Energy 87, Europe's rising electricity prices as more wind and solar are added

More wind and solar plants, more expensive electricity. This is shown in Europe (this graph), shown in the PH. Feed in tariff (FIT) rates will rise from 4 centavos/kWh in 2015, 12.40 centavos in 2016, to 23-25 centavos/kWh this year.

Source: http://euanmearns.com/green-mythology-and-the-high-price-of-european-electricity/

Another data from Euan Mearns. Left chart is for industrial customers, right chart for household/residential customers.

Source: http://euanmearns.com/energy-prices-in-europe/

A friend commented that "We should treat the subsidies as state support to explore alternative energy sources."

It is not "state support" but "consumers support". The state, the DOE or Malacanang or Congress have no money of their own. It is ultimately the consumers who pay for more expensive electricity, including those who (a) do not support more subsidies to REs in Luzon-Visayas, and (b) consumers in Mindanao who are not even members/part of WESM because Mindanao grid is not yet connected to Luzon-Visayas grids.

Imagine if only Luzon-Visayas consumers pay for FIT here, the price would have been about 18 centavos/kWh last year and could be 28 centavos/kWh this year. Remember also that these are just "intro prices", first 3 years of FIT implementation with 17 more years for existing RE plants and with with RE plants added to the grid plus FIT price escalation, expect 30, 50 centavos/kWh or more in the coming years, FIT alone. Eh current WESM prices are only about P2.80/kWh, why do we pay P9+, P10+/kWh for wind and solar? Fluctuating pa every minute, every second.

Look at Europe again, the charts above. They have the longest system of subsidies for renewables, perhaps for the past 20 or 30 years. RE prices coming down? No, the opposite happens, (a) prices keep rising, and (b) grid instability rising, they are talking of blackouts soon in UK, Germany, Denmark, etc. because of more wind and solar added to the grid.

Meanwhile, more news reports about RE in Europe.

(1) "The cost of the botched renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme to the Northern Ireland taxpayer will be £490m." http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-38414486

(2) "The way the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme was set up in Northern Ireland meant the subsidies offered were greater than the cost of the fuel.[The scheme was run by offering £1.40 for every £1 spent on heating.]" http://www.thegwpf.com/renewable-energy-scandal-rocks-britain/

Many "more RE to save the planet" advocates say that REs like wind and solar are attaining "grid parity" and getting cheaper, more competitive. If this is true, subsidies can be cut or removed but when subsidies are cut, those REs shrink. No subsidies, cheaper electricity for consumers mean these REs will die. Case of UK. 

(3) "The U.K.’s renewable and low-carbon energy sector shrank by 8.7 percent last year, partly because of cuts to subsidies. The sector, from wind farms to electric vehicles, turned over 42.2 billion pounds ($52.5 billion) in 2015, provisional figures by the Office for National Statistics showed on Friday. That’s lower than the 46.2 billion pound recorded in 2014." 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-16/u-k-clean-energy-sector-shrinks-after-government-subsidy-cuts

Energy rationing, like food rationing, toilet paper rationing in socialist economies. May soon happen in industrial and former imperial power UK. And the "planet saviours" will jump with joy?

(4) "The British Infrastructure Group, led by former Conservative minister Grant Shapps, warned lights could go out across the country next winter because there is not enough spare capacity in the system to cope with higher demand. There is just 0.1 per cent spare electricity in the current system, a dangerously small amount of headroom in case of emergencies over the winter months, the report warned."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/19/electricity-bills-set-rise-30-year-power-rationed-amid-shortage/

--------------

See also:
Energy 84, CCC's anti-coal, anti-fossil fuel lobbying, December 02, 2016 
Energy 85, Trump transition team questions for US DOE, December 17, 2016 
Energy 86, Germany's RE on a wild ride, December 30, 2016

Energy 52, Renewables to "save the planet", Germany and UK cases

This is section III of my presentation, Climate change and the need for cheaper and stable energy sources during the Energy Policy Development Program (EPDP) Conference 2016 this week, January 12-13 at the New World Hotel in Makati. 

The cost of renewables rising for households despite their supply instability and very low capacity factor.

At this time of human progress, they are talking about possible blackouts in Germany or other parts of Europe? No thanks to intermittent power sources.

Also in UK, they are talking about energy rationing? At this time of human progress?

Reversal of renewables subsidies starting. Just following the law of economics and scarcity.

And that is why when there are wind towers, there are no houses, no hotels or shops or beach/mountain resorts near them. Wind farms can displace other nearby economic activities.

