An all attack on the energy companies is in progress….the BBC, rather than standing back from the fray and giving us impartial news and information, is more than happy to land a few punches of its own.
We had ‘green’ companies complaining about their state subsidised profiteering being taken away from them…and linking it to yesterday’s scare stories about winter deaths….much exaggerated as shown in a previous post.
The company spokesman telling us that 50% of deaths were due to high fuel bills.
The BBC didn’t challenge that.
The BBC itself was questioning the profits made by the energy companies…and then this interview with Tim Yeo, the reinstated chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee.
Once again it ‘tackled’ the subject of Cameron cutting the ‘green crap’…with Yeo demanding no cuts be made…or else the poor will suffer.
As the not so very poor Yeo has many vested interests in green companies every time he or his committee promotes global warming or programmes to deal with it there is the potential that it puts money in Yeo’s pocket.
Conflict of interest? I can imagine any member of the Public would say so.
Yeo also states that there are no costs put onto the national grid system due to renewable energy infrastructure development….that’s just wrong….there are massive costs associated with connecting up wind farms to the Grid.
The interview seemed scripted…designed just to tick off and tidy up ‘myths and misconceptions’ about green politics and those involved in it….the final segment just confirmed suspicions.
Winifred Robinson asked Yeo about those apparent conflicts of interest…this is a subject that the BBC has avoided for a long time…and it is a separate question to that which was being asked by the Standards Committee in reference to the Sunday Times report.
Yeo claimed that if you read the report , and he invites you to read it from cover to cover, you will find it cleared him of all charges…‘you will find I have behaved properly in every possible respect’.
Yeo’s reply was highly misleading….because the Committee didn’t examine the potential conflict of interest generally, just in regard to a specific case, and in fact they suggested that they will investigate further such possibilities….and Robinson didn’t challenge his reply ending the interview there.
Yeo was allowed to slip out of that one almost as if it was designed that way.
Here are some extracts from the report to help you decide if the Committee cleared Yeo of having a conflict of interest as he claimed, by being chairman of a climate change committee advising government policy whilst also have large financial stakes in green companies…..
The committee concluded that Yeo had not breached the rules of the House, stating that “Mr Yeo made no improper commitments, despite the tone of the Sunday Times articles, and the energetic attempts of the journalists concerned to draw him into doing so”.
However, the committee confirmed it was now ready to move forward with a consideration of concerns raised by Speaker John Bercow that there might be “an inherent incompatibility between chairing a Select Committee and having commercial interests, even though fully transparently registered, in the sector covered by that committee”.
The Parliamentary Commissioner who investigated the allegations against Yeo said: “I have not found Mr Yeo to be in breach of the rules of the House but nevertheless have concerns about the external perception of the relationship between a Member’s outside employment and interests and his work for the House,” she wrote.
This is from the report itself:
His comment that he told the director what to say in his evidence and linked to this is his comment that “What I do in private is another matter”. Taken together and at face value they could give the impression of a senior member of the House who has little regard for the rules and can easily find his way round them in order to suit his own purposes. This of course is the perception which is conveyed by the Sunday Times and strongly denied by Mr Yeo.
While the House takes a very reasonable position that a Member’s knowledge and interests may well enhance his or her ability to contribute to the work of the House and in particular to some of the specialist committees, there is equally a reasonable concern that that Member is then placed in a privileged position which he or she may be able to exploit for their own interests with few checks and balances to control this.
...A privileged position…to exploit for their own interests….????
Guess Yeo will be in the news again…maybe not the BBC news, but perhaps Sky will pick it up when the time comes.
I always like to imagine the reaction and interviews had all the people been the same but the subject different: imagine Yeo, a ‘toffish’ Tory with an irritatingly holier-than-thou voice and mannerisms being forced to stand down over (blindingly obvious) conflicts of interest then reinstated over…say, arms deals.
If Yeo had any integrity at all he would voluntarily withdraw from the committee until all concerns have been investigated and dealt with,
“If Yeo had any integrity”
I see what you did there.
Yes – he stated the truth.
I am pretty sure that I heard some BBC greenie gonk on Today talking about green taxes and saying that they were unpopular with “the right wing press” – so it is just the nasty Tories, the Barclay brothers and Rupert Murdoch who don’t like them – everyone else is in favour.
