Opinion: Insulation not fossil fuel subsidies

Earlier this week parliament overwhelmingly rejected an amendment to the Infrastructure Bill calling for a moratorium on fracking.

The challenge that the UK faces is that we are particularly dependent on natural gas. The vast majority of us have gas boilers and heating makes up much of the gas used in the UK. Weaning ourselves off gas boilers isn’t easy. There are renewable alternatives such as heat pumps but these only work in very well insulated homes. And there’s the rub. Around 70% of homes in the UK are still not well insulated, and a good portion of those have solid walls which are difficult and expensive to insulate.

Even assuming a really ambitious programme of bringing 1 to 2 million homes a year to a high standard of insulation, and fitting them with heat pumps, we will still be dependent on gas until around 2030. On that basis, I suspect it does make sense to investigate fracking, with a robust regulatory framework, as the alternative is importing large quantities of gas.

But the problem is we are nowhere near retrofitting 1 to 2 million homes a year. The government have tried to address this by introducing a number of schemes including the Green Deal, the Green Deal Home Improvement Fund and the Energy Company Obligation (ECO). But in 2014 less than 100,000 homes had solid wall insulation fitted through these schemes – around 1% of the total number of homes with solid walls. And just 20,000 heat pumps were installed last year.

At the current rates of insulation and installation of renewable heating technologies, we will be using gas long beyond 2030 and blowing our carbon budget in the process.

The government has allocated £540 million to home energy efficiency schemes for 2014-17. This is welcome funding, and is in large part due to Lib Dem influence. But this compares to £3 billion in tax breaks given to companies for fossil fuel exploration in the North Sea over the last five years (according to a recent report from independent think tank Overseas Development Institute). If we are serious about hitting our climate change targets, we should stop the fossil fuel subsidies and plough this into energy efficiency and renewable heating technologies.

* Cara Jenkinson is Vice-Chair of Haringey Liberal Democrats and PPC for Enfield North

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • You have to keep a balance First people will not stand for the lights and heating going off so we need gas which is better than coal until we find a clean way to burn it. Next be realistic alternative power source such as wind farms are a massive waist of money wont provide the power we need. Next even if UK went fully green we represent less than 4% of global emissions, also most likely the global warming is natural cycle of suns out put rather than man made. irrespective of which it is our best plan is to put the money into dealing with warming effects ie flood defences. Lets frack get the gas for our energy stop wind farms and alike put money into dealing with.

  • Correction we emit 1.47% of worlds Carbon pollution but we tax 3% GDP as green tax’s we are midway on list of what European country’s tax for green issues World wide we are in the top ten heavily taxed countries for green reasons far more than China or India who are the worst polluter’s in the world errrm Out of balance if you ask me

  • Helen Dudden 29th Jan '15 - 11:13am

    When I lived in Bath in a Georgian flat I had no interest from Don Foster on the subject of floor to ceiling mould and ice on the inside if the windows. It was SAP rating G. That is cold.

    Now election time, strange that it took 5 years, a move from the area and my , to find somewhere decent to live.

    By the way single cavity walls total lack of insulation, nothing.

  • Helen Dudden 29th Jan '15 - 11:15am

    I should add my family, I am a pensioner without a car and I regularly attend Moorfields in London, I was blind.

  • Tsar Nicolas 29th Jan '15 - 11:15am


    “the global warming is natural cycle of suns out put rather than man made. ”

    Even if this were true, you would now have to get over the very uncomfortable fact that methane has begun outgassing from the Arctic on a large scale. This is 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas on a century scale, but 100 times more powerful on a decadal scale.

  • Tsar

    exactly we need deal with effects as cause outside of our power human race throughout history accepted for most part cannot change things but learnt to adapt that’s what we need do is what I am saying

  • Simon McGrath 29th Jan '15 - 12:07pm

    “. But this compares to £3 billion in tax breaks given to companies for fossil fuel exploration in the North Sea”
    This is nonsense . North Sea oil firms pay huge taxes. Its true that there have been some reductions in these taxes to offset some of the effect of declining production, but that will increase the overall amount of taxes not reduce it.

