How many suppliers went bust last year because of the ‘cap’ and the fact they had to sell at a loss? Or does the author mean the Oil majors themselves? The ones who sell the gas to the Energy Suppliers who then sell it to the public? Great idea that – how do you nationalise BP/Shell? They are global multinationals, they’ll simply move out of the UK (Both already left Russia – not a smart move, they sold off their valuable Russian assets at estimated $25Bn loss – that’s really going to upset Putin – his mates get to buy fossil fuel assets with $25 Bn discounts from Western Investors!) Then say you only nationalise those energy companies who are basically purchasers of wholesale gas they then sell on to the consumer. You cap consumer prices – they go bust again and UK Taxpayer picks up the bill. Or is the author saying we can force the US, Norway, Qatar, Algeria etc to sell us gas at the price we demand?

Last edited 3 months ago by msinformationatthebbc
Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
3 months ago
Reply to  Roger Ledodger

Lots of common sense here, so thanks.
The Greenspan put trained US markets to have a tantrum whenever buyer sentiment waned, and created an addiction to low interest rates even before the great bank bailouts made QE the modus operandi of the Fed, the BoE, Bank of Japan and the “whatever it takes” ECB. No doubt they told themselves this was all “transitory” (like the current inflation), because the China driven deflation would enable them over time to take their economies off life support – and what politician would argue with them when the Prozac of low rates kept consumer voters happy.

But, as you say, they are fundamentally stupid, and ignored the most basic laws of economics by shutting down economies for two years of COVID lockdowns, while they distributed largesse to the public with borrowed money.

And to their surprise (!) inflation soared, even as rates were kept low to pay off government debt. That is a fools game for short term political gain, and will end in high rates, stagnating économies, and declines in living standards.

And all that is before the inanity of Net Zero! If history is prologue, we can expect civil unrest perhaps similar to that of Weimar Germany

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
3 months ago

Here is a prediction. In 10 years we will have a worldwide famine caused by progressive elites attacking the farming industry in the name of global warming like they have done to our oil and gas industry for the last 20 years. The press will then run stories wondering how this could have happened? Who could have seen it coming? Maybe we should have been even more aggressive in farming reforms? At the end of the day I place the largest blame for all this on the mainstream media for completely failing to question these irrational ideas and instead acting like cheerleaders for the global elite.

Last edited 3 months ago by Gunner Myrtle
Matthew Powell
Matthew Powell
3 months ago

I often find myself conflicted when reading this writer, as politically I find myself in agreement with much he writes but economicly, he’s completely illiterate.

The higher prices we are seeing are not the result of greedy companies, they are result of us, the West, out bidding the developing world for the reduced supplies of oil and gas. The increased costs represent the transferring of their former market share, to ourselves, by paying more than they can.

For those who think this is immoral, unless you’re will to accept rationing, which is what demand destruction from price increases does anyway, reducing your consumption to reduce your costs, but is being squarely rejected, then this is how the market works.

It’s not greedy for an energy company to accept the highest bid for their product. In fact, whilst provisions should be made for necessary supplies to be maintained, selling energy to a lower bidder, whilst refusing higher bids, will only result in misallocation of resources.

Less developed economies tend to be reliant on the consumption of more developed ones. If the more developed economies shut down so do the less developed ones. This would only exacerbate the economic down turn.

Unless people are willing to accept the reality of the economic challenges which face the world. Then they cannot change it.

Last edited 3 months ago by Matthew Powell
Andrzej Wasniewski
Andrzej Wasniewski
3 months ago

 by bringing energy suppliers into public ownership, which would allow authorities to better control energy prices.”
This statement, in the context of the rest of the article, demonstrates the level of the author’s confusion that it calls into question the sanity of the entire piece.
Public ownership is the fancy name for the state ownership, that means the same people who are now responsible for incredible stupidity of the Western states energy policy will be empowered to do more damage without any accountability. The instrument: price control, something that failed every time it was tried but…under “public” ownership it is sure to be a huge success. Get real.

Bob Ewald
Bob Ewald
3 months ago

It wouldn’t hurt if Biden opened up production so the US could at least assist its allies.

Michael Craig
Michael Craig
3 months ago

I think the author is spot on in identifying runaway corporations as the arch demons. Operating beyond democratic control, they quite simply need to be reigned in.
I think it’s a fair question to ask too whether sectors vital to a nation’s existence, such as energy and water, should indeed revert to state control. Private business has shown that it will seek profit at every opportunity, with no concern at all for the wellbeing of the people, and such should really not be tolerated in an enlightened and fair society.
Ultimately, however, it is we the people who are to blame. We’ve let politicians fritter away our human rights and national sovereignty to non-elected bodies such as the UN, the WEF, banks and corporations, all of whom are increasingly making huge decisions that will impact the lives of ourselves and our children for generations to come, and which we, the people, are never consulted upon.
Frankly, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is not enough for us to just sit back and vote every 4 or 5 years for a political party and leader, and then moan when they’re not up to the task. It’s time we all became involved in the decision-making ourselves and become more responsible for the mess in the world; democracy, as it stands today, is way too corruptible and toothless and has become overrun by the corporates and technocrats.
Let’s take it back. I feel that most of us are educated enough not to require a single MP to represent thousands of us any longer. That system is archaic, and only allows self-proclaimed elites to control what happens in the world. No, it’s time for all of us to get our hands dirty now if we truly want to drain the swamp.
If that’s a step too far for the present, then we at least need a new kind of political movement that is determined to uphold real human values and freedoms, and that will be funded by and answerable only to the people it represents.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago
Reply to  Michael Craig

With all due acknowledgements to Clinton,
“It’s the Greens stupid!”
Ironically it was Clinton who also started the lying to Russia about NATO and it not expanding Eastward IIRC.

