This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Reading the "Booker: high prices in store" blog post, it looks like North (and presumably Booker as well) has mainly decided that the lights are unlikely to go out based on the performance of Michael Fallon in a fairly tough interview with Andrew Neil, where he assured Neil that the Coalition government really did have the potential power shortage situation under control.
It might be worth noting that there was a recent news story published in the Daily Mail that John Hayes (Michael Fallon's predecessor) tried to get the energy firm E.On to "warn of blackouts unless the Coalition watered down its green crusade and made a U-turn on the closure of coal-fired generators", and this apparently resulted in Hayes being kicked out of DECC a couple of months ago.
If the Hayes story is true, this suggests that there is still some risk of the power blackout situation occurring, but DECC have done a much better job in convincing Fallon that it won't happen than they did with Hayes.
To expand on my theory mentioned in my previous post that, with hindsight, Cameron must have intended to form a Coalition government with the Lib Dems all along, I'd say the main piece of evidence for this was Cameron's weird behaviour in engineering a party leader TV debate at the last general election.
The idea of holding a TV debate between the leaders of the two main political parties in the UK has being going on since the late 1960s and is rumoured to be proposed by TV companies just before every general election. My understanding is that which ever party is in second place in the opinion polls going into a general election is generally in favour of the idea, but the party in first place in the polls always turns it down, as they have more to lose if the TV debates happen to go badly from their point of view.
So when Cameron challenged Brown to a TV debate back in 2008, this was quite strange as Labour was very likely to be in second place in the polls when the next general election came along, and Cameron was to some extent throwing Brown a lifeline. The next development in the TV debate story was even stranger - Cameron agreed to the participation of the Lib Dems in the debate, even though the Lib Dems are reputed to take twice as many votes from the Conservatives as they do from Labour.
My explanation for what Cameron was doing is that he must have sounded out the idea of a Coalition with the Lib Dems probably before 2008, and one of their pre-conditions for this was that there had to be a TV party leader debate at the next general election which included them. (The Lib Dems would be the biggest beneficiary out of the three main parties of any TV debate, confirmed by the spectacular temporary bounce in the polls they received when the debates actually happened).
The only problem with this is that it assumes Cameron does joined up thinking.
That he can plan and pull off a strategy designed to put him ahead of the game.
This also assumes that he knew he was a loser from the start, something I'm not sure his ego would allow.
In pretty much everything else, he has shown himself to be an "open mouth and speak", pause (a week, typically) "engage brain" (or get the benefit of some one else's) "Spin out of/into trouble".
This is the man who thought his coalition so secure it would last a parliament and didn't bother to think about the boundaries reform until he began to get a glimmer of what we all already knew, that the Lib Dems were doing the best job of opposition in the last 100 years - from inside government.
This is the man who when the mid-staffs scandal broke tried to cover it up/whitewash it/ bury in under the bulging carpet. It is only months later that it finally dawns on him that this was actually something where the blame wholly and irrefutably lies with labour. It is only now he has recognised this.
So while it is a nice idea and possibly correct if applied to his advisers, if it was Cameron's idea I suspect he thought he would win and that it was a good idea. (Why are political advisers always foreigners, and, if Australian, possibly republicans, if American possibly Marxists? And since his new adviser appears to have diametrically opposed policies to the last one, why do we need Cameron at all? Why don't they simply elect the political advisor as PM? Or, since they profess to be politicians, why do they need political advisers at all?)
In reply to JMW, on the subject of Cameron being keener on Coalition governments with the Lib Dems than in actually winning elections, I noticed this interesting article by Paul Goodman (editor of the 'ConservativeHome' poltical website):
In the article Goodman claims that Cameron is secretly intending to have a second period of Coalition government with the Lib Dems from 2015 to 2020, but defends Cameron on the basis that the Conservatives have not achieved the important constituency boundary changes and reduced number of constituencies that he thinks are necessary for a Conservative victory.
My advice to Conservative MPs would be that they have to try to get rid of Cameron as party leader next year. (One of the new features of the Coalition government is that there are now fixed term parliaments of five years, which is a more helpful arrangement for the less well-funded smaller political parties like the Lib Dems, but the fixed term also now makes it easier for anybody plotting to depose the party leader). If for some reason Cameron is still seen as the best compromise leader they've got (a bit like Jim Hacker in 'Yes Prime Minister'), they would need to introduce some party rule where a Coalition can only be formed if a majority of Conservative MPs agree to it.
Oh the f***** Fixed Term Act.
A travesty of democracy.
A confidence trick. So totally undemocratic my blood boils when I think on it.
The pretended problem: Governments that outstay their welcome e.g. Gordon Brown's.
The situation is where the government, when elected, had a significant majority. It is strong and stable.
Such governments have no problem going to the people if they are still popular, though they may mess about a bit as to he precise timing but the timing really doesn't matter in such cases.
The only problem is when a strong and stable government has become loathed by the people. This is where they tend to hang on for grim death and where they can rely on their MPs wanting to remain on the gravy train as long as possible.
The problem is to force this government to go to the people.
This doesn't require a fixed term, just a limited term.
This problem would have been resolved by an act that said "on or before the fifth anniversary".
But when Cameron and Clegg got together, this was the excuse and not the purpose.
2010 delivered a "none of the above" result.
What we got was a Tory party with a majority but not a clear majority. Cameron claims we voted for a coalition, that it is what we wanted (he really is a moron).
But, such governments are weak and unstable.
The fixed term act was designed to make them strong and stable (even to including a 70% margin rule which surely ought to have been the tip off to the undemocratic nature of this act).
The point Cameron didn't want to accept is that such governments are meant to be weak and unstable. They are meant to fall to any party which can summon up a working majority because to do so they have to become more popular (and thus more representative) with the electorate.
It is only as 2015 looms that Cameron (and/or his new foreign political advisor) has realised that he really needs to be a bit more popular with the voters. Something that, without the fixed term act, he would have been forced to confront by June or July 2010.
It really needs to be carved in stone somewhere: Coalitions and minority governments are meant to be weak and unstable.
Write out 1000 times please.
Yes, this really upsets me.
Sorry gentle readers for the "f*******", I wasn't sure if I could say "flipping".
I have had lesser oaths censured on other sites before now.