Tories contradict their own economic policy
George Osborne has announced a new Tory policy which I don’t understand: they want to give every household a new entitlement to £6,500 of energy saving technologies. They provide government guarantees to enable companies to borrow the money to install this energy saving equipment in homes across the country.
This money would be repaid through savings on energy bills resulting from the improved energy efficiency. So homeowners would be given the opportunity to have energy saving equipment fitted to their homes without any upfront costs. They claim this will unleash £20 billion of private investment if half of all households take this up.
So if I’ve got this right, homeowners can in effect borrow £6,500 to get energy saving equipment installed, and then pay it back over the next few years out of savings from lower energy bills.
The thing I don’t understand is how this fits with the Tory economic argument that Debt is Bad. The average yearly energy bill, according to moneysupermarket.com, is £1,350, so it is going to take people an awfully long time to pay back £6,500 out of the savings from lower energy bills.
So either a large chunk of this £20 billion is going to be paid upfront by the government and not recovered (which means in effect higher government spending, which the Tories oppose) or it means people taking on extra debt and paying it off over ten or more years (the Tories say private debt is currently too high already, so it is strange that they would have policies which encourage more of it).
I think that with some considerable tweaks, the government funding the installation of energy saving technologies in homes is probably a good idea (though, for example, it seems a bit harsh that under the Tory plans people like me who rent can’t get it installed and it is only for people who own their own homes).
But it is interesting that this new flagship Tory policy contradicts their overall economic strategy and analysis and instead appears to be more influenced by Labour’s and Barack Obama’s approach of the government spending more money in the short term in order that we can all reap the benefits in the longer term.
---------------------------
Tweet | Share on Tumblr |
Don Paskini is deputy-editor of LC. He also blogs at donpaskini. He is on twitter as @donpaskini
· Other posts by Don Paskini
Story Filed Under: Blog ,Conservative Party ,Environment ,Westminster
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reader comments
Agreed Don.
The idea is absolutely barking and shows why the Tories will be no better than the current lot.
Presumably I’ll get a loan to buy my electric car too and then a handout when I scrap it
I think that there are a couple of interesting, though not unexpected, things in here. Firstly, your point about the rental market: well, indeed. The Tory attitude is very much that if you are not already on the property ladder you are not worth looking after. Buy-to-let landlords were not a Tory invention, but their policies started the mid-90s boom which Labour then gleefully accelerated.
Secondly: it looks to me very much as though there’s an insidious and deliberate point here. So, you get some stuff fitted to your house. You can pay off the debt out of energy savings: but only if you’re still in that house. For, it looks like, about 5 years. Realistically, anyone who does this is going to want to keep the new kit for long enough that they start seeing actual money as a result of the lower bills, rather than just paying off the government, so call it 8-10 years.
Now, isn’t that interesting. It’s almost as if the Tories are trying to slow down the turnover of existing privately-owned housing, while doing nothing to help those not on the property ladder. I wonder why…
Put it this way: govt. funding of new energy installation is A Good Thing. Yes, it contradicts their anti-debt bollox: but hey, so does all the stuff those idiot Teabaggers are saying in the US, because it was their Republican President who got them into all that debt. Debt is a stick with which opposition parties can hit the governing party, fully aware that they’d be doing exactly the same thing if they were in power.
I still wouldn’t dream of voting Tory, but if they got into power then at least we’d have things like this, and the high-speed trains they’re proposing. It’s more than what Labour have come up with.
The question is, once the economic downturn is out of the way next year, will the general election be fought on the back of which of the two main parties can pretend to be the greenest? People will soon look beyond the present state of the economy and begin worrying a bit more about whether or not their children will have a planet to live on.
[3]
People will soon look beyond the present state of the economy and begin worrying a bit more about whether or not their children will have a planet to live on.
Well those that both have children and like them probably will. Trouble is, there is a fair chunk of the electorate who fall outside those categories. To such of them as are on the political right, “green” policies are no different to the redistributive taxation they hate so much. For the childless 70-year old Jag driver, climate change denial is simply rational self-interest.
Osborne needs to be locked away in a cupboard until after the election.
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
-
Liberal Conspiracy
New post: Tories contradict their own economic policy http://tinyurl.com/d4aeoc
[Original tweet] -
Peter Olsen
Liberal Conspiracy » Tories contradict their own economic policy … http://tinyurl.com/d4aeoc
[Original tweet] -
Liberal Conspiracy
New post: Tories contradict their own economic policy http://tinyurl.com/d4aeoc
-
Peter Olsen
Liberal Conspiracy » Tories contradict their own economic policy … http://tinyurl.com/d4aeoc
-
plumpepper
reading http://bit.ly/nKK7d
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» Incidents like this shame us all
» Taxpayers Alliance want to cut taxes, mostly for the rich
» We’re turning The Spirit Level into a film: help us in that goal
» I love the counter-productive attitude of right-wing commentators
» Watch out for the TPA’s report arguing for more cuts tomorrow
» The resurgence of bigoted conservatism in Ireland
» What’s the point of being ‘British’?
» The tragedy behind the Sam Hallam case
» Will JP Morgan be able to walk away from billion dollar losses?
» Labour is now even more reliant on left-wing voters
» We need the minimum wage for under-21s to be raised
8 Comments 12 Comments 51 Comments 38 Comments 19 Comments 12 Comments 30 Comments 116 Comments 25 Comments 33 Comments |
LATEST COMMENTS » vimothy posted on Public DOES want gay marriage, Lords reform » Mr Grunt posted on Incidents like this shame us all » Luis Enrique posted on Incidents like this shame us all » Planeshift posted on I love the counter-productive attitude of right-wing commentators » pagar posted on Incidents like this shame us all » Chaise Guevara posted on Incidents like this shame us all » andrew adams posted on Taxpayers Alliance want to cut taxes, mostly for the rich » Barney posted on Funny bits of TPA report you probably missed » Freeman posted on Incidents like this shame us all » Chaise Guevara posted on Frank Field wrong on workless households » Chaise Guevara posted on Funny bits of TPA report you probably missed » Simon posted on Frank Field wrong on workless households » Sarah Brown posted on Incidents like this shame us all » Valerie Chambers posted on Funny bits of TPA report you probably missed » Jerry Chambers posted on Funny bits of TPA report you probably missed |