Government-sponsored renewables cronyism is lousy. They should be stopped and spare the public of expensive and intermittent energy. If people really want wind and solar power, they can do it and use their own money and savings, and not force everyone else to pay the subsidies to make this expensive electricity become "cheap and affordable."
--------------

See also:

Energy Econ 37, More on Wind Power in Germany, June 07 2015 

Energy Econ 38, Solar Power in Germany and in Cadiz City, Negros Occidental, June 15, 2015

Energy 47, Low capacity factor of wind, solar and biomass plants, November 04, 2015 

Energy 50, Cheap oil, natural gas and coal prices, December 15, 2015 

Energy 51, More on solar power and supply instability, December 29, 2015

BWorld 38, Climate change and the need for cheap energy, January 14, 2016

Can UK hug socialism again?

One thing I appreciate about many European socialists is that they are more honest. Like Jeremy Corbyn, he's not hiding his socialism philosophy just to be popular. Not that I'm a fan of socialism. I'm for capitalism.

"Corbyn has hinted at a return to Clause IV, a Labour manifesto pledge committing the party to public ownership of industry that was scrapped by Blair in 1995...

suggesting the “Big Six” energy companies should also be taken back under state control....

significantly increasing spending on the National Health Service — rely on the potential to recoup revenue lost to avoidance and evasion and poor collection....

creating a National Investment Bank, with the power to issue bonds that would then be acquired by the Bank of England..."

Meanwhile, as many European governments become more populist, more welfarist, more tax-hungry, their economies suffer. 2nd quarter GDP growth: Germany 0.4%, France 0.2%, Italy 0.3%, Netherland s 0.1%. Eurozone growth target for 2015 is 0.3%. http://www.businessinsider.com/eurozone-gdp-q2-2015-2015-8

This confirms what I argued during the Ateneo Eagle Watch forum -- Europe's growth is towards flat, even contraction. Too many regulations and taxes, too many permits and government signatures, too many welfarists and eco-socialists. Europe grew and industrialized fast on a laissez faire, free market economic system. Let the most efficient, most hard-working people do their thing so long as they do not steal, kill, abduct, defraud people. Minimum regulations and prohibitions.

And the two most risky debt addict governments in the planet are ruled by socialist leadership, Venezuela and Greece.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-riskiest-sovereign-bonds-ranked-2015-8

Meanwhile, I have met Jeremy's brother, Piers Corbyn, a solar physicist, in a conference in NYC in 2009. While Jeremy is a climate alarmist, Piers is a climate realist and skeptic of "man-made" warming/CC. While Jeremy argues that CO2 is the main driver of the planet's climate, Piers argues that the Sun, and GCRs (galactic cosmic rays) are the main drivers of our planet's climate (warming-cooling cycle).

Piers looks like Einstein, long and ugly hair, nerd-looking, has lots of Greek equations in his presentations.

----------

See also:
Welfarism 10: Spanish Problem, the Euro or the State?, December 01, 2010 
Welfarism 20: Hollande and Socialism in France, May 07, 2012
Pol. Ideology 36: On Capitalism, Akbayan, Drugs Legalization and Toqueville, October 10, 2012

EFN Asia 13: Welfare Populism and Poverty, November 13, 2012 

EFN Asia 15: Distortions of Welfare Populism, January 17, 2013

UK Election and Energy Policies

I am not following closely UK politics, but the huge victory of the Conservatives means partly a backlash against avid Greenism? One example is the defeat of UK's climate change Secretary Ed Davey. From mirror.co.uk, below.

“However, I want to make it clear that if there is a Conservative Government in place we will remove all subsidy for on-shore wind and local people should have a greater say.

“Frankly I think we have got enough on-shore wind and we have enough to be going on with, almost 10 per cent of our electricity needs, and I think we should give local people a say if they want to block these sorts of projects.

“The only way to stop more on-shore wind is to vote Conservative there is no other party with this policy. We are saying very clearly we would remove the subsidy and give local people the power to say yes or no." -- David Cameron during the campaign period. From countytimes.co.uk/ below.

One day before the UK elections, some greens were praising Ed Milliband as "A climate change champion". These greens, they hated Cameron? From Climate Progress above,

“Milibrand’s Labour party is calling for a policy to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation to zero by 2030.

In an op-ed in the Guardian this February, Miliband wrote that tackling climate change is the “single most important thing we can do for our children and our grandchildren.”

“There is no trade-off between tackling climate change and building an economy in which working families succeed,” he wrote. “Indeed, success on one will help us achieve the other.”

And from Energy Storage Report, 

"Labour, currently trailing the ruling Conservatives by a photo-finish margin in opinion polls, has issued one of the strongest renewable energy promises in the electoral campaign, with a plan to de-carbonise the UK completely by 2030.

“We will work to make Britain a world leader in low carbon technologies over the next decade, creating a million additional green jobs,” says Labour’s manifesto." 

