Dispelling the hot air over windfarms. (Crewe Chronicle, August 2013).

Dear Sir

 

As a Chartered Electrical Engineer I believe I can offer some common sense and objectivity in the discussion over a proposed Wind Turbine.

 

The case for Wind Turbines, and justification for the 11% surcharge on everyone’s energy bills which subsidises them, is based on published government figures, claiming that the 4072 Wind Turbines in the UK will contribute 6.3GW (Gigawatts) of power for the National Grid. A quick bit of maths reveals this would require each turbine to produce over 1.5MW (Megawatts).

 

Technical Data from the Danish Manufacturers of most of the UK’s wind turbines shows that to achieve this, each Turbine would need to be at least 64m in diameter (large off-shore turbines have rotors of this size) and the wind would need blow at a constant and ideal 15m/s (meters per second).

 

Clearly, the government’s figures are based on a best-case, ideal set of circumstances that can never be achieved. The wind seldom blows at exactly 15m/s, let alone constantly. Indeed at wind speeds of above 20m/s, most Wind Turbines must be deactivated to prevent damage or destruction to their delicate mechanisms. Hence, the case for this particular form of renewable energy is completely flawed.

 

My reasoning is confirmed by consideration of the National Grid’s own on-line, real-time information for the amount of power produced by each source at any time. (http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/). As your readers will see, the actual amount of power generated by Wind Turbines rarely exceeds 0.5GW, less than 10% of the figures claimed by the government.

 

The environmental justification for Wind Turbines also flawed. Because the power they produce is intermittent and unpredictable, Gas Fired Power Stations must be kept running ‘on standby’ to make up the difference when they are not operational. Running a Gas Fired Power Station in this ‘on-off-on-off’ manner is far less efficient than running it constantly, just like a car engine.

 

On this basis, I would suggest that the funding of Wind Turbines through massive public subsidy is based on a con, is costing us billions of pounds, and storing up huge energy generation capacity issues for the future. It makes far more sense to invest in more predictable tidal and wave renewable energy sources, and in the research and development of Thorium based Molten Salt Process Nuclear Reactors, which have many advantages.

 

It is this sort of accurate scientific and economic based reasoning that underpins all UKIP policies, including that on Energy.

 

Cllr. Stuart Hutton CEng MIET (UKIP).

Crewe Guardian Letter: Response to Labour praise for Industry-Destroying EU.

Dear Sir

Labour Councillor Kevin Hickson writing in your August 28^th edition demonstrates a total lack of understanding when he claims that the recent good news of investment in a new model at Bentley’s Crewe Plant was as a result of our membership of the EU.

If he understood anything about industry and commerce, he would know that successful companies like VW make decisions on where to invest based on the availability of relevant skills, abundance of materials and resources and a competitive tax regime, and not the whim of corporatist, undemocratic bodies like the EU.

The decision to build the new Bentley SUV in Crewe is due to the skills, hard work and diligence of the people who work there, and nothing else.

Indeed, the EU is responsible for the transfer of thousands of manufacturing jobs away from the UK. In 2005 the EU stopped a UK Government Bridging Loan of £150m to MG-Rover, bringing about its collapse at the cost of thousands of jobs. This whilst turning a blind eye to the French Government who in the last year have pumped €5bn into Peugeot-Citroen.

It is the EU which forces the UK Government to adhere to strict European Tendering Rules for public contracts which has virtually destroyed our Rail Industry. This whilst turning a blind eye to blatant protectionist public procurement in most other EU member states.

The EU provides grants (from our taxes) to companies like Twinings Tea to close their factories in the UK and relocate to Eastern Europe.

If Labour considered the effects of its blundered and ideological polices on the working people it claims to represent, a great many of them would now be in gainful employment in good jobs.

Cllr. Stuart Hutton CEng MIET (UKIP).

Crewe Chronicle Letter (11/9/13): Response to Labour calls to re-nationalise the railways. 