Mark Gourley
Mark Gourley
3 months ago
Reply to  Michael Craig

OK but “reined in” is correct, please

Cobbler 91
Cobbler 91
3 months ago

It is worth acknowledging that while the French Revolution began in 1789, the trigger was in 1788 courtesy of bad harvests and (somewhat fittingly) a terrible winter that year. The seeds of discontent are being sown in 2022, but they probably won’t bloom until 2023 and this is something that will impact all of Europe. It’ll be hard to say what will happen, but I doubt our society and country will be the same when it’s done.

Deb Grant
Deb Grant
3 months ago

We get the politicians we deserve. They are reflections of our complacent, sometimes decadent and reality denying selves. There are no big bogeymen in corporations – they’re made up of us, just people, trying to make a living and carrying the burden of supporting a massive state and live up to crazy, media led expectations of what is possible. We’ve bred less resilient children and led them to believe that Government money is free and that humans can behave perfectly.

Who wants to put their whole life in the spotlight for less than a council leader earns?

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago
Reply to  Deb Grant

No we don’t, we get the ones we hate the least.

Bryan Dale
Bryan Dale
3 months ago

It was a good article until the last paragraph.The problem is today’s leaders are so stupid that they fell for the climate change hoax. Putting them in charge of energy production will only make things worse, what is needed are people willing to stand up and fight back against the power of Davos.

Alison Harvey
Alison Harvey
3 months ago

An interesting perspective – until, as many havre remarked, the idea of nationalisation arises. There still seems to be this weird dissociation from the reality of the well documented Great Reset, launched by Prince Charles, supported by all the Build Back Better puppet leaders and the very same global companies who have profited from the controlled destruction of the economy. They share the same goals as the UNs Agenda 30 and have the same degree of public illegitimacy ie none.

The world economy is bankrupt. They knew this is 2008 and put a sticking plaster over it, knowing it would delay the inevitable collapse but make it far worse.

Printing money devalued the currency. The net carbon nonsense leaves us in fuel and food poverty. The lockdown plus endless unnecessary wars destroyed global supply chains, leading to shortages, absolute poverty and inflation.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory – it’s a conspiracy in plain sight with reams of publicly available documentation, videos, plans detailing what the vision is and how it will be achieved. There seems to be no recognition that, just as there is no difference between the uni-party of Tory-Labour , or Democrat-Republicans, the political establishment are agents of the same agenda as global business. The imposition of a dystopian medical technocracy (see the NHS long term plan for example!), with associated 5G surveillance, social credit scores, CBDCs, Smart Cities etc. . It all requires the destruction of our fundamental rights and, as with Covid, the use of fear tactics to nudge people into giving up their freedom in the name of keeping us ‘safe’. Nationalisation is the last thing we need!

If you don’t yet understand this is a deliberate dismantling of the system to usher in a one world government, you aren’t paying attention. If you aren’t yet aware of the peaceful Revolution taking place quietly across the world as millions say NO, stand in their own sovereignty, and direct their energy towards creating an entirely new system (political, economic, educational, health etc) based on community, self reliance and free will, you may be pleasantly surprised.

PJ Massyn
PJ Massyn
3 months ago

Fazi’s fearful outrage makes for a rollicking read but I suspect it reveals more about him than the evil elites he so deliciously derides. Splitting the world into good and evil no doubt riles the reader but it isn’t particularly helpful when thinking through the complexities of social life. I suggest the author face his own demons. Instead of another vilifying rant, perhaps a few years on an analyst’s couch? Fly fishing might also work.
(But then again, who would want to give up the idea that a new Dark Ages is upon us? Or the moronic irony of handing control over energy to the very elites who stand accused of engineering that catastrophe?)