Maybe many British voters were scared of this scenario?

Meanwhile, some sectors in Britain are happy that the Conservatives were winning. News above from Utility Week.

"The industry came under heavy political pressure after former energy secretary Miliband proposed a raft of energy industry interventions eighteen months ago, which shadow minister Caroline Flint vowed would overrule the findings of the ongoing Competition and Market Authority probe.

Investors at Citigroup said the election result is a “benign outcome” for the industry “as the threat of arbitrary regulation and tariff setting, which was a high probability under Labour's manifesto, has diminished”. May 8, 2015.

Those news reports above point out that the Greens, whether from the Green Party or Labor Party, can be losing grip and support from UK's electorates. Ecological central planning will not work over the long term.

H/t to Benny Peiser and TheGWPF for some news links.

----------

See also:

Energy Econ 29: UK's Renewable Problems and Expensive Electricity, November 24, 2014, 
Energy 33: Renewables Cronyism, Germany and UK Cases, 

Energy 33: Renewables Cronyism, Germany and UK Cases

Last Thursday afternoon, I gave two lectures in one class in Ateneo handled by my friend, Joey Sescon. The first is about renewables cronyism, the second about cheap oil. There were many questions and reactions on the first paper, so I presented it again in another class, also handled by Joey.

Before presenting the paper, I mentioned that I just came from Nepal. And at this month of the year, brownouts in certain parts of Kathmandu is up to 18 hours a day. The country relies heavily on hydro power and when the ice are still up  there in  the  mountains, not yet melted because it is winter, then  the  capacity of hydro power plants is very limited.

My six points outline:

1. Global energy mix

2. Generation cost, Electricity prices

3. Germany Case

4. UK Case

5. No climate basis for renewables cronyism

6. Conclusions

So despite decades of favoritism and subsidies to renewables by many governments especially in Europe, the share to total energy mix and electricity generation remains very small until this decade.

Just one major explanation: wind and solar are simply costly. Their energy density is low, their reliability and stability is low because they are intermittent. When the  wind  does not blow, when  the Sun does not show up, electricity output is zero, even on days and hours that people want electricity.

When I went to south Sweden in 2003, I landed at Copenhagen airport in Denmark, then travelled by train to Malmo, then Lund. Before the plane landed, I saw many windmills on the sea in Denmark, the offshore windmills. They looked cute.

Europe being a very modern continent, and Germany and UK being highly industrialized countries, and  yet there are stories  and reports of “EU risks blackout”, a “dark continent”, and “impossible green  dream”.

In developed Asia like Hong Kong (electricity, 71% from coal, 29% from natural gas, zero from renewables; Singapore 78% from natural gas and 18% from oil, very small from renewables (as of 2011, from ADB’’s Key Indicators 2014) ); S. Korea and  Japan, the words “blackout” or brownout” or “dark continent” are never heard. They have huge, stable and reliable energy supply, at cheap  prices, their energy policies have not been hijacked by green  socialism yet.

Energy Econ 29: UK's Renewable Problems and Expensive Electricity

Some not-so-good news for the subsidize-renewables and  climate alarmism movement.

(1) From Sunday Express, October 15, 2014:

The green crusade of successive governments is set to double electricity bills for households and cost homes £26 billion a year by 2030, it was claimed yesterday.

"The cost of renewable energy and carbon taxes will put an extra £983 a year on household bills by then, compared to relying on a mix of nuclear and new gas-fired power stations, three experts told a Lords committee.

They also said the “foolhardy” green policy will do little to cut emissions of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

The Scientific Alliance report highlights warnings by the regulator Ofgem that the margin for electricityproduction for the 2015-16 winter will be at an all-time low of 2 per cent compared to the pre-privatisation requirement of at least 20 per cent.

It means that in times of high demand, such as during very cold weather, Britain would be at risk of power cuts."

The alliance argues that wind power – which is the main renewable energy source depended on by Government – is unreliable.

(2) From the UK Gov, October 19, 2014:

The subsidy change will also save up to £2 million of taxpayers’ money each year that won’t be available for these subsidies. The reform follows other government measures designed to end support for solar farms in agricultural fields. The Department for Energy and Climate Change recently announced that renewable energy subsidies for new large-scale solar farms will end next April....

The changes the government is making are expected to slow down the growth of solar farms in the countryside in England. There are currently 250 installed, with the biggest covering as much as 100 hectares. Under previous plans, the number of fields dedicated to solar farms was set to increase rapidly, with over 1,000 ground-based solar farms expected by the end of the decade across the UK.

(3) From The Telegraph, October 21, 2014.