Dear Sir

Rather than be drawn into the tit-for-tat mudslinging and name-calling to which some of your correspondents have resorted, having very much lost their arguments with UKIP, I will address in my letter issues more pertinent.

Dr. Adrian Heald correctly highlighted the underperformance of our railways in your last edition. However, his limited understanding of economics led him to the wrong conclusion, blaming the woes of our railways solely at the feet of ‘privatisation’.

The faults in our railways are not simply due to their ‘privatisation’ so much as the botched manner in which they were privatised. Indeed, the system we have has all the disadvantages of Nationalised Industry with none of the advantages of Private. 

As any economist will agree, the advantages of Private Industry stem from competition – innovation in products and services, cost-efficiency and accountability. By granting companies an effective monopoly on most routes – and removing competition - the government has obviated the opportunity for any of these benefits.

Furthermore, by failing to establish a properly functioning market for Rail Travel, the government has given the operators the green light to make excessive and unfair profits at the expense of customer service. By forcing train operators to bid for franchises, the government also severely limits the amount of capital these companies can invest in new trains and facilities for the comfort of Rail Users.

Once has only to consider the benefits achieved in the Telecoms Industry by unleashing the power of the markets. As a Nationalised Industry, one had to wait 6 months for a phone line to be fitted. Now, after privatisation, and creation of a market, we can stream High Definition Feature Films to a mobile handset, and call the other side of the world for a few pence – all due to the pressure of competition between providers and the imperative to innovate and develop new technology and services.

Certainly, some aspects of our railways, such as track and other infrastructure do lend themselves to a ‘Natural Monopoly’, where some degree of public control should be exercised, and operators charged for their use, the proceeds of which should be invested in their maintenance and improvement.

In calling for full nationalisation of our railways, Dr Heald has clearly forgotten the dire days of British Rail, and rather than suggesting a Common Sense solution, he jumped immediately to the Socialist’s favourite ideological answer for everything.

Cllr. Stuart Hutton CEng MIET (UKIP).

MP Letter.

Sorting through a few old letters, I happened across this beauty from October 2012. Unfortunately, Mr Timpson wasn't swayed by my clear and reasoned arguments and has since stated he will vote to stay in the EU, without even an idea of what David Cameron will pointlessly try to renegotiate. Even if DC did manage to achieve concessions from Germany and France, we know what they are made of from previous experience. Tony Blair's agreement for CAP reform, anyone?... thought not. 

Edward Timpson

Member of Parliament for Crewe and Nantwich

30 Victoria Square

Crewe

CW1 2JE

Dear Edward

May I first congratulate you on your recent appointment to the position of Minister for Children. I am aware of your hard work for Fostering and Children’s Charities, and can think of no better person for the job.

Thank you for your letter of 17/9/12 in response to my email calling for a referendum regarding the United Kingdom’s continued membership of the EU. However, I take issue with some of the points you raise.

The piecemeal concessions you list in your letter go nowhere near far enough in achieving an acceptable position for the United Kingdom with respect to the EU. People in our country are still enduring the effects of cuts in public services, whilst the EU squanders billions of pounds of our taxes on needless, vanity projects like the ‘Museum of European History’ in Brussels. Food prices rise by the day whilst thousands of tonnes of fish are plundered from our seas by subsidised foreign fishing boats, only to be thrown back dead because they do not fall with the EU’s ‘Landing Quota’.  Unchecked migration of people from Eastern Europe continues to put huge pressure on our public services, infrastructure and welfare system, whilst deserving people who have paid into the system all their lives are let down. None of the concessions you list in your letter change any of this.

Furthermore, I gather that the Conservatives in the European Parliament did nothing to oppose the French Legal Action in response to the calls for a reduction in the incredibly costly and totally unnecessary number of sessions held at the Strasbourg Parliament Building. How can the Government claim that EU membership is important to reform it from within, yet sit on their hands when a perfect opportunity to do so arises? This pathetic performance goes some way to explain why membership of the Conservative Party has almost halved during David Cameron’s leadership, with many thousands opting to join UKIP, as I have done.

