Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Ding Dong the Leech is Dead…

…in the water.

Huhne, no longer able to cling to power like the proverbial turd to a blanket, has finally resigned after being charged with perverting the course of justice.  Now comes the circling of the climate change wagons. Neil O’Brien, Director of Policy Exchange writes in the Daily Telegraph:

The next climate change minister must learn from Chris Huhne’s successes and failures

There were successes? Well I suppose the Titanic was deemed a success right up until the moment it hit an iceberg and sank.

Never has a Lib Dem away-day received so much media attention.

Yeah, a cabinet minister charged with perverting the course of justice tends to raise eyebrows and elevate the media to fever-pitch.

Rolling news cameras are currently showing absolutely fascinating footage of… a door somewhere in Eastbourne. It doesn’t seem to be opening or closing very much, but presumably behind it Chris Huhne’s political career is being weighed in the balance…

The words sink, lead and duck spring joyfully to mind.

I feel terrible for his clever and nice ex-wife. But his successor has a huge and important job to do. What should the new climate change minister keep, and what what should be changed?

Sometimes revenge comes with a price tag.  Obviously Ms Pryce reckons it’s worth it.  Good for her.

Huhne had one big success: protecting a stable nuclear policy, particularly after the Fukushima disaster. While some other countries like Germany suddenly changed direction in a knee-jerk response, Huhne kept the long-delayed policy to build new nuclear power stations on track. Given the Lib Dems’ historically anti-nuclear policy, this was a particular success.

So where are the new reactors then?  How come we aren’t seeing any new ones being commissioned and built despite them being given the go-ahead?  Could it be that all that’s left in the energy kitty is moths and empty promises because  the fruits of legal extortion subsidies are constantly diverted to dance to the Greenies tune prop up uneconomical, unsustainable, and unreliable renewables?  I see lots of windmills being erected but there’s sod all for nuclear, a proven reliable source of energy.

But also made two big mistakes, which are linked.

Firstly, he failed to challenge Labour’s unnecessarily expensive approach to reducing carbon emissions, which focusses on deploying lots of high-cost renewables (particularly offshore wind).

Huhne had no intention of challenging anything. He’s a weapons grade, opportunist slimeball politician who bought into the AGW scam big time and is/was pressing for a shitload more of that unnecessary expense in the shape of wind farms.  Or have you somehow you managed not to notice that, Mr. O’Brien?

This squanders resources which could be much better spent on either delivering the same short-term carbon reduction more cheaply, or – better still – on investments to develop new technologies which could be genuinely competitive with fossil fuels.

Short termism is killing us and it’s an evil that is in bountiful supply so you can stuff it.  BTW why the hell are you wibbling on about carbon?,  It’s carbon dioxide you moron, a harmless, life giving invisible gas the production of which wealth redistributing Marxists warmists want to control reduce and/or sequestrate.  Or has that passed you by as well? However, you’re correct about squandering money.  Government get’s an A* for that.  We’re living the nightmare of technologies designed to “compete” with fossil fuels.  Scrap the subsidies and feed-in tarrifs and there isn’t any competition because fossil fuels will win hands down every bloody time on an even playing field.

Deploying lots of known technologies which are expensive and have little potential to improve in future (wind) means that Britain is making very little contribution to fighting global warming. As a tiny island in a huge global economy, we won’t make much impact unless we concentrate on developing new technologies with the potential to be competitive globally.

It’s new “technology” that got us into this mess you berk.  The planet is cooling and our ability to generate energy has had the balls ripped off it.  We need energy security and new power stations NOW.  What we don’t need is vague promises of pie in the sky gizmoism that may or may not be available at some indeterminate time in the future.

Secondly, he has been presiding over the dismantling of the competitive electricity market – a UK policy success emulated across the world – through the ill-thought-through “Electricity Market Reform” process. Rather than letting the market operate, Government increasingly controls a whole range of detailed decisions, which chip away at the market’s ability to operate well.