Our power stations are ageing fast. We have eked out their lifespan for longer than expected, but replacements are urgently needed. Yet for years, our politicians have failed to act, promoting costly and over-subsidised renewables rather than building new gas or nuclear plants. To make matters worse, much of our capacity has been scrapped, in compliance with environmental restrictions set in Brussels.

If things continue as they are, the prospect has been raised of Seventies-style restrictions on energy use, even rolling blackouts. That is a grim prospect for a 21st-century economy....

(4) From Mail Online,October 15, 2014

Former Environment Secretary said support for flawed wind and solar power cost billions and made electricity and gas needlessly expensive.

He called on Whitehall to was to scrap the Climate Change Act. 

He warned claims of impending environmental disaster were 'exaggerated'.

(5) From The Telegraph, November 7, 2014:

In a shocking assessment, National Grid last week said that Britain’s cushion of spare generating capacity had sunk to just 4pc, down from 17pc three years ago and its lowest level in five years. And that’s despite a series of emergency measures, including incentives to business to use less power, to deal with the looming blackout problem.

That a country of Britain’s size, status and relative prosperity is running such risks is a quite shocking state of affairs. There is admittedly some justification in Mr Davey’s excuse – that this is largely the fault of the last lot, and particularly the disastrously inadequate and idealistically minded energy policy run by our now friendless Labour leader, Ed Miliband. Replacement, base load generating capacity takes a long time to build, and it should have begun a long time ago.

(6) From The Telegraph, October 5, 2014:

Green taxes on energy are undermining British businesses by imposing costs which are not faced by international competitors, Vince Cable has said.

The Business Secretary admitted that a compensation scheme for heavy industry introduced by the government in 2011 is failing to "go the whole hog" and redress the balance. He said that British firms are "struggling" to compete with their international rivals on price, which is leading to work going abroad.

"Many of our manufacturing companies and exporters – particularly in areas like steel and cement and others which consume lots of electricity – are struggling against international competition because of the cost of energy.

"They will argue that because we are trying to be green we are imposing costs on them which their competitors don't have.

The Germans, the British, "they are prepared to make sacrifices to address", including suffering some health and overall diswelfare. 

(7) From the International Business Times, November 6, 2014:

More than 15 million UK households plan to ration their energy use this winter to cope with "sky-high" energy costs, according to uSwitch.

The price comparison website, which surveyed 5,300 people, found that almost six in ten (57%) people have already cut back or plan to ration theirenergy use this winter in a bid to reduce bills.

The research also revealed that more than a third of people (36%) who rationed their energy last winter said it affected their health and wellbeing.

"In this day and age it's shocking to see so many being forced to go without heating and risk their health, simply to cope with high energy bills," said Ann Robinson, director of consumer policy at uSwitch.

(8) From The Times UK, November 21, 2014:

Subsidies that will cost households £14 a year and hand energy companies windfall profits to keep the lights on will be “challenging to defend politically”, a credit rating agency has said.

Companies will receive the payments to stop them closing power stations, even though in many cases they would remain open anyway.

Moody’s suggested that politicians could scrap the capacity market subsidy scheme if there is another backlash against green energy levies.

The agency said in a report: “While for a few plants, the capacity market may make thedifference between closing and staying open, the concept and cost of paying many other already economic plants even when they are not running may be challenging to defend politically in the context of the recent debate around the affordability of energy bills.”

(9) From CityAM, November 20, 2014

By promoting expensive forms of electricity – and discouraging cheaper forms, as the World Bank has done by, for example, refusing to finance coal-fired power plants – the West is burdening poor countries with the most expensive ways of generating power. The growing fleet of renewables in Europe, particularly in Germany and the UK, is leading to an increase in fuel poverty. Such an approach would be even more damaging in poor nations, which desperately need cheap and reliable energy and growth to alleviate poverty.

The UK and other rich nations should no longer fund decarbonisation in the developing world. In the short to medium term, developing countries need access to plentiful, cheap and reliable electricity. In any case, promoting renewables in the developing world is not an answer to dealing with the effects of the climate system.

--------------

See also:

Energy Econ 25: Coal Use and GDP Expansion, Is There a Correlation?, September 01, 2014

Energy Econ 26: Dealing with Power Deficit in 2015, September 19, 2014

Energy Econ 27: Expensive Electricity, FIT and Europe's Renewables, October 09, 2014

Energy Econ 28: Germany's Renewables, Collapsing Windmills, October 22, 2014

Welfarism 28: Nanny State Cares Too Much for its Citizens, UK Style

A welfare and nanny state will ultimately over-extend its "care" for the citizens. Spy, stop and penalize them because it cares for them so much. This is from a Filipino-British friend living in UK, he wrote this yesterday.