Any significant change in our relationship with the EU would clearly require negotiation at a number of levels. To achieve the best settlement from any negotiation, one must enter into it when the other party is in its weakest position. The EEC took advantage our weak position in 1975, when our existing relationship was agreed. It is clear that the Eurozone countries are moving towards a more closely integrated, Federal European Superstate. This is not what the vast majority of people in our country want for Britain. Now is the ideal time to re-negotiate our position.

I am pleased that you raise the subject of the EU-South Korean Free Trade Deal. Whilst Korean Manufacturers have enjoyed a sales surge in Europe, our embattled domestic manufacturers have experienced anything but in Korea, where protectionist government purchasing policies and legislative blocks still exist. The deal has been openly criticised by both Stephen Odel, the head of Ford Motor Company’s European Operations, and Sergio Marchionne, the head of FIAT, both authorities in Manufacturing Industry and International Trade. The former asserts that the deal will cost around 70,000 manufacturing jobs in Europe, already in the grips of a deep recession and high unemployment. For the EU to have negotiated a deal which ignores ‘non-trade barriers’ and fails to include a ‘snap-back’ clause is amateurish to say the least.

I find it incredible that you can find cause to celebrate the very same Trade Deal in your letter.

International Trade was once something at which our country excelled. We pioneered it. It was the basis for the growth of British Power and Influence all around the world, a vehicle for co-operation and peace, and the reason why English is spoken in every corner of the globe. To surrender our ability to strike our own trade deals to unelected, unaccountable and clearly incompetent EU Trade Commissioners is demonstrably bad for Britain. To claim that Britain is better off in a larger trading block is also nonsense. The UK is the world’s 5^th biggest economy, and our international partners both in Europe and around the world are eager to trade with us.

I implore you to back calls a straightforward ‘In-Out’ Referendum on EU membership, so the British People can have their say on the billions lost to fraud and corruption, the misappropriated funds, the thousands of tonnes of fish ‘discard’, the white elephant of Strasbourg, the unfair Common Agricultural Policy, calamitous Economic Policies, the black hole of the Euro, and uncompetitive and restrictive Trade Deals. If you need any more good reasons to hold a referendum at the earliest opportunity, please let me know by return as I will be happy to provide many more.

Yours faithfully

Cllr. Stuart Hutton (UKIP).

Socialist Slapdown

Response to ‘Welfare System has Failed Working Folk’ (Crewe Chronicle, Wed 12^th June).

I enjoyed Mick Robert’s letter in last week’s edition ‘Welfare System has Failed Working Folk’, for what he unwittingly wrote was a perfect description of how irrelevant the Labour Party has become.

The Labour Movement was once a very important Political Force in our country. Its achievements in Worker’s Rights during the Industrial Revolution – a time of tremendous and unprecedented social upheaval – should be applauded. However, most of the points raised by Mr Roberts illustrate perfectly, just how the Labour Party has become an organisation no longer motivated by the needs of honest, hard working people, but simply by its own Self-Preservation and Socialist Ideology.

He claims that the strain on the Welfare System is due to the ‘broader structural causes of need’. To understand this rather cryptic statement, one must understand Labour’s interpretation of ‘the needy’. To Labour, ‘the needy’ are not merely those less-fortunate individuals who through no fault of their own are unable to work, but anyone they can possibly get onto State Benefits.

This is Labour’s raison d’être. They believe the more people they can get ‘hooked on handouts’, the greater their vote. That’s why, under the Blair/Brown governments, the number of individuals in receipt of State Benefits increased from 24% to 39% of the population, with the welfare bill soaring from £55Bn to £112Bn over the same period (source: ukpublicspending.co.uk). This was despicable vote-buying of the worst kind, the bill for which we will all be paying for the best part of 20 years at the expense of economic growth and jobs.