Dismantling?  Willfully clubbing it to death with a neutron cosh and shoving the entire country towards the event horizon of a blackout hole more like.  Where were you when all this crap was being set up?  How come we are only hearing from you now that AGW is no longer a major cause célèbre?

Several of these controls are part of the overly-expensive, micro-managing approach to climate change policy, like the Renewables Obligation, its ‘banding’ to give different subsidy levels to different renewables, feed-in tariffs, the Carbon Emission Reduction Target, a Carbon Capture and Storage deployment subsidy (enabled in legislation), the EU Industrial Emissions Directive, the EU Emissions Trading System and the Climate Change Levy.

The combined effect of government interventions has been to distract and prevent market players from taking investment decisions, innovating, revealing and adapting to new information. Instead they now look to, and wait for, government to make decisions on which technologies are favoured, by how much and what the planned outcome for the generation is. Market decision-making is replaced with ‘monopoly’ decision-making by government.

Big government leads to corporatism: resources are wasted on ‘rent-seeking’: there are now more than ten UK organisations, each representing particular generation technology sectors, lobbying government for policies and/or subsidies to favour their sectors. You may have seen adverts in the papers encouraging you to cash in on the Feed In Tariff while the courts rule on it. There has been increased politicisation, and frequent tweaking and ‘fine-tuning’, of policy.

No shit, Sherlock.  Run out of Mogadon did you?  Woken up at last have you?  What on earth did we ignorant proles do before you finally stared harsh fiscal reality in the face and shared your gosh-golly-really? thoughts with us? Better late than never, I suppose.  You’ll be waking up to the reality that AGW is a fraud next.

Maybe not.  Snrrrrrr grunt heeeeeze….

Getting this right is hugely important for growth and jobs. With a different approach we could still hit all our green targets, but save every household in the country £400 a year. If the new minister wants to help families under pressure and do something for the environment, we need to change course now.

The stupid, it burns…

22 Comments

  1. Edward Lud says:

    As much as I react to the news of Huhne’s fall with righteous schadenfreude, I haven’t followed the details terribly closely and, now thinking about it seriously for the first time it occurs to me that the Crown might have a credibility problem with its star witness if she did indeed, as we are led by her to understand, take one for Team Huhne all those years ago. Combine that with her being an ex-wife in possession of a well-ground tree-felling tool and Huhne exercising his right to trial by 12 of his, ahem, peers and…er, suddenly I’m not feeling so confident. Assuming I’ve got the right end of the factual stick…

  2. NickM says:

    If they can even summon-up twelve Huhne-like characters in all of the United Kingdom we is fucked. Better just to take all his assets, brand him with the word “twat” on his forehead and give him up to the life of a mendicant. I am not joking because I, personally, would also furnish him with a kicking up the scrot-bag that would never be forgotten.

    That on general principles.

  3. bloke in spain says:

    When I read the article in the Torygraph, one phrase stuck out:

    “I feel terrible for his clever and nice ex-wife….”

    No doubt she’s clever. Although, just how clever we’ll be finding out. But nice enough to feel terrible about?
    Hang on a sec.
    The outcome of Huhne’s trial will show that Vicky Pryce did one of two things:

    Perverted the course of justice by stating she was driving the car when it was clocked for speeding.

    Lied to all & sundry that Huhne got her to take the points. If she’s made a statement to the police to that effect, that’s perjury isn’t it?

    Either way, can’t see there’s reason to feel terrible on her behalf.

    It’s an interesting insight into the mentality surrounding the Westminster village, though. Apparently the standards of behaviour the rest of us are supposed to adhere to don’t really apply to them. They’re nice people one feels terrible about.

    Wonder if rope’s cheaper bought in bulk?

  4. john in cheshire says:

    From what I’ve seen/heard of Ms Pryce, ‘nice’ is not an adjective I’d use to describe her.