  • Tsar Nicolas 29th Jan '15 - 12:12pm


    We are on course to hit a 4 degree C rise by mid century even without taking into account methane emissions.

    Methane is a game changer because of its abundance and global warming potential. We could not adapt either as a civilisation or as a species to a six degree plus rise in average global temperatures.

    An event at 55 million years ago, the Paleocene Eocene Thermal maximum, is associated with a 50% extinction rate on this planet. This PETM event is now associated with a paper, published in late 2013, that records a 5 degree C rise in global average temperature over 13 years. That is what methane release on a suitably large scale can do.

    We should all be very alarmed.


  • Tsar Nicolas 29th Jan '15 - 12:13pm

    “I suspect it does make sense to investigate fracking.”

    Or we could seek detente with Russia for the sake of planet earth.

  • Cara Jenkinson, thank you for drawing attention to this.

    Anyone who read the George Monbiot article a few days ago will know that Osborne’s Treasury has run rings round Ed Davey and deliberately undermined the increasingly popular move to local solar electricity generation.
    The same is true on insulation of domestic homes.
    The Tory prejudices against wind power and in favour of fracking are the distinctly Conservative record of these dreadful Coalition Years.
    The Conservative Party has become the parliamentary wing of the vested interests in nuclear, oil and gas.
    The Coalition Government has acted as a pawn of lobbyists and power companies.

    Liberal Democrat successes in this area have been so limited that at the present rate of progress we will be shivering in inadequately insulated homes for decades to come.
    Worse still fossil fuels will be shipped in or piped in from halfway round the world to be burned here — thus enriching tyrants in Russia and Saudi whilst impoverishing our own people.
    Even worse than that we are going to be subsidising from our fuel bills a Chinese Nuclear Power dinosaur on the edge of the Somerset Levels — presumeably so we can admire the flood waters when they glow in the dark.

    You are right to point out that —
    “..The government has allocated £540 million to home energy efficiency schemes for 2014-17. This is welcome funding, ….But this compares to £3 billion in tax breaks given to companies for fossil fuel exploration ….”

    In addition to those facts the Government is subsidising the nuclear power companies by more than £100 BILLION to decommission their poisonous sites where the facilities are now too dangerous to use
    So for every £1 the government spends on home insulation it spends £200 on cleaning up the mess left by nuclear.

  • Jenny Barnes 29th Jan '15 - 1:52pm

    Agree that we should not be subsidising fossil fuel companies. If we are to avoid unpleasant global warming effects, we have already found more fossil fuel than we can afford to burn, so much of what is now held as an asset on fossil fuel company balance sheets (ie economic reserves) will become stranded assets. As I keep saying, Qatar has plenty of gas, there’s no need to wreck our countryside.
    Heat pumps are a great technology, but the crucial need in the building they are heating is well insulated concrete floors that can contain the underfloor heating pipes. Radiators can be used, but they are very much larger than gas fired rads, as heat pumps run at about 45 C while gas fired CH runs at 70C or so.

    Insulation – I’m for it!

  • As a homeowner and taxpayer I find it incredibly frustrating that so many politicians want to take my money and give it away to others, usually landlords, to spend on home “improvements” such as solid wall insulation that I wouldn’t dream of for my own property since they make no economic sense.

    Let me give you some figures. I own and live in a flat in London. Its a decent size and was built in the 1920s and has solid walls. I bought it a decade ago, but even then it was very expensive. I am fortunate enough to be able to afford any improvements I want to make and I have looked at the economics of solid wall insulation. My gas bill is around £400 per year, of which about half goes on central heating (the rest is for cooking and hot water for showers). Solid wall insulation looks like it would cost £10-15k at least. If the insulation halved my gas heating consumption, a generous estimate, it would save £100 a year. This means I might see a return after a couple of hundred years. It would be economic madness to get it done. There is a good reason hardly any homes have solid wall insulation, homeowners can work out its an expensive outlay for little return. It can also cause other headaches such as damp. Unless someone else is paying the bill, almost no one wants it. I can easily afford it, but I don’t have it. So why tax me to pay for someone else to get something of such little value?