All of which makes Mr Roberts’ subsequent comment about George Osborne’s ‘damaging economic policies’ completely incredulous. True, Mr Osborne’s policies are far from successful, but I credit the people of Crewe and Nantwich with the intelligence to understand that the causes of our huge budget deficit are the structural costs built-in by Gordon Brown’s welfare profligacy. Mr Roberts clearly does not.

It is telling that Mr Roberts speaks of ‘action on demeaning work’. Exactly which jobs does Mr Roberts consider ‘demeaning’? Perhaps if fewer of those falling under this socialist doctrine considered certain jobs ‘beneath them’, the welfare system would be sufficient to help those truly in need. In my opinion, no work is demeaning.

He also blames the strain on our welfare system on ‘widening inequality in our society’. We do live in an unequal society – this is due not to a lack of opportunity, but aspiration – itself a failure of the burgeoning Welfare State. After all, every child has the opportunity to go to school, work hard and do well. But some do not take this opportunity, having been raised with a ‘something for nothing’ culture of entitlement. The real solution here is ‘breaking the cycle’ through education and a cultural shift towards aspiration and hard work – not through the usual Labour plan of ‘throwing money at a problem’ by increasing benefits. This, I believe. Is Labour’s greatest betrayal of the honest, working people of the United Kingdom. As someone once said, “Socialism is fine – until you run out of other people’s money”.

I look forward to the day when genuine, hard working, people, who have, with the best of intentions voted for Labour in the past realise they have been sold a pup. No other party has done more to make life difficult for the working people of the United Kingdom.

For it was Labour that opened the floodgates to millions of unskilled migrants, taking jobs and depressing wages, it was Labour that slapped ineffective, ‘green’ taxes on industry, forcing what was left of our Heavy Manufacturing to move overseas, it was Labour that scrapped Grammar Schools, a tremendous vehicle of social mobility for working class boys and girls, it was Labour that introduced Tuition Fees, making it harder for students from working families to go to university, and it is Labour that still refuses to give the ordinary, working people of the UK their say on who runs our country in an EU Referendum.

Cllr. Stuart Hutton (UKIP).

Labour's Euro Economics Nonsense Uncovered.

My response to Dr. Adrian Heald's letter in the Crewe Chronicle 22/05/13:

Dear Sirs

Oh dear! I don’t know a great deal about Dr. Adrian Heald’s qualifications, but on the basis of his letter last week, it is clear that he’s not a doctor of Economics.

His assertion that the UK has a Trade Surplus with the EU is totally incorrect. The UK runs a massive Trade Deficit with the EU and has done for many years. For the last full year for which figures are available from the Office for National Statistics (Nov 2011 – Oct 2012), that deficit was £53.5Bn. I can forgive Dr. Heald this oversight, because, whilst £53.5Bn may sound like a great deal of money to the rest of us, to his Labour Party, who’s Economic Ineptitude has resulted in a National Debt of nearly £1.2Tn, it is merely loose change.

This Trade Deficit is precisely the reason that the UK would command a very strong position in any exit-negotiation with the EU. By imposing Trade Barriers, the EU would be doing more harm to what is left of its own, tattered economy than ours. Of course, that strong position would depend upon the negotiations not being conducted by Messrs. Cameron or Miliband, who have already made their positions of wanting to remain within the EU perfectly clear. This is sheer idiocy on the part of anyone entering into a negotiation and typical of politicians who’ve never had a proper job, and for whom the toughest thing they’ve had to negotiate is the pavement adjacent to a chauffeur-driven Jaguar.

Dr. Heald also asserts that leaving the EU would result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, but falls short in explaining exactly how he arrived at this figure, or where or why those jobs would be lost. He is heavy on scaremongering, light on detail. In reality, the resulting ‘bonfire’ of unnecessary and restrictive EU Regulations would liberate companies in the UK to take on more staff, to innovate and to grow. 