I was going to re-listen to the particular bit but the program is not working on the iplayer – I suppose I should be grateful for small mercies.
Yes, I noticed that too. Blatant.
BBC reporters frequently talk about the “Tory” or “Right Wing” press, but I cannot recall a BBC reporter ever talking about the “Socialist” or “Left Wing” press. Do they think nobody notices their bias?
Not enough people care, that’s for sure.
“Socialist” or “Left Wing” press – do you mean their print version “the Guardian”?
I mean “The Guardian” “The Independent” “The Daily Mirror” “The Observer” “The New Statesman” – the generally loss making newspapers and journals read by middle class public sector workers whose journalists are treated by the BBC as oracles of wisdom on the issues the BBC is pushing that day e.g. Isn’t childcare in Stalinist Russia great, Why we should completely disarm, Ban Nuclear Power, Capitalism is awful, Let’s put up green taxes, but above all Spend much much more (tax everything that moves) on middle class public sector employees, because they are not at all lazy, not at all authoritarian, and dazzle us with their friendly and efficient customer service.
P.S. I missed off the Leftist Financial Times, and Daily Mirror readers like People readers (which I also missed off) are not generally middle class, but tend to be Labour voting members of the working class, like the self-described working class Owen Jones, Billy Bragg, and Jo “Gollywog” – “Only White People are Racist” Brand.
They’re all clearly middle-class, despite their protestations to the contrary.
And you can bet half off them have offshore bank accounts, ready for when the shit that they helped to create finally hits the fan.
BBC News24 is reporting the job losses at “energy giant”
nPower. As yet, there has been no comment from ‘union giant’ Unison.
Well I heard the local Labour MP make a right arse of herself wittering on about the “Out of control” utilities companies.
I could list the reasons why this is just bullshit, but frankly the lefties that need to learn, can’t bothered to take the fingers out of their bloody ears…
The BBC clearly sees it’s ‘public service’ role here as being to reduce energy bills, especially for the poor.
I’m sure they will be consistent with this approach when their own charter comes up for review in 2016.
Well they can reduce energy bills as long as they don’t reduce the climate change levy (which as I have pointed out before has now been mysteriously renamed the renewable sources surcharge).
I don’t think the BBC does see its role as being to reduce energy bills. It its view its job is to reduce the profits made by energy companies.
In its worldview big companies making profits is wrong, and energy companies are on its radar at the moment. Not so long ago it was Starbucks and Google.
As far as energy bills are concerned the BBC decided a long time ago that they had to go sky high to combat dangerous man-made global warming, didn’t they? Surely no-one is so dim as to think that making cheap energy expensive, and increasing the quantity of inefficient and expensive energy would not affect bills???
I’m really surprised that no one has posted this, especially as I’m sure I read about it on BB.
This week sees the start of a far left campaign called ‘bring down the big six’ an unholy alliance of Haters like ‘fuel poverty action’; ‘ UK uncut’; ‘the Greater London Pensioners’ Association’; ‘Disabled People Against Cuts’; ‘Occupy London’.
The list is a long one and doesn’t end there. This has been carried in the BBCs print arm so there’s no surprise that they’re aware of it:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/21/big-six-energy-firms-british-gas-npower-protesters
The whole point of these protest is that people are dying as a direct consequence of high fuel prices, and yet we know that is not the case. If the BBC were to report the truth as in the report then it would steal the whole reason these far left demos are based on. So the BBC lies to support this outrageous set of dole bludgers from comfortable homes who probably gather round a Starbucks coffee before protesting about the other people daring to buy there!
The whole slogan behind this deluded conglomerate is “Fuel Poverty Kills” the BBC are not going to pull the rug from under them.
On the other side of the debate the Tories look like they will fail to rein in the horrendous stealth taxes, and instead will do the only thing Osborn understands – attack the poor by removing or drastically slowing the amount of money given under the green deal to insulate peoples homes.
If the loonies of the far left actually went after the real target – successive government stealth taxes which have loaded an approximate £350 to an average bill, then they’d probably get my support, but as it is, they’ve been directed as a bunch of useful idiots away from the real problem onto someone else.
“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”
― Joseph Goebbels
‘I’m really surprised that no one has posted this, especially as I’m sure I read about it on BB’
—-
Well, at least you now have, so it is posted at last. Why would it require anyone else to precede you?