Last edited 3 months ago by pj
Guy Aston
Guy Aston
3 months ago
Reply to  PJ Massyn

How sad. “I don’t agree so I’ll revert to ad hominem attack”. This is a nasty response worthy of Twitter. If you have a counter argument, please make it.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  Guy Aston

The counterargument is to be found I suspect in the mouth of Mr Micawber: “Something will turn up”

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
3 months ago
Reply to  Guy Aston

I think he did. It was the moronic irony of advocating the handing off of the industry to the very elites who engineered this monstrosity. Nothing is more idiotic than that. Besides, the author relishes the criticism, as he gets paid more when people respond to his articles. We are all rubes here.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago
Reply to  Guy Aston

I have no time for the EU, and am a Brexiteer, but to attempt to equate the current energy crisis with either is astounding. The parallel and likely to be equally bad economic crisis based on QE/Low interest rate can kicking meeting lockdown inflation is more like the EU.
It is going to be exacerbated by the EU in the form of the ECB, whose only aim is to further the EU dream by ensuring the single currency survives. Sadly their stooge in Italy, Mario “I’ll do all it takes to save the Euro’ Draghi hasn’t worked, so now the fun is deciding which crisis brings the EU down first?
The Energy crisis and Putin wrecking Germany’s economy so destroying the Eurozone paymaster. OR the financial crisis where Italy defaults due to the interest rate rises needed to fight the 19 different rates of inflation in the Eurozone.
So far Bloomberg/Reuters (at least as far as I’ve seen so far) have only had the headline
“If Italy fails the EU fails.”
but that was before last autumn and the energy crisis, maybe post that, they will produce one saying
“If Germany fails the EU fails.” too.

Andrew Wise
Andrew Wise
3 months ago

What a complete load of bull
We’ve had similar crises in the past – those of us old enough will remember the 1973 oil crisis – a similar sudden increase in the price of a basic commodity … and guess what we all moaned but we all survived
Its definitely nothing to do with Brexit – that lot are in more of a mess that we are.
It will be tough, people will have to save energy and we will have to start drilling for it again !! But we will get through the ‘crisis’ because there’s no alternative.

Last edited 3 months ago by Andrew Wise
Christian Moon
Christian Moon
3 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Wise

Did your computer used to go off in the power cuts?

Andrew Wise
Andrew Wise
3 months ago
Reply to  Christian Moon

I don’t think we had personal computers in 1973 – but the mainframes of the time would have gone off in the 3 day week if they were not on a generator.
The 3 day week was not the same as the oil crisis, it was mostly a battle with the unions – but it was very much related to security and diversity of supply of electricity.
The 3 day week was a disaster for the economy of the time, but not as much as the zero day week introduced by Sunak and Johnson to “protect the NHS”

Paul Ashley
Paul Ashley
3 months ago

“Only now … are policymakers realising the potentially catastrophic implications of their gung-ho approach towards Russia.”

But are they also realizing the more basic catastrophic implications of the related issue, the insanity of the phony climate change green energy scam?

Mark Goodge
Mark Goodge
3 months ago

What the author calls a “gung ho” reponse to the War of Putin’s Ego is the only one that is morally justifiable in the short term and politically justifiable in the long term. The problem is that liberal democratic nations have, in the past, been far too willing to sacrifice their principles on the altar of cheap imported oil and gas, hoping that if they keep the money flowing then their suppliers won’t rock the boat. The folly of this approach has been laid bare by Russia’s aggression, and there’s no short term solution to our lack of energy security. All we can do right now is try to mitigate the effects in the meantime while we set about fundamentally redesigning our energy markets to remove our reliance on imports from countries that don’t share our commitment to freedom and humanity.

Christian Moon
Christian Moon
3 months ago
Reply to  Mark Goodge

Next up – the West’s War to save the Uighurs.
Episode 1 – Tibet. Episode 2 – Tianmen Square. Episode 3 – Hong Kong.

Last edited 3 months ago by Christian Moon
Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago
Reply to  Christian Moon

An interesting take I read recently on Tibet. Gordon Brown’s “I save the world plan” of QE/Low interest rates in 2007/08 crisis involved the Government seeking assent from the Chinese. The price of that? Tibet. The UK basically let China have Tibet. Now that is what I call an “Ethical Foreign Policy”, but only if you redefine ‘ethical’.

Colin MacDonald
Colin MacDonald
3 months ago
Reply to  Mark Goodge

I thought from the beginning that waging economic war on Russia would have no effect, would likely harm us more than them. I would have preferred just blowing up Russian tank columns and then denying it. Javelins? What Javelins? In any case the Russians think we’re all poised to march on Moscow, what difference would military intervention make.

andrew harman
andrew harman
3 months ago

Pleasing polemic but the apostrophe police have issued a warrant for his arrest.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago
Reply to  andrew harman

They’ll probably be after me too then. But as I say, they are free, so be generous with them.

John McGurk
John McGurk
3 months ago

I applaud Fazi for his prescient analysis, however we need more policy detail about what “state ownership” entails as we are right to be suspicious. Is it big state bureaucratically controlled “Morrisonian” type after the labour politician. Or is it another form of elite and increasingly third sector controlled bureaucracy such as putting Shelter or Citizens advice in control? The risk is these people are part of the consensus on the need for authoritarian intervention and they exist because dependency and welfarism is at the centre of their mission. a A much more localised and democratically controlled utlity networks, possibly allied to local government, citizens directly and local small business. Local government is currently controlled by party grifters but they can be much more easily displaced by motivated campaigning. The Scottish Independence thinker and policy specialist Robin McAlpine has great ideas on this from a social democratic perspective, whilst exposing the useless neo-liberal metropolitans of the SNP.

Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
3 months ago

Good read with much to commend it. Cant see the elites having much to fear from 95% of Brits though however tough it gets. Might be helpful for energy security to try to find out how well politicians, civil servants and the commentariat burn.

0 0
0 0
3 months ago

I think the writer ‘forgot’ to mention that the real cause of the coming disaster is the ludicrous dash to ‘net zero’. All that the Ukraine war has done is accelerate and exacerbate the consequences.
All is explained in this short (3 minutes) YouTube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo2wmYxlstU

Patrick Heren
Patrick Heren
3 months ago

Traditional leftist tosh. They never change, they just try to adapt current events to fit their theories.

harry storm
harry storm
3 months ago

I can certainly understand why this author would make only a single reference to the country he seems to be so keen to throw under the bus. .

Last edited 3 months ago by Vilde Chaye
Harry Child
Harry Child
3 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

I think the author aught to apply his own words to the media – “What we need is knowledge, vision, wisdom, and self-restraint ” The constant short term quest for a ‘gotcha moment’ becomes boring as it rarely adds to long term solutions to intractable problems. The Times reported that the water firms had spent £160 billion in investment since becoming private companies, How much would tax have to rise to meet this sort of bill if they were nationalised?

Jake Aslam
Jake Aslam
3 months ago
Reply to  Harry Child

You don’t seem to appreciate that if they were nationalised then their profits would go to the government. That is where the £160bn in investment would come from (and more). No tax rises would be necessary.

Christian Moon
Christian Moon
3 months ago
Reply to  Jake Aslam

Have you ever seen a nationalised industry that doesn’t run at a loss?
Without the discipline of the market, no tough decision ever gets made.
This includes taking money from consumption (the NHS!) and putting it into investment in water infrastructure instead.

Edward Olmos
Edward Olmos
3 months ago
Reply to  Christian Moon

Absolutely, the US Postal,Service actual makes a profit. And before you contradict me the onerous 75 year pension guarantee that Congress foisted on it doesn’t count. It’s a deliberate Neoliberal manipulation to attempt to force privatization.

AC Harper
AC Harper
3 months ago
Reply to  Jake Aslam

Unfortunately the history of nationalised industries has been that ‘profit’ is almost always diverted into other government spending areas and not available for investment. Which is why the pressure grows for privatisation. Which leads to another round of nationalisation, and so on.
And if you keep the nationalised industry mostly out of politicians control (e.g. the NHS) it gets taken over by the interests of the careerists within it.

Edward Olmos
Edward Olmos
3 months ago
Reply to  AC Harper

That is the conundrum of bureaucracies.

Harry Child
Harry Child
3 months ago
Reply to  Jake Aslam

I lived through the era of nationalised industries and they cost the Govt of the day, Labour or Conservative, huge sums of money and how would the Govt pay for the investment but through taxes of one sort or another?.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
3 months ago
Reply to  Jake Aslam

With all due respect, are you joking here? You are aware that “the Government” which is solely funded by you and I and every other tax payer, already spends well in excess of what it takes in every year to the tune of trillions of $ in total. There is no such thing as a profit in government today.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago
Reply to  Jake Aslam

Who are you planning to nationalise? Octopus? Centrica? OVO? EDF?
or are you thinking Shell, BP?
Here’s some bad news. a) EDF is a large part French owned, now much as I’d be amused to nationalise it, it has thanks to France’s price cap a 5 Billion Euro debt. So I guess you’ll only nationalise the UK arm. OK the bad news is their working nuclear plants are in France. Next any generators they have in the UK aren’t as far as I am aware producing their own gas or coal & their nuclear plant isn’t built yet.
b) Ovo etc – Shades of the Northern Wreck in the financial crisis, Ovo buy gas on the wholesale market and sell on to consumers. Price cap the consumer end and not the wholesale end and the taxpayer pays the bills when they go bust. Northern Wreck borrowed short and lent long, so when 2008 meant credit squeeze, the loans remained ‘long’ but they couldn’t roll over their ‘short’ loans – so boom!
c) Try nationalising any oil major – the only thing you get are our North Sea fields. BP/Shell will simply move HQ and still exploit their other global assets. (Tho’ now we’ve screwed them over Russia, they probably won’t be moving there)
We already tax our N Sea fields over the odds so much that most oil majors aren’t overly keen on being there. A windfall tax even has Norway’s oil company thinking of pulling out.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/norway-threatens-abandon-4-5bn-150000994.html 
Finally, a word for the ‘Greens’
One day you may get Net Zero, but you’ll kill billions if you try it in any of the timescales currently mentioned, AND even assuming you can, it ain’t going to be as straightforward as you believe for the UK.
https://www.withouthotair.com/synopsis10.pdf

Michael Joseph
Michael Joseph
3 months ago
Reply to  Harry Child

The water companies have also paid out £72m in dividends to shareholders since privatisation. Some, if not all, of this money could have been diverted to investment.

