Labour IS working

Tuesday, 9 February 2010

‘ Jobcentres are doing well and the department extracted money from the Treasury for Labour market support during the crisis. Unlike in previous recessions people have not been shifted off the claimant count into other benefits; there has been a net flow into jobseekers allowance from lone parent and incapacity benefits.

Inflows into unemployment have been lower than in the last recession and people are leaving the register faster; 70% leave unemployment within six months, compared with 63% in the 1990s and 60% in the 1980s. Employers, having once written of the official employment service, now express more than 90% satisfaction with it.’

Not as you might have thought from a Labour Party press release but taken straight from an article by the Sunday Times Economics editor on Sunday 24th January, a paper which is not exactly a ‘friend’ of the Labour Government.

It’s always difficult to comment on unemployment numbers – to say they ‘aren’t as bad as feared’ is little comfort to those who have lots their jobs, and the many young people in particular who are finding it very difficult to get a start. But it is important to look at the position objectively – and to acknowledge that the Government’s intervention has had a beneficial effect.

We can see the impact in the Highlands where unemployment is still below the national average at under 3%, compared to over 9% under the Tories at the height of the last recession in 1992.

Keeping unemployment down, and getting the employment rate back up is not just of huge importance to the individuals and families affected, but is also crucial to reducing the Government’s borrowing. The same Sunday Times article quoted above also said:
‘ official calculations suggest lower than expected unemployment could cut public spending by a cumulative £17billion over the next five years.’

Tory emphasis on immediate deficit reduction, with a particular emphasis on the public sector would lead to higher unemployment and may not achieve the deficit reduction claimed.

Read more...

Questions to Hilary Benn

Sunday, 24 January 2010

I had the opportunity to meet Hilary Benn MP - UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs - when he was in Edinburgh on party business last week. At a wide-ranging discussion with party activists and candidates I was able to raise with him my concerns about on-shore wind-farms. He is, of course, a strong and passionate supporter of the climate change agenda and the need to develop renewables, but my questions did give him pause for thought. He asked me to write formally to him at his department and promised to raise my concerns with Ed Milliband as well.

1 How do we ensure that construction of renewable energy schemes will get us to the point where we can stop building new gas and coal-fired power stations and reduce the use of existing non-renewable plant.

2. Does the Renewable Obligation mechanism need changed again in order to encourage more investment in large-scale offshore and small community renewable schemes, rather than on-shore wind.

3. The UK is leading the world in the development of off-shore wind and wave power technology, with major opportunities to exploit such technology around the north of Scotland. What do we need to do to make sure that this translates into long term, sustainable employment in the Highlands?

I shall publish his reply when I have it.  

Read more...

Are we getting it right on Windfarms?

Saturday, 23 January 2010

Since going walking with the Dava Moor campaigners last year, I’ve tried to keep my promise to dig much deeper into the science of renewables and land-based wind-farms in particular.

I’ve often wondered when my Physics degree would come in useful. Well it certainly has now as I’ve ploughed through page after page of maths, statistics and power engineering science in the various reports authored by ”experts” on different sides of the arguments!

One of the key arguments made by those opposed to on-shore wind-farms is about variability; that wind is too unpredictable to be relied on as a steady source of energy, hence requiring major amounts of non-renewable capacity – mainly gas - to be available as “back up” for days when the wind isn’t blowing.

Its true the wind is highly variable, but I’m convinced by some very detailed work by National Grid that the UK energy network is designed to deal with such variability and will do so. There is also significant backup-generation capacity already connected into the grid, designed to deal with failure of large scale generators such as a major coal or nuclear plant. Wind-energy by itself does not seem to require substantial additional backup.

What I am far less convinced about is how far such schemes will go to actually reducing CO2 generation from non-renewable sources (the big gas and coal-fired power stations).

On shore wind farms have a relatively low “capacity credit” (the amount of non-renewable generating capacity that can, in theory, be turned off when such wind-farms are working normally). This is because their “load factor” - their actual level of energy production - is way less than their usually quoted maximum capacity, in large part due to wind variability.

The financial economics of big coal and gas-fired power stations mean that the energy companies which operate them seek to run them at close to maximum generating capacity at all times (so as to be able to sell the maximum amount of energy to pay for the huge investment needed to build them in the first place). Will the capacity credit generated by on shore wind farms be enough to offset this financial pressure? Do we need to do more to make sure that generating more electricity from renewable sources leads directly to a reduction in use of non-renewable capacity?

A second concern is whether we are getting the balance right between different forms of renewable energy generation.

Off-shore wind and wave power suffers far less from variability (compared to on-shore wind) with a much higher load factor. These schemes really can provide high-capacity renewable generation with a much higher “capacity credit”. Such developments will also have far less impact on our visual environment. At the other end of the scale, community wind-power schemes have the potential to liberate rural communities from supply constraints and energy-poverty.

Energy generators are incentivised to construct commercial scale renewables through the Renewal Obligation scheme (RO), through which they can earn significant revenues – often more than for the electricity itself - by selling the corresponding certificates (ROCS) to the energy supply companies . The energy supply companies need to have sufficient ROCS in order to show that they have met their legal obligations to supply a given percentage of their electricity from renewable sources (they get fined if they don’t). In 2010, energy companies are required to supply 10% from renewables.

This mechanism is fine in theory. However, the original scheme does not distinguish between different types of renewables, so guess what happens? Since on-shore wind farms are the least expensive to build, but still earn huge revenues from the sale of ROCS, then many energy companies can easily enter this market. Big landowners also stand to benefit from selling land to the energy generators. Are these financial factors distorting the market in favour of constructing so many land-based wind farms – with their much lower capacity credit - instead of the longer term investment needed in more beneficial off shore and community schemes?

A modified version of the Renewable Obligation scheme came into operation in 2009 and puts more emphasis on of-shore generation. Will the market work by itself or do we need to do more?

On-shore commercial wind-farm capacity is necessary and there are many areas of our countryside which are ideal for such schemes. Given the cumulative impact on our countryside, however, I think that we need to take a far more cautious approach until we are clear that the capacity credit of such schemes will actually translate into serious reductions in non-renewable generation.

Finally, this is not just about an abstract argument about the best way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, important though that is. It’s also about economics, and in particular the ability of the renewable energy industry to create jobs. The development, manufacture and operation of renewable technology can create just as many high-quality, sustainable jobs as the oil industry has done. The north of Scotland in particular has a rich potential for off-shore wave and wind power and we need to encourage the investment in infrastructure and services that will bring the technology and energy companies here, with the jobs and economic prosperity that will follow.

Ultimately, that’s why a development like the Beauly Denny Power Line is so important. Not just to provide essential additional connectivity but to send the message that the Highlands are open for investment in these crucial new technologies.

So here are three questions which government at all levels - UK, Holyrood and Highland Council – need to consider:

1. How do we ensure that construction of renewable energy schemes will get us to the point where we can stop building new gas and coal-fired power stations and reduce the use of existing non-renewable plant.

2. Does the Renewable Obligation mechanism need changed again in order to encourage more investment in large-scale offshore and small community renewable schemes, rather than on-shore wind.

3. The UK is leading the world in the development of off-shore wind and wave power technology, with major opportunities to exploit such technology around the north of Scotland. What do we need to do to make sure that this translates into long term, sustainable employment in the Highlands?

Read more...

Goodbye to the Right to Buy

Thursday, 21 January 2010

I welcome the SNP's proposals to end the Right to Buy for new tennants in the social housing sector. Introduced by the Margaret Thatcher's Tory government the Right to Buy was a popular policy in its time but has led to major shortages of affordable social housing in recent years as all of the decent stock has been sold off.

Building sustainable communities means providing equitable access to affordable houses for families and individuals and its time that we removed the negative impact of the Right to Buy from the equation. Whilst the SNP deserve the credit for introducing the necessary legislation now, I am pretty sure its something Scottish Labour would also have done, were it still in power. Labour should back the SNP proposals.

What is also needed, however, is a decent level of funding for Local Authorities and Social Landlords to build more affordable homes. I hope the SNP will think again about the cuts they have proposed to Housing Action Grant and other programmes.

Read more...

Highland Broadband

Tuesday, 12 January 2010

Great to hear today that Highland Labour MSP Peter Peacock has secured a commitment from the Scottish Government to invest more in Broadband Services for the Highlands. See here. When added to the investment already planned by the UK Government through its Digital Britain Strategy this will go a long way to ensuring homes and small businesses across the Highlands have access to the fast, secure and reliable Internet services which are so essential to building sustainable communities. For once, equal credit to the SNP and Labour!

Read more...

What to do about Bankers?

Tuesday, 8 December 2009

In my day job, I have worked regularly in the City for many years. As an IT specialist, I'm just the hired help but its enabled me to see first hand how the many diverse organisations that make up our financial sector operate. And of course there are good ones and not so. Many companies I work with are supporting fast growing businesses and creating real jobs and opportunities. Others, however, are trading and speculating between themselves, adding no social value, whilst generating huge profits and bonus pools.

Whilst the bankers and financiers have enjoyed huge personal rewards in recent years, our communities are now paying the price in lost jobs, shattered savings and service cuts.

There is now no justification for huge bonuses for individuals, built up on the back of government funded liquidity intended to protect out financial system from meltdown. Especially when its many of the same organisations and individuals whose high-risk behaviours have been responsible for getting us into this mess.

Dealing with this is very difficult. Knee jerking into punitive taxes and caps on personal or corporate earnings - popular though that may be - risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater. What we need is an intelligent approach which drives long term, structural change in the financial service industry, its behaviours and its contribution to our economic health.

I am hopeful that the baleful influence of the City on Labour thinking has finally been broken. The governments comments in the last few days on the importance of building up manufacturing & industry is welcome and long overdue.

A litmus test for me will be how Alistair Darling brings a Labour solution to this over the next few days.

Read more...

What a parcel of rogues in our nation....

Tuesday, 1 December 2009

Spending St Andrew’s day launching a white paper on an independence referendum shows just how out of touch the SNP have become. Instead of working to get us out of recession, create jobs for young people and get more teachers into our schools the SNP plan to spend millions on a referendum that we already know the answer to. Scotland deserves better. The coming election will be about jobs and the economy. The SNP have no answers and seem to be pinning all their hopes on the Tories winning power.

Read more...

About This Blog

Promoted and published by INBS Labour Party on behalf of Mike Robb, all at 1Fraser Street, Inverness, IV1 1DW

  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP