Secure, Clean and Affordable?

The Energy and Climate Change Committee has recently issued a call for evidence on "Energy Prices, Profits and Poverty". The call takes as an axiom that there is a need to deliver "secure, clean and affordable" energy in the future. Is this possible or is this a conundrum too far? Security inevitably means some redundancy - or at least access to reliable alternatives at times of stress. That comes with a price tag. Similarly, as ROCs, FiTs etc. imply, clean only comes at a premium to dirty.

Now, one could argue that all that is happening here is that externalities are being more nearly properly priced. We are/will be paying for the damage that CO2, say, has done/is doing. There is a lot to be said for proper pricing of goods and bads. However, where does that takes us on the affordability axis? Into a very uncomfortable place, I'd argue.

I have no answers - there are some massive social engineering issues that could arise here. So, for me, a conundrum it remains; but one that needs resolution. Somehow I doubt that the Committee will find one soon.

Twitter, Freedom to Abuse, and the Law

Twitter and other social media have been hailed as great levellers and promoters of democracy. However, as recent events have shown there is a down side.

The storm of hate and invective that was visited upon Ryan Lanza, brother of Adam Lanza the perpetrator of the conneticut school massacre, was simple unwarranted, unfair and sickening.

Similarly Lord McAlpine saw his name being smeared across the Twittersphere with false accusation. He, now, is threatening to take many tweeters and retweeters to court.

What does all this mean? Will successful law cases make the dizzy fingered less likely to put digit to keyboard before engaging brain? Will it all backfire on Lord McA? What will the courts decide anyway?

Answers on a post card, please............

And do think twice before you tweet!

Season's Greetings To All Our Readers

Please accept with no obligation implied, my best wishes for an
environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive,
gender neutral, celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practised within
the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice or
secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular
persuasion or secular traditions of all.

And a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically
uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar
year 2013, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other
cultures whose contributions to society have helped make Britain great, (not
to imply that Britain is necessarily greater than any other country or is
the only "Britain" in the Western Hemisphere), and without regard to the
race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith, or sexual
preference of the wishee.

By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms: This greeting is
subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable provided
there is no alteration to the original. It implies no promise by the wisher
to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, is void
where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the
wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual
application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance
of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is
limited to repair of this wish or issuance of a replacement wish at the sole
discretion of the wisher.

Parliamentary Boundary Changes

How many of you know that there's a sizeable exercise going on looking at changing parliamentary constituency boundaries? Well, there is. And at the moment as far as my local ward is concerned it looks like a very flat-footed as-long-as-the-numbers-fit-that's-alright affair. We have until just Monday to send in representations. Mine, related to the Blackheath and Bramley ward is below:

Proposed Changes to Parliamentary Boundaries in England

South East England

 

The following concerns the proposed transfer of the ward of Blackheath & Wonersh from Guildford constituency to Mid Surrey (largely the current Mole Valley) constituency.

 

1.    I have been a resident of Wonersh since 1980 and a Parish Councillor for Wonersh since 2003 so these comments arise from a fair degree of local knowledge.

 

2.    I object to the proposed transfer as I believe it will marginalize residents of the ward from Westminster politics. The proposal removes them from a constituency centred on the town of Guildford with which they have a natural affinity, to one centred on Dorking for which no such affinity exists nor is likely to be created.

 

a.    The principle road connections (A281 & B2128) are with Guildford.

 

b.    The principle public transport connections (bus services 53 & 63) are with Guildford.

 

c.    The primary shopping centre for residents is Guildford.

 

d.    Access to the railway infrastructure is via Guildford station.

e.    Guildford provides the main local entertainment and leisure facilities (e.g. Yvonne Arnaud theatre, G-Live entertainment centre).

3.    The foregoing suggests that the assertion at paragraph 3.4 of your Revised Proposals document (“…….the revised proposals better reflect….local ties……”) cannot be substantiated.

4.    The proposed changes would appear to entail a net transfer of 2196 electors from Guildford constituency to Mid Surrey/Mole Valley. This is a modest change to result from a gross transfer out of 13996 electors!

5.    Much weight seems to have been placed upon the argument that the wards of Send, Clandon & Horsley, and Lovelace (currently in Mole Valley constituency) should naturally be in Guildford constituency given that they form part of Guildford Borough. These wards do, however, have much stronger links with other Mole Valley wards, and with Dorking than does Blackheath and Wonersh. There is thus likely to be a net marginalization of electors arising from the proposed changes.

Damned by Indifference?

Recently we took ourselves off to the National Theatre to see a performance of Damned by Despair, a play by a 17th century Spanish friar Tirso de Molina, in a modern version created by Frank McGuinness. I've bemoaned low theatre audiences in this blog before but, really, there is no excuse for a half-empty house for this play at one of the UK's foremost theatres.

What is it that puts people off? Admittedly this production did not get ringing endorsement from the critics but they did not totally write it off either. It is a slightly patchy affair and Frank McGuiness's script does seem a bit wayward in places. However, the overall effect is still very powerful - this is, after all, acclaimed as a masterpiece of the Spanish Golden Era - and the cast is uniformly good. Also, as it is part of the Travelex season it is possible to have a seat for just £12.

Could it be that audiences are just indifferent to anything slightly challenging or out of the ordinary? Will they only flock to 5 star rated shows? There is a hackneyed saying: "Use it or loose it". Maybe this will not be true of the National but for other theatres it is already a reality. There are still a few dates left in this current run - go on - dig out that £12 (or more for a premium seat) - and enjoy the experience.