    Here are two alternative policy suggestions.

    If there is money to spend I suggest using it to build new houses to high standards. New builds can combine good insulation (cavity walls) with energy efficient ventilation (heat recovery ventilation systems). I imagine modern building codes mandate this but I don’t actually know. There is a pressing need for new houses, why not focus the construction industry’s efforts there?

    If you want to reduce carbon use why not take a more comprehensive approach and propose some kind of general carbon tax? I understand your view that anything that generates carbon is bad. I am a lot more relaxed about carbon emissions than you are, but I do accept that reducing them can’t hurt. But there is nothing special about central heating is there? Almost everything we do causes carbon emissions, from eating beef to international travel. A well designed carbon tax would incentivise everyone to reduce their footprint, and equally importantly it would make economic sense as it would avoid the distortions introduced by subsidised giveaways (e.g. free insulation schemes where the person receiving the benefit doesn’t care if it makes overall economic sense since they are not paying for it).

  • Cara Jenkinson 29th Jan '15 - 1:58pm

    @simon oliver – certainly a good thing that GD assessments are motivating householders to take more action – but worth noting that of the 1million plus measures installed last year (the vast majority through ECO, not Green Deal), many are for ‘smaller’ measures which will not lead to good enough insulation for people to replace their boilers with heat pumps. Completely support your call for dropping the interest rate on green deal financing
    @Tez 97% of climate scientists are unlikely to be wrong. The costs of adaptation to major climate change will be colossal – we ignore at our peril

  • Apart from the cash cost of adaptation to the major change, there is the human cost already being paid, both in direct loss of life to extreme weather events, and in increased conflict over water and sometimes other natural resources.

  • Julian Tisi 29th Jan '15 - 2:11pm

    A few things:

    – Solid Wall Insulation (SWI) is VERY expensive, at around £8k-£10k per property. We DO need to improve the energy efficiency of our homes but we need to start with the easier wins – for example, there are still about 1 million simple cavity wall insulations out there (a few £hundred a go), plus a further number of “hard to treat” cavity wall insulations (high £hundreds a go). Plus we could insist on new builds being more energy efficient. We should do these lower cost things first before we plough money into more expensive SWI.

    – As Simon McGrath has rightly pointed out, to describe the taxation of oil and gas extraction as “tax breaks” is ridiculous. These pay massive taxes – in fact, some of the older gas fields pay a marginal rate of tax of 81%!

    – Re dropping the interest on Green Deal financing, it won’t make a jot of difference. Green Deal financing has been a monumental failure, partly because of PR “it will be hard to sell your home” but mostly because the DECC made it far, far too complex and costly, both for Green Deal providers and customers. On the other hand, Green Deal as a concept isn’t dead. People have gone for simple cashbacks for installing energy efficiency measures. But the finanancig loans should be killed off.

  • Julian Tisi
    I thought a new version of Green Deal had happened very recently, and has been so popular that it is already closed to new applicants, which was shorn of some of the very off-putting stuff involved in the original.

  • Helen Dudden 29th Jan '15 - 4:30pm

    That is the whole point on saving energy. Simply a waste of time just doing the easy bits. The situation has to be taken as a whole.

    The problems with building new homes in an around the city is well known. With my comments on “inside housing” I have stressed just how difficult it was.to convince others that this is not a normal housing issue.

    I have suggested regeneration where possible, and the Georgian stock is an interesting situation with the complete lack of any kind of insulation. Not a particularly good living standard’s.

    As I have stated before, an MP should at least listen, that includes housing and international law, he is paid to listen. I think it is good that I found another person to listen on the subject of international law, and also, housing problems, still writing on that one now.

  • tsar

    You Keep going on about Methane lol NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT an even if you think man is cause Man is not united we have heavy Green taxes lower carbon target an we represent 1.47% of worlds emission even if we cut ours to zero wont make a dent he big players need to be on this but they not so why should British people alone suffer these taxes and emphasis should be on dealing with climate change not trying to stop it.

  • Tsar Nicolas 29th Jan '15 - 6:57pm


    You are right. I doubt there is anything that can be done at this late stage, but if the human race is going to become extinct in one lifetime, a natural, logical corollary to the beginning of methane eruption, then at least people should be made aware.

    Even bodies that don’t take into account methane emission – bodies like the IPCC – are talking of 4 degrees C rise by mid century. Methane puts that well beyond 6 degrees and on a much shorter timescale. Humanity cannot survive a rise that fast and that much.

  • Tsar Nicolas 29th Jan '15 - 8:14pm


    “if those things happen.”

    When, not if.

    The first IPCC report in 1990 warned of “rapid, unpredictable and non-linear” consequences if warming went beyond 1 degree C. We are at 0.85 degrees above pre-industrial base line now and maybe the first report as too cautious.

    The melt in the Greenland ice sheet appears to be progressing in a distinctly non-linear fashion. I don’t think anybody has talked of reversing the process and the 400ppm CO2 level is locked into the atmosphere for at least 1000 years.

    And yet everybody on here – and most are educated – is posting as if life can proceed as normal over the coming years. The consequences of global warming are not a far-future event.

  • Tsar Nicolas I hope you don’t include me in the category of those expecting things to continue as before?

  • Ian 29th Jan ’15 – 1:57pm

    Ian, I really appreciated your real life example of why you are reluctant to instal solid wall insulation (SWI).
    Your reasoning makes perfect sense to me..

    As you point out governments of all colours have collected tax from people who cannot afford expensive solutions.
    At the same time they have subsidised rich people to instal solutions which make little over all economic sense and possibly even less environmental sense.

    All governments have a vested interest in higher fuel bills. That handy 5% on everyone’s gas bill is a “nice little earner”.
    It can be hidden away easily. So much easier to avoid owning up to than income tax.

    Have a pretend fight with the other front benches about who can be “toughest” on the energy suppliers.
    Distract the voters’ attention away from the real problems, treat them like idiots.

  • Cara Jenkinson 29th Jan '15 - 11:42pm

    Ian and John Tilley – one of the problems is that energy is actually too cheap, not too expensive. The current cost does not take into account the damage that burning fossil fuels does – the cost to the economy that Nicholas Stern and others have pointed out. If the real cost was taken into account then solid wall insulation may look more attractive.
    Carbon emissions from our homes and buildings make up around 28% of total emissions, and new build makes up a small proportion of this. So we have to address existing properties. Unfortunately it looks like generous subsidies are the only motivators for many people to undertake measures. Perhaps we should pay for those subsidies using taxation from those that cause the pollution – perhaps an extra tax on beef, flights and on the energy companies that seem to be making so much profit.

  • Jenny Barnes 30th Jan '15 - 8:56am

    ” pay for those subsidies using taxation from those that cause the pollution” road fuel tax increase, carbon tax on domestic fuel, tax on aviation fuel?

  • Tsar

    LOL the suns warming cycle might be coming to a end too which will reduce temp How ever as I say we should be pouring money into adapting to effects rather than little England trying to change ALL on our own The Green Tax’s are a CON and used on wrong things as Political class have been shepherded down this path by those who gain the most from it the scientists who get funded to research the company’s that make insulation wind generators and other so called Green Products

  • Tsar Nicolas 30th Jan '15 - 9:23am


    What green taxes?