Christian Moon
Christian Moon
3 months ago
Reply to  Michael Joseph

The dividends paid out are the price paid for the funds to make the investment.
Your sums only work if you think that government money instead comes free.
I invite you to consider the present inflation and its consequences.

Iris C
Iris C
3 months ago
Reply to  Michael Joseph

How much money did the shareholders put in to modernising the industry, one must ask. That is at the crux of the issue.

Andrew Wise
Andrew Wise
3 months ago
Reply to  Iris C

Billions
thats how capitalism works, investors buy shares in companies and companies use the money to invest in modernisation and product development
companies aim to make a profit and return some of that to the shareholders as a reward for the shareholders investment in them
bingo

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  Harry Child

None (obviously!) if the govt charged what the privateers charge! And also none if the govt charged less, ie current costs minus the exorbitant profits and obscene salaries!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

I think he is rather trying to stop you from throwing yourselves under the £250m a week bus!

Colin MacDonald
Colin MacDonald
3 months ago

“READ YOUR METERS… I started reading them every week, tinkered with the thermostat and timings, and knocked over a half from my gas bills” Professor David MacKay. This comes from his Ted Talk, in case you think he’s another member of the Green Blob, the talk was titled “a reality check on renewables”. You can’t just pull new gas production out of the hat, even if you lift all restrictions on fracking etc, you won’t see any new gas for a year or so, I modestly propose using your head and cut consumption. If gas prices double but your consumption halves then you haven’t spent any more. Or perhaps the government can bung you a subsidy, if you’re deserving, and we can sort the supply demand mismatch using power cuts. Professor MacKay was an actual scientist, not some halfwit with a sociology degree, so I think his opinion has some weight.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago

My gas is not a problem. All the computers that are running in my house from all the ‘work from homers’ (OK 2) mean the electricity is the problem & that is hammered by the addition of subsidies for solar (for the rich) and windmills (probably for the even richer!)

rob monks
rob monks
3 months ago

this is a good piece. I will have to reread it and there is plenty there. As one other commentator pointed out the left, which should be the conscience of a country, has abandoned labour. It has been focused mostly on identity politics which can be a bit divisive..
I still think the left would have better solutions than the neoliberal approach which has failed. I don’t think bringing energy provision under state control is just socialist idiocy. The Thatcher neoliberalism has failed but people don’t want to admit that the idea of a market-run society is a bit well, fucked.

charles pickles
charles pickles
3 months ago

A worthy article. Not mentioned because of its generalisation is the enemy within: the elites of the civil service whose role has been to uphold the grip of the European Commission and other global elites (being part of their individual career paths). Together with the weakness of our elected representatives in dealing with them, the inability to challenge and be critical effectively, and openly as necessary, any deviation from their direction of travel is not permitted.

Phil Rees
Phil Rees
3 months ago

Grams I’m mention suggests to me this is written by a Marxist. In which case one might think he would be c**k-a-hoop as the cultural Marxist project comes to fruition in which woke politics marches through all our institutions, leaving wreckage in its wake!

Mash Mallow
Mash Mallow
3 months ago

Failed, confuscating cultural marxist. Gramscian adjective gave it away. No more democratic than Capital Elitists. Both extremes abhor the common people.

JP Edwards
JP Edwards
3 months ago

Increase capacity. Increase capacity. Increase capacity. It starts with increasing capacity … then increase supply. We have plenty of energy in the UK. Produce it at a fair price to consumers – sell the surplus abroad.

Jane H
Jane H
3 months ago

Deep state’s Henry Kissinger’s long term friend and ardent admirer is Russia’s President Putin. Could all the recent events have been a deliberate attempt to destroy Western economies, cause global chaos thereby furthering a global reset?

Geoffrey O'Connell
Geoffrey O'Connell
3 months ago

I think this is somewhat hyperbolic. Looking subjectively the EU has had some unintended consequences with powerful elites and corps holding it to randsom but that could be explained by the hegemony of the US fiscal control over world markets. However the EU has been very successful in regulatory domination in the world Including the US to gain access to its markets. This has been advantageous to standards for European consumers. The northen European counties also have a greater fear of Russian expansionism than we do ourselves and the response more urgent even if ours is more political posturing. The energy shock will of course be painful as it was in the 1970s but likewise will change the course of our economies and might well prove to be our saviour in the longer term by saving the planet and making us more energy self sufficient.

Kenny Harris
Kenny Harris
3 months ago

All boris had to do was replace fossil fuel generators with renewable as it came on stream but no zac Goldsmith had Jon’o ear and he closed down coal fired generators stopped investment in the North Sea and ruled out franking for gas, now we have sky rocketing energy prices when we could have been getting the energy we needed at home, this is what you get when political leaders are coming from oxbridge ect they have very little common sense on how we live.