Dr. Heald’s arguments seem to be based on the notion that the UK would not have access to the European Single Market if it left the EU. Again, totally untrue – the UK would have access to the Single Market through membership of the European Free Trade Area.

Additionally, after leaving the EU, the UK would benefit from being able to retake its seat at the World Trade Organisation and negotiate its own trade deals around the world, instead of having its hands tied by uncompetitive deals negotiated by unelected, unaccountable EU bureaucrats. Only last week, Stephen Odell, the head of Ford in Europe reiterated that the ‘Unbalanced nature of EU Trade Deals has caused huge damage to manufacturing within the EU’.

Dr. Heald states that ‘Britain cannot stand alone’ in the global market. Again, completely wrong. The UK is the world’s 5^th largest economy (IMF, 2012). We invented World Trade. We have great trading links through our language, Commonwealth and culture. We make some fantastic, high value products. Is Dr. Heald seriously suggesting that people in other countries would refuse to do business with us if we left the EU? That our international partners would stop buying world-beating British Products like Land Rovers, Rolls-Royce Jet Engines and JCBs? Again he demonstrates his complete economic naivety.

Somewhat comically, Dr. Heald quotes Winston Churchill when he describes the ‘unlimited happiness, prosperity and glory’ that could be enjoyed through European Integration. Is he referring to the 50% of unemployed young people in Spain? Are they prosperous? Or the Public Sector workers that have not been paid for over a year? Or the people dying of preventable illnesses in Greece because the Health Service can no longer provide their drugs? Are they happy? Or the people rioting and shouting despicable, nationalistic anti-German abuse on the streets of Athens? Are they Glorious? Were consequences of misguided and undemocratic European Integration not so dire for the people of this great continent, Dr. Heald’s arguments would border on the comical.

Dr Heald is quite correct on point however – that UKIP is becoming more vocal in our area. The reason is clear. UKIP represents the decent, working people in our country, with policies based on Common Sense and Sound Economics, confident about our future and certain of our values. I don’t doubt that Dr Heald is a perfectly pleasant fellow, but I feel that his time would be better spent on his excellent work in the field of Medicine, not Politics.

Cllr. Stuart Hutton CEng (Hons), (UKIP).

The Punk in Politics

Punk emerged as a Youth Counter-Culture in the mid 1970s. The punks were frustrated with what they regarded as an old, boring and largely irrelevant rock-establishment, whose music said nothing to them. They took it upon themselves to forge the culture they wanted, through fanzines, independent record shops, clubs and sheer bloody mindedness.

The ‘Do It Yourself’ ethic of Punk manifested itself in the brash, unrefined, guitar sounds and disharmonious vocals of the music, and the frayed edges, safetypins and painted-on graphics of the clothes. The production may have been rough and ready, but it was new, it was energetic, and it was theirs. The punks had shattered the illusion that you had to accept the ‘tyranny of the status quo’. They had siezed the power, and the possibliities were intoxicating.

Punk has now come to encapsulate a set of values and a mindset embraced by pro-active, forward thinking people the world over, who, frustrated with the way things are, take matters into their own hands to make things better. Nowhere is this more apparent than in high-tech industry. The biggest and most influential companies in the world, Apple, Google and Microsoft were started off in garages and on kitchen tables, by individuals with ‘crazy’ ideas, energy and motivation to do something great and an impatience for ‘the establishment’ to come up with the goods.

In many ways, we in UKIP are the Punks of Politics. We certainly have a healthy disregard for the establishment – the Political Class who seem to think they have a god given right to run our country without answer to the electorate. We deplore the ‘tyranny of the status quo’. We’re not afraid of change, we embrace the possibilities is presents. We speak our minds, we are optimists, we believe that the United Kingdom can succeed and prosper, free of the shackles that restrict us and bind us to the the dead weight of the EU. We are open minded, we listen to new ideas and encourage new thinking. We are proud of our culture, and not afraid to show it. We certainly have some colourful characters in our ranks – a true reflection of our society.