  5. Edward Lud says:

    Bloke in Spain, that was rather my point. My guess is the CPS is kicking this into touch because it feels it has to, because it’ll haver concluded that it’s for a jury to decide whom to believe, but without any great conviction that they’ll get this past the goalie. The more I think about it, the more fatally tainted his ex missus must be. Shame

  6. RAB says:

    Well first off, I can’t help feel that the comments already posted are doing a dis-service to Lynne’s post, that is to do with the wider issue of our supposed energy policy for our future prosperity as a Nation, and how Huhne has dithered and dodged the reality and advocated Green fantasy instead, for his own ego and agrandisement.

    So given that you are all intent on playing the man and not the ball, and wearing my lawyers hat here, let’s look at the facts.

    The offence of speeding occured in 2003. Huhne, a Lib/Dem nonentity was at the end of his limit in points before a driving ban. Not in his wildest dreams could he have expected to be a Cabinet Minister at that point in time, given as he was, a member of a party with 50/60 seats that hadn’t had a sniff of power since the first world war. So no Govt car and driver if he lost his licence.

    He needs the licence, so he asks his wife, and mother of his three children, who still believes her husband to be the faithful family man he so liked to portray himself in his re-election literature. No skin off her nose, she will not lose her licence, so she takes the hit. This is obviously a speed camera bust by the way or eyeball evidence would have proved who was driving at the time. An admission of guilt by her, no further investigation needed, fine paid problem solved.

    Fast forward to 2010 and the Huhne is in a totally different position, now with great prospects and a Cabinet seat in the offing. A tabloid newspaper (damn their prying eyes, eh?) finds out he’s playing away, and with a lapsed lesbian at that. He dumps wifey in the half time interval of a football match and rushes forward towards his ego driven destiny regardless of the hurt and devistation he has caused to his wife and family (shades of Robin Cook).

    Is wifey pissed off? you betcha! (wouldn’t you be? On his own admission she was bringing home the bacon more than he) and she has an ace up her sleeve in the revenge is sweet stakes. She was somwhere else entirely when the “Crime” occured, a conference at the LSE.

    Believe me, the CPS would have loved to have brought no charges here and issued the standard “move along now, nothing to see here” but they just can’t, the facts are too glaring. Ms Pryce has him by the short and curlies. She is prepared to do the time for the crime she committed in the hope it gets her lying fantasist shit of a husband out of politics forever.

    Is she a nasty woman? Well it depends how you treat them doesn’t it? a woman scorned? Certainly, and you don’t want to do that with ladies of Greek descent I’m told. But is she a liar? which is the only other conclusion you can come to? I don’t think so.

  7. JuliaM says:

    “The next climate change minister must learn from Chris Huhne’s successes and failures…”

    Since it looks like Davey is every bit as ‘Green and keen’ as the late unlamented Huhne, I’m not sure why we think anything will change.

  8. Lynne says:

    Thanks RAB. :D

    I view the Pryce sitch from a female perspective.

    Wife.
    Mother.
    Breadwinner.
    Nurturer of spouse’s political ambitions.
    Protector of spouse’s traveling convenience to the extent of perjuring herself.
    Publicly spurned for an arse-ugly failed lesbian slapper.
    Expected to suck it up, maintain the spousal code of omerta and continue manning the loyalty barricades in support of an arrogant, back-stabbing, worm’s snatch of a man not worth piddling on should his trousers catch fire (as they seem to do on a regular basis).

    If I’d been humiliated and scraped off like shit from a shoe in the manner she has I too would be sorely tempted to transform into a soul-sucking, demon spawned hell-bitch.

    On steroids.

  9. Talwin says:

    It is surely unlikely that the ex-Mrs. H. will find it necessary/appropriate to stand up in court and say ‘I lied’.

    Given CPS’ characteristic reluctance to charge our lords and masters with anything unless they absolutely have to, doesn’t it suggest there will be shed-loads of evidence to back up ex-wife’s allegation?