Fred Paul
Fred Paul
3 months ago

I’ve been waiting for some time now to see what the governments were up to in the coming winter. With the war in Ukraine, it seems winter is coming to the aid of Russia once again. The bottom line is the sooner we get off oil, the better for the ecology and national independence. Nuclear power will buy us time until we find something better. And who wants to be held for ransom with fossil fuels? Look up molten salt reactors. It is a far safer technology than the systems we have now. But why aren’t we moving in that direction? Because the energy people are true capitalists who think of the bottom line first and never the people. Would you trust the national defence to a contractor? I think the article is spot on. Our democracies are not working. We only have to look at the Americans to see that. And the supper rich control it all.
Canada has developed a new form of nuclear power called a molten salt reactor. In truth, this idea was available in the 50s, however, the technology wasn’t available to make it work. It is much safer than the nuclear naval technology that the Americans pushed. The reason why we don’t have it is the word nuclear. And the fossil energy providers made sure that the politicians would walk away from it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  Fred Paul

Small is beautiful: such plants can be regional (or even more local?) Let the people decide if they want it or not.. localise AMAP and maybe democracy can be restored from the ground up? Take back control …from central government! It is no longer fit for purpose except perhaps for defence and nationwide transport infrastructure and the like. In doing so the puppeteers will lose their puppets! Lobbying should be in public view ie the actual lobbying itself on camera: all other lobbying (in secret) to be a serious crime for both lobbyists and politicians akin to insider trading only more serious!

Bella Moetto
Bella Moetto
3 months ago

After WW2 Bretton-Woods was designed to prevent another 1929 moment; a crash which deregulation led to in 2008. It seems self-evident to me that huge accumulated financial power, the recognized medium of social exchange, has too much leverage over government, if it can eg threaten to close the ATM’s & pull out, if any policy is mooted not in its own particular interests, no matter the damage to society as a whole, which seems increasingly dysfunctional, and on a race to the bottom, that could end, again, in slave-labour camps, 1930s-style.
There needs to be global recognition that all humans have rights to means of survival based on local rates & conditions perhaps?
Values contain an interconnected but contradictory social duality.
True human wealth is a society in which the most vulnerable are well-treated and cared about; that’s healthy, literate, politically engaged in a proper democratic and informed way, uniting heads and hands.
Instead of ever greater monetary riches being the acme of human achievement, why not the delight of curiosity in mutual problem solving with respected colleagues as the good life? Interesting, satisfying, self-activity as real human fulfillment and pleasure, with an end to all forms of human slavery eg extreme division of human labour treating people as mere mechanical cogs, denying our creative potential in so many, unnecessarily.

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
3 months ago

Energy caps for consumers merely disguise the true cost of energy by pushing the burden onto businesses (whose prices aren’t capped) , who either go out of business or pass the costs on which eventually reach … guess who?

There is no magic lever to prevent this except by providing more energy.

Last edited 3 months ago by Brendan O'Leary
Max Price
Max Price
3 months ago

If there was ever a time for the Left to abandon its “progressive” social policies and get back to the economics (something it always should have stuck to) now is the time.
The last line is interesting. We are heading for a new dark age but to quote earlier in the article the crisis isn’t “ economic, political, social and ideological” but rather spiritual.
I’m glad I won’t be here to see it.

Richard Barrett
Richard Barrett
3 months ago

I would like Fazi to be right, but I’m afraid the opposite may be true. The most likely scenario in the UK is election of a Starmer government and a return to the EU, after which no-one will challenge the elite again in our lifetime.

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
3 months ago

Terrifying prospect. But too pessimistic, or too cynical. Social media has sown the seeds of discourse outside the control of elites, at least thus far.

Last edited 3 months ago by Douglas McNeish
Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago

The EU has to survive the winter and then 2 more years.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago

But Starmer has said just the opposite! Oh, I get it: that’s just a ruse so as not to lose Brexiteer votes right? I hope you’re right: It’d be nice to have you back!

Nicholas Taylor
Nicholas Taylor
3 months ago

Having been enslaved for so long to the imperative of finding new ways to consume energy, maybe finding new ways not to consume it may turn out to be a good thing.

Martin Johnson
Martin Johnson
3 months ago

The first 90% is about how the governing elites no longer represent the needs of the people, and the solution is to give them even more direct control of Big Energy?
No, the problem is much deeper and more structural than that.

marit stevens
marit stevens
3 months ago

We are in the the position, fortunate in the UK but all too normal in the developing world, to be planning to burn wood this winter. Gas or even coal would be better but that’s what happens when you impose fuel poverty on people. I believe a certain Bjorn Lomberg said something similar.

Barry Stokes
Barry Stokes
3 months ago

Has anyone mentioned Klaus Schwab, The Great Reset, Davos and the WEF yet?

Robert Eagle
Robert Eagle
3 months ago

When I read the word Gramsci I reach for my gun

Drew W
Drew W
3 months ago

I enjoyed the article and seeing de-democratisation / depoliticisation unpacked and clearly articulated.

To me it seems doubtful that it will be satisfactorily resolved through the active engagement of electorates using the vote available to them.

We form the society that needs to act, and imo we have been so conditioned that the level of constructive engagement required will not happen; i.e. there will be grumbling and mumbling, but not engagement that results in the changes we say we want.