----------

We now have a heavy police presence. There are frequent checkpoints with teams of maybe 10-20 police, their vans, cars and motorbikes spread out along the road. They randomly check motorists to make sure their papers are in order. I have never seen this as part of normal police procedure in the UK. Now it's like an every day thing.

The other day they stopped two buses and had police checking IDs and questioning passengers. It's difficult to describe how unusual this is if you've never lived in the UK. But people don't seem to care. I'm sure they are comforted by it. You have to understand that these are not like Philippine checkpoints. They have mobile computers linked to their databases where they can check your details and past history.

Last month we were all in the car with my dad driving. We were stopped because the policeman saw that my daughter wasn't using an approved child car seat. The policeman took photos of the whole car with everyone in it. He crawled around (yes, crawled around the car!) inspecting underneath, checking tire pressure and looking for other violations. (Do you see a Philippine cop doing that?) He then put my dad's ID into his computer and found a tax violation. The tax on our car had expired the week before and my dad had forgotten to renew it. Bam...two fines and a warning for a soft tire. Total cost: £160 (appox. Php12,000). You can pay online. Further, he made us to go to the nearest car shop to buy an approved child car seat before we could continue with our journey.

-----------

I told my friend that it's indeed discomforting. As societies modernize, the degree of individual freedom -- freedom to be wise or unwise, to innovate or commit mistakes -- should expand, not decrease. Here. freedom of mobility of people is curtailed, they can be stopped by the police anytime anywhere even for no apparent traffic violation. It would seem that those in the Philippines and other developing countries have higher degree of freedom in this respect.

Two friends made these comments when I posted this in Government and Taxes, Liberty and Responsibility fb group.

(1) technology minus liberalism = orwell's worst nightmare.

a step-by-step strategy, the ultimate aim of which is to treat all citizens as potential law breakers and to criminalise as many citizens as possible? the more of this i see, the more radical my libertarian convictions become

(2) Am surprised to hear that from a brit--I've always known that compared to the US, UK has always had tighter "monitoring" of its citizenry & residents. Even pet dogs' barking is controlled in Central London!

If even a Beatles' impromptu rooftop concert at a city building was cut short by London police as it was causing some commuter distraction (not even traffic), it's not surprising that things have come to this. And these are just visible physical signs of police presence. In London, all TV and cable is registered--one cannot simply install one's own unregistered device without being found out. Even immigration keeps a close tab of all foreign residents & visitors--overstaying without being penalized is practically unheard of in this country. These are less visible signs (am not even talking about Snowden's revelations) but definite proof of tighter & more sophisticated control in a seemingly free world.

More news links that my British-Filipino friend posted. (1) From The Guardian last February 7th.

Police stopped nearly 250 drivers during a crackdown.

A total of 242 vehicles were pulled over by the police, two of which were seized, during an operation on Wednesday, February 5, in Sutton.

One driver was arrested for drink driving, one received a cannabis warning and two are due to be summonsed to court for having unroadworthy vehicles.

Another driver was fined and received penalty points for having a bald tyre and one was fined for not wearing a seatbelt.

Officers used automatic number plate recognition to target uninsured, untased and unregistered vehicles. Safer Neighbourhoods Insp Ian Hicks said: "This operation and others like it are all about catching criminals, deterring criminal activities and keeping the streets safe. These operations will continue and you will be caught if you don't have insurance or the correct insurance."

(2) From The Guardian's youtube clip, Stop and search: police battle for controlof London's streets. My friend made these two observations:

(1) As expected, the community, even while they were victimised, supported the powers as a necessary thing. Just listen to them and the cognitive dissonance is glaring.

(2) The motorist stops I described above must obviously be an extension to the 'Stop and Search' protocol. They tried it, liked it, and wanted to extend it into other areas. Anyone who says that the slippery slope fallacy is an invalid argument probably have never slipped down that slope themselves.

Meanwhile, another new development in UK. From WUWT.

UK’s only climate skeptic party crushingly wins the EU election

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The United Kingdom Independence Party, the only climate-skeptical party in Britain, has scored a crushing victory in Sunday’s elections to the Duma of the European Union.

Britain’s most true-believing party, the Greens, won one or two new seats, but the second most true-believing party and junior partner in the Children’s Coalition that currently governs at Westminster, the “Liberal” “Democrats” (who are neither), were all but wiped off the map.

The European Duma, like that of Tsar Nicholas II in Russia, has no real power. It cannot even bring forward a Bill, for that vital probouleutic function is the sole right of the unelected Kommissars – the official German name for the tiny, secretive clique of cuisses-de-cuir who wield all real power in the EU behind closed doors….

------------

See also:

Welfarism 24: Comments on the Kasambahay, Solo Parents Bills, December 03, 2012 

Welfarism 25: Centenarians and Populist Legislators, May 30, 2013 

Welfarism 26: John Mangun on Economic Decline of the West, July 31, 2013

Welfarism 27: On Support for Single Mothers and HIV Patients, November 29, 2013

Globalization, Mobility and Inequality, February 18, 2014

Pol. Ideology 39: Thatcherism

The great, cool “Iron Lady” Margaret Thatcher, UK Prime Minister from 1979-1990, passed away yesterday. RIP, Margaret.

Let me start with a few quotes from this great leader. 

To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches. 

We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state. 

If my critics saw me walking over the Thames they would say it was because I couldn’t swim.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4878472/Margaret-Thatcher-in-quotes-Iron-Ladys-most-famous-phrases.html   

I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society -- from a give-it-to-me, to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain.  (February 1984) 

We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.  (September 1988) 

Ronnie and I got to know each other at a time when we were both in Opposition, and when a good many people intended to keep us there. They failed, and the conservative 1980s were the result. But in a certain sense, we remained an opposition, we were never the establishment. As Ron once put it: the nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.' As usual, he was right.  (MT on Ronald Reagan, 2002)

Wikipedia defined Thatcherism as 

Thatcherism claims to promote low inflation, the small state and free markets through tight control of the money supply, privatisation and constraints on the labour movement. It is often compared with Reaganomics in the United States... Thatcher'sChancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as:

Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism.

Cool ideology. Very much related to classic liberalism.

Yesterday, a friend in UK posted in her facebook wall that she understands the anger of some British citizens against Thatcher because she lived for several years in north Britain and she saw the economic destruction of communities and industries there under the Thatcher leadership. That until now, people there despise there, some even have parties celebrating her death. And that her husband was a young man in the 80s and can never forget the hardships they experienced during that time.

I replied that Thatcher cut welfarism and the strong labor unions’ political power, the succeeding UK governments reinstated and expanded welfarism. AfterWW2 up to the 70s, UK was almost socialist. Education, hospitalization, housing, transpo, pension, etc., all taken cared of by the state. And the state took almost everything from the people's pockets. Thatcher changed that. The Brits loved her, that's why she was elected and re-elected and re-elected, PM from 1979-90 (11 years).

The current PM David Cameroon made a brief assessment, “welfare system has lost its way”, http://www.interaksyon.com/article/58859/british-pm-says-welfare-system-has-lost-its-way.

My friend suggested that I should explain those things to the British people who suffered under her rule.

I replied that t's the British people's own PM who explained that to them. I'm no British to do that task. They elected, directly or indirectly, Cameroon and the latter has some bad news for them, that forever dependency on the state is wrong and the pain will be on them, as they are experiencing now.

Part of the interaksyon report that I posted above said,

The Conservative leader suggested that a system originally designed to protect the frail and be a "stopgap" was now backfiring.

"It was invented to help people escape poverty, but has trapped too many people in it. It was meant to be a stopgap in hard times, but has become a lifestyle choice for some. It was designed to bring us together, but is causing resentment," he said. 

"No one wants to work hard every day and see their hard-earned taxes being used to fund things they themselves cannot afford or keep generations dependent on welfare.

This is a powerful statement. But statists and welfarists argue that to tell people to assume more personal responsibility in their own lives is now wrong, that the nanny state should assume "more government responsibility" even if government resources are clearly insufficient and unsustainable to do so. Not good.

I don't live in UK, I don't pay taxes there. People who live in UK or British citizens abroad who glorify heavy welfarism and state nannyism can tell Cameroon or other political leaders there who now plan to cut welfarism and populism to stop that proposal. I write for those living in the Philippines and fellow Filipinos living abroad who bother to read this blog. From the lessons of welfarism and populism in  UK, France, Germany, the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain), I can say that state nannyism is wrong and we Filipinos and other Asians should follow their model. If it is so right, those European governments should not be heavily in debt by now as their people are productive enough to pay all past debts mainly to expand and sustain heavy welfare spending.

The main saving grace of those European and North American governments why their economies have not imploded yet, is their rule of law culture. Entrepreneurs and investors, even if weakened by high and multiple taxes, regulations and prohibitions, they are strengthened however by the stability of policies, the respect of private property rights, the certainty of punishment for certain criminals and corrupt government officials.

--------------

See also:
Pol. Ideology 34: More on Anarchy or Minarchy, July 17, 2012
Pol. Ideology 36: On Capitalism, Akbayan, Drugs Legalization and Toqueville, October 10, 2012
Pol. Ideology 37: Collectivism, Conservatism and Liberalism, October 12, 2012 
Pol. Ideology 38: Branding Via Clans, Not Philosophy, April 05, 2013

Healhcare Monopoly 2: United Kingdom

Last September 5, 2010, I wrote this

UK's Healthcare System

For many of us in developing countries, it is unthinkable that public healthcare in rich countries can result in more malnutrition among the patients, especially the senior citizens.

But a WSJ article, Postcard from the NHS, reported the following to be happening in UK hospitals:

In 2007, 239 patients died of malnutrition in British hospitals, the latest year for which figures are available. A wag might say it must be the English cuisine. But the real roots of this tragedy lie in Britain’s government-run medical system....

A British charity, Age U.K.... reports that in 2007-2008 148,946 Britons entered hospitals suffering from malnutrition and 157,175 left in that state, meaning that hospitals released 8,229 people worse-off nutritionally than when they entered. In 2008-2009, that figure was up to 10,443.

The problem is not a lack of food. Hospital malnutrition mostly affects the elderly or otherwise frail, who often need individualized mealtime assistance. Spoon-feeding the elderly may not seem like the best use of a nurse’s time, but for some it may literally be a matter of life and death. Yet the constant scarcities created by government medicine, along with the never-ending drive to trim costs, has led the National Health Service to give nurses additional responsibilities and powers in recent years. Inevitably, this leaves them with less time to make sure patients are getting fed.

I have read a few months ago the plan of the NHS to decentralize healthcare provision in UK. That is, move a number of healthcare functions from the central government to local government units.

While decentralization is generally better than centralization in healthcare provision and other social services, this move still does not get away from "more government role and responsibility" in healthcare, instead of moving a number of responsibilities to personal and corporate responsibilities via private healthcare insurance firms that compete with each other.

The government will not confiscate too much money from the people in the form of high taxes, the people keep more of their income and savings, they get their own private health insurance. If they are not satisfied with their current provider, or someone else will offer a better healthcare package, people can buy a new health insurance there.

This competitive system of health provision will do away with less sensitive or lazy health professionals, do away with inefficient healthcare management system.

People from developing countries should watch such development in the healthcare system in many rich countries. The "free healthcare" system there is not mostly a "bed of roses."
----

Now I see these 5 different news reports from 4 different sources, of how far from "model" healthcare system the UK government has. Here they are.

1. Brits' Dirty Laundry
Investors Business Daily
Posted 02/26/2010 07:02 PM ET

Consider the British hospital trust that was the focus of a recently completed independent inquiry. According to U.K. media reports, the review found that at least 400 and as many as 1,200 patients died from 2005 to 2008 because of poor care by Mid Staffordshire National Health Service Foundation Trust, which operates two hospitals...

The report is filled with examples that should be the shame of the British health system. It documents patient deaths due to apparent cases of neglect and misdiagnoses, and says managers "stopped providing safe care because they were preoccupied with government targets and cutting costs." There are records of patients developing infections, going hungry and left sitting on toilets.

The inquiry also noted "serious departures from the standard of basic care which every patient is entitled to expect," abuses of elderly patients, and the too-common presence of unwashed patients and bedding "soiled with urine and feces for considerable periods of time." Other sanitation problems included the presence of blood, discarded needles and used dressings.

These problems shouldn't be unexpected. Last year, the media reported that up to 10,000 cancer patients were dying needlessly in the U.K. each year because their condition was diagnosed too late, according to research by the government's director of cancer services. Also in 2009, there were reports that the health secretary ordered a probe into "claims that patients are dying due to poor care in at least 27 hospitals around the country."

2. Toilet brush 'blunder' death
By ANDREW PARKER
The Sun, Published: 18 May 2010

A YOUNG mum died after a series of blunders by doctors who failed to spot a six-inch long TOILET BRUSH HANDLE embedded in her buttock, an inquest was told today.
Cindy Corton, 35, was left with the bizarre injury after a drunken fall in a friend's bathroom in 2005 but "serious errors" by doctors then led to her death.

It was two years before Cindy, who was in constant pain, was able to convince doctors that the thin serrated plastic handle was stuck in the flesh of her bottom.

After two unsuccessful operations in 2007 the mother-of-one was in such agony that she agreed to undergo further surgery in June last year despite being told it could prove fatal.

Cindy of Sleaford, Lincs, spent more than ten hours in surgery at Nottingham's Queens Medical Centre but died from massive blood loss. Husband Peter, 61, said that when his wife first attended A&E at Lincoln County Hospital she was sent home with painkillers, despite showing them the wound on her bottom.

Four days later she was in such pain she went to Grantham Hospital and, although x-rays were taken, nothing was found. He told the inquest in Grantham: "She wasn't properly examined by the doctor at Lincoln. "At Grantham she wasn't examined properly again...

Cindy's husband, a construction manager, is now taking legal action against United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust. He said after the hearing: "Ok she was drunk but they didn't take her seriously. She showed them the wound but they didn't do a proper examination.

"I think it was probably down to the hospitals trying to save money and doing things as cheaply as possible." He added: "Cindy got a very poor service from the NHS. I'm sure she would have got better treatment in foreign countries."

3. Cash crisis in NHS leaves patients lying on operating tables
The Telegraph
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent 11:00AM BST 18 Jul 2010

Women in labour have been forced to wait while epidural equipment was borrowed from other hospitals, while other patients have been denied chest drains and radiology supplies, according to doctors at South London Healthcare Trust.

Minutes of a meeting between medical staff and the trust’s chief executive say “cash flow” problems at the trust which has a £50 million deficit, mean vital equipment is regularly not ordered.

A separate letter sent to managers of the trust, one of the largest in the country, says consultants have been misled into carrying out operations when it was not safe to go ahead because of bed shortages....

Minutes of a meeting of the medical staff committee of Princess Royal University Hospital in Bromley say managers acknowledged that “crude measures” introduced to cut spending had affected clinical supplies, meaning that stocks had run out when they were needed.

The document records: “The trust in different areas had run out of under water sealed chest drains, epidural packs, gynaecological disposables, radiological disposables, and the response to this was 'this was a cash flow issue’”.

Doctors told managers “again and again” that consultants were unable to know that equipment was missing until the last item had been used, when their patient was already lying on the table, according to the minutes of June 16 meeting....

4. NHS reforms will cost £3bn and will not work: academic
The Telegraph
By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor 8:00AM BST 17 Jul 2010

Reform of the NHS planned under the government's white paper will cost around £3bn without saving money or improving patient care, a leading academic has warned in the British Medical Journal.

Kieran Walshe, professor of health policy and management at Manchester Business School wrote...

"On the basis of the National Audit Office’s survey data, I estimate that the proposed NHS reorganisation will cost between £2bn and £3bn to implement, at a time of unprecedented financial austerity."

He said whether abolishing primary care trusts and strategic health authorities in order to set up GP consortia, which may number in the hundreds, will save any management costs remains to be seen....

5. NHS 'failing to treat elderly with care and respect'
15 February 2011 Last updated at 10:23 GMT
By Nick Triggle
Health reporter, BBC News

The NHS is failing to treat elderly patients in England with care, dignity and respect, an official report says.

The Health Service Ombudsman came to the conclusion after carrying out an in-depth review of 10 cases. The ombudsman, which deals with serious complaints against the NHS, said the patients - aged over 65 - suffered unnecessary pain, neglect and distress.

While the ombudsman's Care and Compassion report is only based on 10 cases, the ombudsman said they were far from isolated examples.

Of nearly 9,000 complaints made to the ombudsman last year, 18% were about the care of older people. In total, it accepted 226 cases for investigation - twice as many as for all the other age groups combined.

Several themes became clear from the ombudsman's analysis. Half the people featured did not consume adequate food or water during their time in hospital.

Some were left in soiled or dirty clothes. One woman told the ombudsman how her aunt was taken on a long journey to a care home by ambulance. She arrived strapped to a stretcher and soaked with urine, dressed in unfamiliar clothing held up by paper clips, accompanied by bags of dirty laundry, much of which was not her own.

Communication was also highlighted as a problem with one 82-year-old woman recalling how, on being discharged from hospital after minor surgery, she was frightened and unsure of how to get home. She asked the nurse to phone her daughter, but was told "this is not my job".

In another case, a cancer patient wanted to be discharged to die at home. When his daughter arrived to collect him, she found him sitting behind a closed curtain in distress.

He had been left for several hours in pain and desperate to go to the toilet. He was unable to ask for help because he was so dehydrated that he could not speak or swallow....

UK is a modern and rich country, so it is disorienting to hear or read this kind of stories. While there are many issues and factors that can explain why such things happen, I will only affirm my two central themes in this blog.

1. Where there is lack of competition, there is little incentive for the monopoly (or oligopoly) provider to improve its services and minimize cost, and

2. When something is provided for free or at a heavily subsidized price, demand will always be larger than supply. The result will be supply rationing and ultimately, a deterioration of the quality of service delivery.

H/t to Dan Mitchell blog for providing the links to the above reports.
-------

See also:
Healthcare Monopoly 1: France and Canada, September 06, 2010

Healthcare competition 1: Switzerland, August 28, 2010
Healthcare competition 2: Singapore, August 29, 2010
Healthcare competition 3: Hong Kong, September 02, 2010
Healthcare Competition 4: Solving Info Assymetry, September 08, 2010
Healthcare Competition 5: Thailand, September 24, 2010