    And seeing that ex-Mrs. H. set this particular hare running, the logic must be that she may well plead guilty. And isn’t a guilty plea often an element in sentencing? And wouldn’t that leave a not-guilty co-defendant, found guilty, in the proverbial?

    Happy days.

  10. John Galt says:

    @RAB:

    But is she a liar? which is the only other conclusion you can come to? I don’t think so.

    However, she’s either lying about the speeding offence & being at the LSE at the time or she lied to the police. Can’t have it both ways (or none).

    In fact it allows the CPS to use one of the great lines in the prosecutors argument “So Ms. Pryce, we’re you lying then or are you lying now?”

  11. bloke in spain says:

    All very noble this, girls stick together stuff, Lynne but do you really want to return to the ‘women are chattels’ days?

    At the time of the alleged offence, the Huhne was an MEP, raking in equivalently more in salary & generous expenses than the meagre pittance he’s forced now to scrape by on as a mere government minister. Pryce was Chief Economic Adviser at the DTI. They both had their jaws clamped tightly on the public teat.
    Let’s look at Pryce’s employment choice, shall we? She’s not advising Shell on economics. If we don’t like her advice we haven’t got the option of driving past the Shell station & filling up with BP. What she advises will become part of government policy. If we don’t follow the requirements her advice advocates, we will find ourselves standing in a court, much like the one she’ll be attending, at risk of financial penalty or loss of liberty. It’s even conceivable, bearing in mind the way all government policies are interrelated, that the presence of that speed camera on the M11 owes its existence to policies she’s advised.
    If one takes the more charitable explanation of Pryce’s behaviour – she took the points for the Huhne – she’s saying “What applies to the ‘little people’ shouldn’t apply to important people like me & my spouse. Our exalted positions preclude us being bound by the same laws as we expect them to obey.”

    Can’t really be arsed trying to fathom the effect a change of minister will have on environmental (emphasis on the mental) policy. Governments have found the goose lays the golden ones. Conned folk into clamouring to pay higher taxes on the back of a doubtful climate change threat. Whether they’re the right taxes to address the right problem is the subject of another long & contentious argument. The Huhne is, of course, a firm believer in AGW, carbon reduction, windmills etc etc etc. He’d be as firmer an advocate of strip mining the South Down for coal if that kept him in his lucrative employment. As will any other occupier of the post.

    What pisses me mightily is that the entire political/media conspiracy know exactly how vile the people they associate with are. And revel in it.

  12. RAB says:

    Well, like I said, the CPS would never have charged them if they didn’t have pretty watertight evidence.

    It is a matter of record that she was at the LSE conference, loads of witnesses. Getting to Stanstead to pick the greasy bum up, isn’t easy it would take a couple of hours.

    As usual, it isn’t the original offence (speeding) that is the damning bit, but the coverup. They thought they were circumventing a minor inconvenience, no harm done etc. But there are emails and text messages which provide the smoking gun here.

  13. Ian B says:

    On the personalities involved in this, to me it’s a bit like watching a fight between Mubarrak supporters and the Muslim Brotherhood. They both seem pretty despicable. I’m not a big fan of revenge, and this whole “you go girl” thing. I’m with Bloke In Spain really on this.

  14. Edward Lud says:

    The CPS would never have charged without watertight evidence? Hmm, I understand your cynicism, RAB, after les affaires Mandelson, Prescott, Straw and others but times change and, currently at least, I think the CPS is susceptible to the accusation that it has turned a blind eye to the aristocracy’s misbehaviour. If they had watertight evidence, furthermore, then in the current environment as I perceive it they would have found it impossible not to charge Huhne much sooner. No, they’ll be well aware of their witness problems and will have concluded its for a jury to decide which of the two former members of Team Huhne is telling the truth on this issue.

  15. RAB says:

    Edward, I did 12 years in the Lord Chancellor’s Office for my sins, so my cynicism is based on solid fact. I was there when the CPS was created, and it has been solidly politicised from inception..