  • Leekliberal 30th Jan '15 - 9:44am

    @Helen Dudden ‘When I lived in Bath in a Georgian flat I had no interest from Don Foster on the subject of floor to ceiling mould and ice on the inside if the windows. ‘
    To provide context to your latest attack on Don Foster MP can you confirm whether you are still a Labour Party member?

  • Neil Sandison 30th Jan '15 - 12:51pm

    We has got tons of gas its called methane .We humans ,our livestock sewage plants ,supermarkets restaurants and take aways produce it in abundance .Lets get big on anaerobic digesters ( AD) reduces both our methane and carbon emmisions . It can be produced without the need for large scale power stations from decentralised energy producers and we get the bonus of a bi-product which can be used to feed our arable fields and allotments thus ensuring food security .Lets not give up on renewable we have only just begun to exploit their advantages over conventional fossil fuels.

  • Thanks for your response Cara. It might seem that I am diametrically opposed to your ideas, but I’m not really, of course insulation is a good thing. Its just that installing uneconomic SWI via subsidies will make us all poorer, and while the green wing of the party might approve of that I don’t. I would prefer to encourage carbon efficiency through taxes, but I accept that such an approach is politically very difficult.

    You don’t give a source for your 28% figure, but it seems broadly in line with what DECC have on their website, obviously this includes business buildings too. According to table 3 of this document
    the residential contribution is about 16%, almost all from burning gas. Even this figure is too high, as all DECC statistics ignore embedded emissions from imports ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22267231 ). Adjusting for this, and the fact gas is used for hot water as well as heating, I’d estimate gas fired central heating to be around 6-8% of the UK’s true contribution. A lot less than your number, but I don’t think this really changes the debate as it is still a massive amount of carbon.

    You also say that you think energy is too cheap, which is very honest albeit at odds with the official LibDem line ( http://www.libdems.org.uk/an_autumn_statement_for_more_green_energy ) which talks of the Green Deal helping people to “cut their energy bills for good”. My doubts arise from the fact that people will spend these savings on something else, and without proper carbon accounting we have no way to know if this has really helped. For example if the money is spent on imports it will make our figures look better, as per the BBC article I cite above, but really we have just moved the emissions to another country.

  • Roger Anthony 30th Jan '15 - 4:01pm

    Lets try and get some sense into this discussion.
    Most people are at work during the day, they spend their evenings in one or two warm rooms.
    Is there any point in insulating the whole house?
    When the largest saving will only be made by insulating the living rooms and bathroom?
    Keeping in mind that heat always moves to cold, it makes sense to insulate the room side of the walls, ceilings and floors. Not the outside!
    Placing insulation on the outside, means your expensive heat is lost into the walls, then passed by conduction down into the ground and up into the sky and into any other attached solid.
    Insulation is not in itself expensive, and as a diy project, gluing sheets of plasterboard faced polystyrene to the room side of outside walls is not much of a challenge. It will quickly pay for itself. Then the other walls can be done when convenient.

  • Tzar Do you live in some other world lol : what green taxs he says here office :

    UK households and businesses paid a record £43 billion in green taxes last year, new official figures show.
    The Treasury’s revenues from environmental levies increased by £1.7 billion last year, from £41.3 billion in 2012. They have soared from £30.4 billion in 2003.
    The total green tax revenues for 2013 are the equivalent of £1,629 for every household – up from £1,564 in 2012 and £1,221 per household in 2003.
    However, the ONS said that the majority of the bill was paid by businesses, not domestic consumers.
    More than £500 million of the increase in the green taxes last year was due to rising renewable energy levies to subsidise the construction of wind and solar farms and other green technologies
    These levies accounted for £2.4 billion of the total last year, up from just £382 million a decade ago, reflecting the huge expansion of heavily-subsidised green technologies to meet climate change targets.
    Each UK household paid a £30 levy on their energy bill to subsidise such large-scale renewable energy projects through the Renewable Obligation in 2013, according to energy department figures.
    The cost to consumers of such green taxes has become increasingly controversial. Ministers have pledged to roll back green levies on bills to help ease the burden for consumers.
    However, the Treasury has already approved a significant increase in such levies, to £7.6 billion in 2020. By that point subsidies for large green energy projects could cost £71 per household.
    Of the £43 billion green tax revenues last year, the biggest chunk was £26.7 billion paid in taxes on fuels such as petrol and diesel. Revenues from this kind of tax have risen from £22.5 billion in 2003.
    Over the decade, tax revenues from petrol decreased, as rising prices prompted motorists to economise or switch to diesel vehicles. Takings from diesel rose significantly.
    Motoring groups have long complained that takes on fuels in the UK are some of the highest Europe.
    Other transport taxes have also soared from £5.6 billion a decade ago to £10.3 billion.
    The introduction of a banding system for vehicle excise duty in the mid-2000s contributed to this increase, as did a big increase in revenues from air passenger duty – reflecting both a higher levy and rising passenger numbers.
    The ONS was unable to say how much of the £43 billion each household would pay but said that “commercial and industrial revenue would account for the majority of this total”.
    “This doesn’t mean each household is paying £1,629,” they said.
    “Revenue from environmentally related taxes (in current prices) has gradually increased over the past two decades, peaking at £43.0 billion in 2013.
    “This represented 7.5 per cent of total revenue from taxes and social contributions in the UK and was equivalent to 2.7 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP),” it said.
    The figures are all expressed in today’s prices, which strip out the impact of inflation.

    Article extract from Gaurdian

  • Patrick C Smith 30th Jan '15 - 10:47pm

    I applaud the government L/D led moves this week towards holding a national moratorium and laws to protect areas of outstanding beauty and national parks from the potential unfettered natural gas `fracking’ industry .This is the right way to develop a wider debate on green energy core principles on making time for more time for research before a new permanent Gas Fracking Act is passed by parliament.

    We will require excavation `fracking ‘ permits in the longer 10 years term, as there is a UK gas import dependency abroad with over half of gas supplies coming to us from the global market boding long term insecurity.

    I agree in the meantime that maximising home insulation and to boost the amount of `renewables’ currently available to households from the national grid is vital Green energy saving policy to promote and campaign on with local residents.

    However,I ask with no global moratorium for the super economies like China and the US to compel their compliance with international plans to reduce the green house gas emissions via coal fired stations, the global carbon footprint will only increase exponentially regardless of what we do in UK or the EU.

    John Donne said `No Man is an Island’.

  • Cara Jenkinson 29th Jan ’15 – 11:42pm

    I perhaps should apologise for not expressing myself clearly. I was not calling for lower energy prices. Lower energy prices and the false fight between front benches on such things are a distraction from the real issue.
    People with money feel able to just burn up scarce resources without even considering the good sense of insulation.

    My point was that The Treasury uses fuel bills as a convenient way of raising revenue. It has a vested interest in making as little progress as possible on insulation. It also has a vested interest in opposing insulation and advances on renewables. The Treasury Mandarin loves the 1940s approach whereby every electricity consumer gets their electricity from the monopoly of the National Grid. Their thinking boils down to – ” The more electricity the consumer buys the better it is.”

    What other explanation can there be for the Treasury’s dogged determination under this government and previous governments to prevent local electricity generation from renewables?
    What other explanation can there be for the Treasury’s fifty year reluctance to put adequate resources into domestic insulation?

  • What needs to be done is assess how much insulation can be undertaken on British houses and how energy prices influence the cost benefit analysis. When it comes to pre WW1 houses what insulation can be undertaken? I expect it is not much than double or treble glazing and thick roof insulation.

    The Weald was the centre of the British iron industry until about 1700 and many of the iron masters houses are sought after. I do not people hear about people about the adverse impacts of the Iron Industry on the Weald .

    The drilling of the oil/gas wells use rigs not much larger tan those used for large public supply water boreholes. I do not hear of people objecting to new public supply water boreholes. Once the drilling is finished , the above ground pipes and headworks could be concealed by a Sussex Barn ( wood frames with tile roof). Fracking is also used to increase yield in water supply boreholes, along with the use of explosives and hydrochloric acid. I do not hear of people complaining about the use of hydrochloric acid to increase the yield of water from limestone and Chalk boreholes.

  • Charlie 31st Jan ’15 – 1:18pm
    “… the adverse impacts of the Iron Industry on the Weald .”

    Charlie, you must be right.

    In more than 40 years of delivering Focus I can honestly say that not one person has stopped me in the street to complain about the impacts of the Iron Industry on the Weald.

    No grumble sheet, e-mail or telephone call has ever come through from anyone saying – ” I will not insulate my home because of the impacts of the Iron Industry on the Weald.”

  • Nigel Cheeseman 31st Jan '15 - 8:23pm

    Concentrating on the carbon element is not relevant enough to the majority of people living in the worst insulated homes. Many in fuel poverty suffer physically and financially because their homes are hard to heat. They are also most likely to be at home all day. The Green Deal is too complex, although a good idea in principle, and doesn’t emphasize where the biggest savings could be made. Many many homes do not have anything like the optimum level of loft insulation. When there is a loft space, adding to the existing amount is likely to be the most cost effective thing to do.

  • Helen Dudden 1st Feb '15 - 11:26am

    As I have written many times, about poorly insulated and heated homes, not enough is done. Storage heaters often past their sell buy date are still part of the accepted Curo Housing form of heating their homes. In Bath it was years before anyone listened to the logic of insulation within the Georgian stock. Your MP Don Foster was not interested. Strange how elections bring out something in those who are seeking to be elected. Though this is not the case here.

  • Simon McGrath 2nd Feb '15 - 12:25pm

    @John Tilley “What other explanation can there be for the Treasury’s dogged determination under this government and previous governments to prevent local electricity generation from renewables?”

    Can you give us further info on this please? How have the Treasury prevented local power generation from renewables? If people wish to generate their own power what is stopping them ( apart obviously from the fact it is several times as expensive )

  • Simon McGrath
    Please see my earlier comment, which gives you your answer (just Google George Monbiot you will find the article)–

    My comment started like this —

    JohnTilley 29th Jan ’15 – 12:32pm
    Cara Jenkinson, thank you for drawing attention to this.
    Anyone who read the George Monbiot article a few days ago will know that Osborne’s Treasury has run rings round Ed Davey and deliberately undermined the increasingly popular move to local solar electricity generation.

  • Helen Dudden 3rd Feb '15 - 11:44am

    Yes I have spoken to Steve on Sunday. Most of the Georgian stock is being turned into expensive holiday lets because of the issues with them.

    There are over 5000 on the waiting lists, the cost of living in the Bath area is very high. It has become, like in London a rich man’s paradise.

    Steve does know me, but I highlight what needs to be done urgently, I will of course highlight this as an important issue with the other candidates.

    Without the working class element in society, who can we rely on to provide services, students or tourist’s? We seriously need some logic in the city of Bath. It has lost some of logic it once had many years ago.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Steve Trevethan
    Might the root problems of yesterday’s childish and selfish behaviours be found in the extremely unsuited design of the House of Commons, the lout behaviour o...
  • Jeff
    expats 21st Feb '24 - 8:24am: I looked at the ‘trading giants’ listed… This makes my point perfectly. As with other Brexit benefits, the...
  • Neil Fawcett
    @Paul Barker - she clearly didn't hide them very well. Another member spotted that she had made some abhorrent posts on social media and put in a complaint. As ...
  • Nick Baird
    Imperfect as it is, our democracy is the sum of its parts, and one of those parts is Opposition Day debates. The second largest party gets 17 of those per parl...
  • Nigel Jones
    So good to have Layla representing us in Foreign Policy, especially on this issue. A pity she did not have time to say more, especially to put things in perspec...