There is a dearth of quality candidates for any elected role, not just MPs. Irrespective of this, who of us always votes and can always vote, e.g. who enrols to be a member of a NHS Foundation trust and be allowed to vote?

Are we a frog that is almost boiled?

John Shea
John Shea
3 months ago

No doubt Mr. Fazi would have joined the chorus decrying Churchill’s “gung-ho approach to” Hitler in 1940.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago
Reply to  John Shea

Stalin killed more than Hitler, yet we supported him. Russia is not the USSR, but the US treated it as such. Basically Ukraine and Russia are the two biggest former Soviet States now corrupt oligarchies (Ukraine arguable the more corrupt) fighting over Soviet drawn borders. All that spiced up by the West lying about NATO expansion East IF Russia broke up the Soviet Union and allowed East Germany to reunite with the West. History is an inconvenient truth in this war.

Kenny Harris
Kenny Harris
3 months ago

Maggie might have felt she was doing the right thing privatising utilities but she didn’t understand greed within corporate business we have been ripped of by these industries chief directors pay themselves anything they can get away with ie used to be around 18 times the average Wage now its 80 times or more, look at what trickle down economics have brought about manual working class areas have the backside hanging out there trousers the young cannot afford a mortgage serious crime runs amock there will be trouble ahead.

Fanny Blancmange
Fanny Blancmange
3 months ago
Reply to  Kenny Harris

Good old Maggie loving the flattery laid on thick by her courtier-spivs as she blazed their trail for them. She was the most useful of idiots.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago
Reply to  Kenny Harris

Au contraire, Maggie lauded Greed as a good thing! Memories are short. It was about the time she said there is no such thing as society (only individuals)… when the grapes of wrath are sown it remains (in this case for the next generation) to reap the whirlwind!

Last edited 3 months ago by Liam O'Mahony
Peter Shaw
Peter Shaw
3 months ago

There will be no civil disobedience in the winter. People will be too cold to bother.

Christian Moon
Christian Moon
3 months ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

Like in Canada.

Kevin Johnson
Kevin Johnson
3 months ago

Wait a minute: Government seizure of energy producers gives control back to the people? What?

Barry Stokes
Barry Stokes
3 months ago

You took the words out my mouth. In fact yours were calmer than mine.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
3 months ago

Might as well jump off this mortal coil tomorrow then?

Jeez, c’mon Unherd – you’re indulging in the same end of the world catastrophising that the Daily Mail specialises in, and more recently the Daily Telegraph. Could we have some clear eyed calm analysis please?

The world ain’t gonna blow up, from climate change or from nukes; we’ll get food and energy somehow; our mortal enemy Russia is destroying itself in Ukraine, and our next mortal enemy China is destroying its economy with COVID. It’s looking pretty rosy in the west when we can gripe so much about the stupidity of identity politics. I bet people in Africa, the Middle East and Asia would love to have our ‘problems’.

Richard Bell
Richard Bell
3 months ago

“Great Britains Second Industrial Revolution and a New Prime Minister” 
The coming of a New Prime Minister got me thinking so here are some thoughts from an Englishman in the USA.
The United Kingdom is a GREAT country but looking at it from the outside for the last 20 years I now fear for the word GREAT in “Great Britain”.
My focus is on something we all use, we all need every day and is required to keep the world moving ……. “ENERGY”
Like in many other parts of Europe and the World it looks to me like crazies have taken over in the UK. Green policies and Net Zero Emissions are leading England into the madness of so called renewable energy. This is not a fanciful observation, UK and European radicals think that Solar Panels and Wind Turbines will power the future saving us from a mild manageable temperature increase which is absolutely no threat to any British person let alone mankind.
They cannot save us from a non existent threat and now Germany is in the midst of that realisation. Germany is the European poster child and has spent vast sums of money over many years to get just about nowhere. What they have ended up with are outrageously high domestic and industrial electrical prices, no Nuclear, dependence on Russian Gas and now the fact that digging up coal is about the only choice they have of keeping the lights on. If they really had been worried about Co2 emissions in the first place they would have followed the French down the Nuclear path and saved themselves a great deal of pain.
Back to the United Kingdom and its prospective new leader. None of them have yet to my knowledge mentioned Green Polices or Net Zero. The British population sits atop a vast potential supply of energy which is in the form of Natural Gas. In a similar way to the USA we could be Energy independent. We already have an existing Gas infrastructure and if we moved forward with Fracking the existing gas under our feet just think how far ahead of Europe and the World we could be in the next few years.
Residential electric bills could come down to sensible affordable levels, domestic heating costs would plummet. Industry could become competitive again which could potentially lead to new jobs. Cheaper fertiliser could be sold to our farmers and then around the world. Our food, our manufacturing industry, our population could flourish. Our people could take advantage of an amazing cost effective natural resource that is the GREAT BRITISH ENERGY of Natural Gas.
All this can be achieved NOW with current technology and in a relatively short period of time. It needs courageous leadership to get the GREAT back in Great Britain and move us forward into THE SECOND INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. 
A small benefit would be potential reduction in the emission of British Co2 which currently only stands at about 1% so in reality not making a big difference to the world. If we did this and politicians saw the light it could be a transition to a cleaner Nuclear future, we already have the makings of small nuclear power with Rolls Royce. Has someone in our government the courage to pull the United Kingdom out of the “ Green Pit Of Doom “ and up into the Natural Gas Light of a Second revolution ?
This energy revolution was already achieved during the last administration in the United States so it is a proven pathway to cheaper energy costs and energy independence. It is also plane to see that the current Green Progressive policies of the current American government have been an unmitigated disaster and do not work, sadly the USA is following the failed policy of Germany back into the pit.
DO NOT let the UK follow like a lamb to the slaughter into the catastrophic madness of so called Green Technology. WAKE UP and smell the GREAT BRITISH ROSE that is Natural Gas Energy and let it catapult us into a NEW INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 
.

Thomas Backenstose
Thomas Backenstose
3 months ago

Find it interesting, after a thoughtful analysis of the EU’s model of centralized planning with no accountability to the voter, the solution proposed for energy crisis in the UK is either the nationalization of gas and oil, or one that is centrally regulated and controlled from London.
Capitalism and political freedom are two sides of the same coin. Government regulation be it plutocracy, socialism, globalist cabals and tyranny are likewise two sides of the same coin.

Gabriel
Gabriel
3 months ago

Socialism is the only answer to what has been engineered through these 2 major manufactured events: Covid, Ukraine. That’s why the author correctly identify as a solution for energy companies, respectively to be taken from private hands in so called “public hands” (if you still believe in empty concepts). Well, isn’t his fault that the cruel reality is this.

Vici C
Vici C
3 months ago

Will the government take back control ? The government is pretty powerless in the face of big business. But the people will start to fill that void. It will take time but the seeds are being sown.

Caroline Murray
Caroline Murray
3 months ago

Nobody in their right mind thought that ‘taking back control’ meant greater democracy in the UK: it meant increasing power without scrutiny for the plutocrats and their backers who have been running the country for the past 12 years.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
3 months ago

I disagree. Now that Britons are freed from the EU blob, they can get to work doing something about the layabouts in Parliament. It’s a slow process, probably won’t happen all at once.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

They got rid of 80 MPs last time around. IF only ALL Brexiteers voted for The Reform Party, we’d get rid of another 410. 410 constituencies had Brexit majorities. The remainers are concentrated in the other 200 or so. SO every Brexiteer votes for the Reform Party next time around and we’ll get a landslide that makes Boris 80 seats look tiny. Even better, there is nothing that ‘tactical voting’ can do to stop it. Worth a try I reckon. 😉

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago

..of course it did mean just that (power to the plutocrats, not the people). That is as clear as day. So why do so many disagree??

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
3 months ago

Surely the British people didn’t think “Taking Back Control..” meant control was to revert to the British people did they? How naïve! Of course not! It meant contol reverting to the British elite from European bureaucrats and scrapping the latter’s silly ideas in socialism, equity, labour rights and the right to protest! All those silly democratic ideas to be ditched in favour of good old British values like “Divide and Conquer”, “Winner takes All” and “Devil take the Hindmost”. Anyone who thought it would be different hasn’t been observing political events very closely.
Anyone who thought trading nations would favour exploitative Britain with its 50m population and shaft the 600m of EU must be really deluded. Anyone who thought the US would be well disposed to supporting a breach of international law on Northern Ireland (with its proud ‘Irish’ president and indispensable 15% highly active ‘Irish’ vote in America is equally deluded. And expecting the former British colonies to flock to Britain’s aid in gratitude for centuries of exploitation the same..
Anyone who though the might of GB’s much depleted military force would have Putin quaking in his boots is living in the past. It’s a new world and GB needs to catch up and catch on before it sinks into the waves. The days of ruling the waves are long gone: and the dirty tricks of MI6 et al having sway internationally (eg in the Ukrainian coup) are fading very fast. Being a sycophant stooge to the US in a bold attempt to mimic its past is akin to the Wizard of Oz.. even a child can see it’s all fake and fantastical – an old man behind a flimsy screen.
The reality is biting hard and will sadly bite much harded as the cold light of (winter) day dawn. I’m not sure what taking to the streets will achieve or cancelling DDs to pay energy bills but it’s worth a try maybe, in the short term: who knows?

David Fülöp
David Fülöp
3 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I just wanted to point out that Britain has close to 68 million people ( on paper, in reality it should be closer to 70 million ) and the European Union has 448 million inhabitants.

Roger Ledodger
Roger Ledodger
3 months ago
Reply to  David Fülöp

Regarding how many millions there are in the UK. Over a decade ago I worked on one of the Supermarkets data warehouses, and intriguingly enough, at the same time (nowt to do with me, honest Guv!) the press reported that Supermarket data suggested that the population of the UK was not the 67 million claimed, but over 70 million. Given that was over a decade ago, I wonder if even 70 million is now too low a guess.