    The CPS effectively pre-judge cases. If they believe they have an 80% likelyhood of a conviction , they proceed, if not, they don’t.

    If it were just a matter of putting it to a jury to decide, then a hell of a lot more cases would get to the Crown Court.

    That is not the case with PC crimes though. Hate crime and Race crime is proceeded with as a matter of policy, whether the CPS have the slightest shred of evidence or a snowballs chance in hell of a conviction. The powers that be are extemely comfortable with this state of affairs. The proceedings themselves are used as a form of harrassment and intimidation, whether the case ends in conviction or not.

  16. Edward Lud says:

    I think your final paragraph is certainly a correct statement of the present position, RAB, and I’m aware of your pedigree from previous posts. My professional exposure to the CPS is contemporary, last week, next week and so on (not yet, I may as well add, as a target of prosecutorial interest).

    Having been responsible for derailing the thread, btw, I second your initial comment about Lynne’s post and extend my apologies in her direction.

  17. Lynne says:

    bloke in spain: All very noble this, girls stick together stuff, Lynne but do you really want to return to the ‘women are chattels’ days?

    Offering a female perspective of Pryce’s motivation for dropping herself and her ex in the ordure doesn’t mean I’m treading a path to renouncing female emancipation. I’m rather puzzled that you think it might. Your logic does not compute.

    It seems to me that everyone is happy that Huhne may be about to get his long overdue comeuppance. That it comes courtesy of his wife seems not to suit at all. Perhaps you expect her to stand meekly by her man and say nothing as would a silently suffering chattel of old. That she chose to lash out gets her labelled as a vindictive bitch. Had it been Clegg who took down Huhne over the thoroughly caddish sly leaks and the briefings against fellow ministers, would he be considered a vindictive bastard or feted as a shrewd politician? I’d put money on the latter because that overgrown skin tag he calls his cock makes all the difference.

    I’ll be honest with you. I don’t particularly like her and I don’t particularly like what she does for a living. However, I don’t blame her for what she’s done. The piece of shit she married had it coming. She was the only one with big enough balls to take him down because all of Huhne’s cabinet cronies don’t have a single shared gonad to their names. So yeah, you go girl!

    She has probably destroyed her own career and ambitions to get even. Only the deepest, most cruel wound would drive someone as intelligent as she is to do that. But she’s only a shallow, vindictive female undeserving of pity or understanding. She ought to learn to shut the fuck up and crawl back in her hole. Isn’t that what chattels are supposed to do?

    ‘Nuff said.

  18. Lynne says:

    Edward. no need to apologise. I took part in the derailing. :)

  19. bloke in spain says:

    @ Lynne 10:17 5/2

    OK. Let’s try applying my logic to a similar case & see what we come up with.

    There was a recent court proceeding that’s been mentioned in the media. Lorry driver got camera’d & got one of his mates to take the points for him. Somehow this got sussed & they both got 6 months.

    So let’s go hypothetical;
    Let’s say our two guys are really good mates. Go to the pub together. Holiday together. Go to football together. When they go to away matches they use the trucker’s car but often the pal will drive it back if the trucker’s had a drink.

    Two versions of the story.
    Version 1: They both go to the match. Trucker has a few bevvies, so his mate does the driving & get’s camara’d. When the inevitable arrives in the post, the trucker tells his mate who puts his hands up to it.
    Version 2: The mate can’t make the match, so the trucker goes alone & gets captured. He’s going to lose his licence & his job so his pal, who’s a bank manager with a clean licence, offers to take the points on his behalf. Criminal but understandable. Sort of thing mates do.

    Wind the clock forward a few years & our bank manager finds the trucker has been porking his wife. Big row & she leaves him. Generally pissed off, our ticket taker goes around telling all & sundry about how he took points for his two timing ex mate. Police get to hear & he’s in the dock.