And, just like the original punks, who were banned from radio stations, record labels and concert halls, we are deamonised by those in the establishment who would seek to silence us, belittle our principles and pollute our message with untruths. It is because they fear us. Because they know - we are the first wave in an irreversable tide that will wash them away.

Never mind the Lib/Lab/Con, here’s UKIP. 

Roller Disco

When Common Sense eventually prevails, and the EU Parliament Building in Strasbourg is closed down, it would make an excellent 'Roller-Disco' - a super Tourist Attraction for a town which boasts almost no other interesting features at all.

Classic French Pop Tunes like 'Joe La Taxi', and 'Je T'Aime', could be blasted out, and '90's House DJs 'Sash' could do some 'mixes' interspersed with Herman Van Rumpuy speeches as the skaters go round and round, off their heads on disco-pills*. It would certainly make more sense than the purpose is serves now.

*I can just see on the BBC/Guardian websites now: "UKIP Disco-Pills Disgrace!"

HS2 Doesn't Add Up.

Crewe has a fine and proud history as a centre of the Rail Industry. It is with this in mind that I expect a less than favourable response to my letter, in criticism of the HS2 project announced with some fanfare last week. However, our country is in a terrible economic position where we must make rational but unpopular decisions now, for a more prosperous and secure future.

Whilst I applaud the government’s decision to finally start injecting money into the real economy, instead of just into the bond market via quantitative easing, there are much better ways to spend £34bn to stimulate economic growth. To label the project as an ‘investment in Britain’ is also misleading – this isn’t money coming into the country or created here through productive enterprise, it’s money we’ve yet to borrow, on top of our national debt of £1.11Tn, increasing to £1.4Tn by the end of the year. You and I will have to pay for this through our taxes.

As a Chartered Engineer, I’m all in favour of progress, modernisation and big infrastructure projects, but as a politician, I’m all for Sound Economics. Unfortunately, for HS2 the sums just don’t add up.

The government claim that HS2 will spread wealth from London to The North. Can you really see HSBC relocating their International Headquarters to Rotherham? Goldman-Sachs in Grimsby? Citibank in Stockport? No, for exactly the same reason that you won’t see Car Factory in Canary Wharf. In putting forward this argument the politicians merely demonstrate their lack of understanding of business and industry. Companies locate in given areas because of an abundance of necessary skills, raw materials, competitive corporate taxation and low operating costs, not because you can get there 30 minutes faster from London.

Throughout the discussions over HS2, I’ve yet to hear one business leader say “Yes, we’ll build a new factory in the north because of this new train line”. All this project will achieve is an expansion of the London commuter belt, sucking yet more industry from the regions.

If the government really wants to generate economic growth in The North by spending on rail, they could develop our derelict Rail Yards into freight hubs, giving manufacturers fast, cheap access to ports and stimulating employment. They’d investing in additional rolling stock and capacity on important, local commuter lines, where the real problems lie. They’d encourage the manufacture of trains in our country, instead of consigning factories like Bombardier in Derby to the scrap-bin. They’d introduce proper competition on our railways instead of the flawed and botched franchise system, to create competition, improve services and lower costs.

Instead of 300 jobs maintaining HS2 trains, I'd like to see 3,000 jobs designing and building trains here in Crewe and would invest, and adopt policies to make this more likely.

The misguided and wasteful HS2 project merely goes to illustrate three things about the politicians from the old, failed parties. They’re out of touch with industry, their understanding of economics is flawed, and they’re still happy to waste billions of pounds of your money to buy a few positive headlines. This, we have come to expect from Labour, however, the failure of Conservative Politicians goes some way to demonstrate why many of their traditional supporters have deserted them.

Finally, anyone under this misapprehension that this was a policy dreamt up in London should consult European Council Directive 96/48/EC, emanating from that fount of all policies inappropriate, unnecessary and unaffordable - Brussels.

Cllr. Stuart Hutton, (UKIP).