Not aware of all of them, but it also may be well to avoid labelling such as a pensioner or disabled group as a ‘hater’. They may be activist in nature, but if there’s a concern they’re entitled to voice them (though the funding of some can crank the odd eyebrow at motivations and objectivity).
But can’t disagree that near all in the politico-media melting pot hilariously deemed a free press in this country seem content to toe certain ‘lines’, with the BBC of course chief cheerleader behind facile tribal soundbites and very, very quiet on tangible numbers.
FaceBook has, of course, been fertile ground for this killer line to be promoted in editorial, but I have noticed support for those asking the BBC/editor about the extra impositions imposed for areas the BBC & EU supports.
A bit like the old ‘The Editors’ blogs, there never seems an answer, but suddenly a bunch of distractors will appear to steer the mob back to the slogan being promoted.
Control the edit and you control the message.
Seeing as the Greater London Pensioners’ Association are based in Hampstead and have allied themselves with other far left groups it’s a fair bet to guess where their politics lie despite them denying links to any political party.
‘..it’s a fair bet to guess’
As I am trying to point out, while affiliations can suggest shared values, and locations can be noteworthy, betting on guesses may still be better left to the BBC and its fellow travelers to get to ‘haters’ on such a basis?
I simply offer words of caution in this regard, no more. They may be all manner of things, but always best to be certain.
“Bring Down The Big Six”
I suspect that, not for the first time, they haven’t really thought that one through properly. Bring ’em down, and who do they think is going to supply their energy?
“who do they think is going to supply their energy?”
They assert that life in the Stone Age was bliss and they want us to return back to it – but it is even more atavistic than that, they just want a riot.
That is where their [non-existent] “empathy” with losers comes from, they want to bulk up their numbers in their desire to destroy society. Have you ever met a Leftist who behaved (as opposed to talked) as if he thought people were equal? Are they not arrogant twats?
Having said that I am sure some rich people are nervous of their privilege, and so they give themselves an Order of Caring award by loudly declaring their support for a Party that believes in doling out more cake.
But this is about helping themselves, and nothing to do with helping anybody else – can you imagine Russell Brand teaching the virtues of delayed gratification and restraint? People would (rightly) mock him, so he preaches the virtues of excess dressed up as concern about the less privileged – like those Labour Party MP’s who greedily put their hand in the cookie jar as a reward for preaching equality.
The so called big 6 only supply 80% of the energy the suppliers of the remaining 20% must be positively minuscule.
I’ve just listened to an “interview” between Tony Livesey and Caroline Flint on R5 Live about energy pricing. I say interview but in reality it was more like a platform for Flint to put across Labour’s policy.
Defending their policy of a price freeze she says the energy companies could withstand it because they forward buy. However no mention of the fact that if you forward buy in a market that historically has been going up you will be buying at a significant premium over the current price. Also someone forward selling in a volatile market will add a lot of risk to the price. Finally if all the UK energy suppliers are forward buying for 20 months at the same time then the simple laws of supply and demand will bump up the price even further. Was there any mention of this? Of course not she got away with it unchallenged.
Secondly, having used the excuse that they forward buy all of the energy to protect against price rises, in the next breath she criticises them for not always passing on price falls to customers when they happen. If they have bought in advance then they will not have received that price fall. Any challenge? No.
Thirdly she says the market is too consolidated. When did that consolidation happen? Under Labour of course. Any comment from Livesey? No!!
Finally she criticised the vertical integration in the market. When privatisation took place it was there.. Again when was it reduced? Under Labour. Any challenge? No.
I am no apologist for the energy companies and am appalled at how badly Cameron is handling this but it does not help when the BBC just provides a platform for Labour to promote its barmy policies with absolutely no challenge whatsoever.
“it does not help when the BBC just provides a platform for Labour to promote its barmy policies with absolutely no challenge whatsoever.”
—-
It does not help the cause of impartial, objective, professional sharing of information and education true, but it can help some other, less noble, aspirations.
Oh, btw, the Future of the BBC Charter consultation call for submissions is due in a week’s time.
How a £4Bpa media monopoly shapes policy by abusing its unique position and role through selective propaganda and (self) censorship may have some bearing.
The problem is not that the state propagandist is lying when they say 50% of excess winter deaths are caused by electricity prices. They are lying when they say that it is the fault of the energy companies rather than the LabConDem politicians these totalitarian Fascists whore for.