    So how do we view our bank manager? On version 2 he’s a mug isn’t he? Should have chosen his friends more wisely. Better he now keep schtum, put it down to experience. Implicating himself in a serious offence isn’t going to get his wife back but will lose him his job.
    On Version 1 he’s just vindictively bad mouthing his ex-mate to extract revenge. As a result he’s put himself in the frame.

    Anyone got much sympathy for him? So why does the wife/husband version get more sympathy? Unless we’re saying that the husband has more power over his wife. He orders, she obeys. A chattel.

    Worse part of it is the lorry driver & his cuckolded pal are little people, aren’t they. On release they’ll both be scouring the JobCentre boards for ‘Shelfstackers Wanted’.

    Not our illustrious twosome. The odorous Huhne will, either way, be back on the green benches. Would he even have his MP’s salary docked for time in jug? OK, his career might suffer a slight hitch. Maybe the long suffering Eastbourne voters might try to oust him but they’d better make sure they dot their ‘I’s & cross their ‘T’s on any recall petition or he’s quite capable of going to court to have it annulled. He’ll be reckoning any brief sojourn in chokey eminently qualifies him for post as Justice Minister, at the very least. Ms P? How long before her backside’s warming a chair at a bank or other financial institution, all forgiven? She could even cop a couple thousand grand for a Sunday Exclusive, ghost written under the headline “My Life With Ministerial Love Rat”. Sure she’s got Max Clifford’s number in her Filofax.

    And for what? In our lorry driver’s case, loss of his licence would mean loss of his job. At least there would be an honourable motive for a conspiracy with his mate. For Huhne losing his licence? The very mildest inconvenience. A couple of column inches, page 4 & the loss of the ability to sound quite so sanctimonious when debating European speed limits. The chore of having to attach several thousand Euros worth of taxi bills to his expenses claims. It’s the one point that, if it wasn’t for the overwhelming arrogance of the man, I’d be thinking he’s not guilty. The sheer triviality of it all.

  20. Lynne says:

    bloke in spain – Your story and hypothesis, nice but completely irrelevant to the original post and my last comment to you.

    As to Huhne’s alleged guilt and potential punishment, we’ll find out soon enough. If Pryce picked up the points and the fine, as appears to be the case, they both broke the law. It was the attempt at covering up when the story leaked out that escalated things and Huhne’s infidelity and abandonment of his family that gave his ex cause to finally spill the beans. For a person holding a ministerial portfolio, his total incompetence and unsuitability to hold high office aside, such low grade behaviour reflects not only upon the man but his office. To be a cabinet minister who gets caught perverting the course of justice is not a triviality. Arrogance, no matter how far it gets up people’s noses, isn’t a criminal offence.

    I hope the courts hang the bastard out to dry if he’s found guilty.

  21. RAB says:

    You can come up with all the theoretical scenario’s you like BIS, but the crux of the matter is this…

    The original offence was extemely trivial. Probably every driver in the country has a few points on their licence , courtesy of the bastard speed cameras. But unlike this arrogant bastard, we suck it up and get on with it.

    But Huhme thinks he is above the Law, and can get away with it. He has effectively changed what started out, to use another analogy, as a shoplifting charge into one of murder.

    The Law still takes Perverting the course of Justice very seriously indeed, because the Law takes itself very seriously indeed.

    And unlike say, a woman who cries rape but is lying, and may get a slap on the wrist for it, this asshole is one of our elected representatives. He is allowed to make the laws the rest of us suffer under, and so his complete smug contempt for the law demands the highest penalty, and I hope he gets at least one year, which would disqualify him from Parliament and force a by election.

    Course I am living in fantasyland here, that will never happen. The little shit will be back, by hook or by bleedin crook, found guilty or not.

  22. Edward Lud says:

    I’d say the most common allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice relate to drivers said to have lied about who was driving their cars at a given time. The most common by some margin. I’ve prosecuted a few, and defended others (including a policeman, then soon to be an ex-ditto). As much as I despise the political class, the kind of behaviour imputed to this Huhne is not unique to him and his fellows, nor is the attitude that accompanies it.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: