By Gabe Trodd
The red-green dissent and action over the imminent closure of the Vestas’ turbine manufacturing factory on the Isle of Wight is brightly gathering momentum, and from whatever way you look at it, there are legitimate reasons to nationalise Vestas’ Isle of Wight factory.
In the short-term, this moment not only represents significant ideological crossroads for the party, but a chance to save 600 preciously skilled jobs. At a time when the party is staring down the barrel of a gun and New Labourism is drawing to its natural close, nationalisation of the plant could be the platform Labour needs for a dramatic late reversal of its fortunes – a seminal, telling moment of vision, clarity and innovation. In the longer-term, this red-green chorus may well be a glimpse at the future.
The truth is that despite rising profits, Vestas as a Danish company and corporate profiteers, do not have sufficient orders and are closing the factory to make the turbines more cheaply in the US, where there is greater demand. As Ed Miliband points out in his piece at Comment is Free:
"We are unlikely to be a centre for onshore wind production, if up and down the country, and on the Isle of Wight, onshore wind applications are consistently turned down."
It should be noted that SERA had previously flagged up the fact that Conservative-run councils had opposed 80% of wind farm applications submitted to them since David Cameron became the leader of the Conservative party, whereas Labour councils had approved 70%.
The UK is the windiest country in Europe, so much so that we could power parts of our country several times over using this free fuel. The fact is we will need a mix of both onshore and offshore wind energy to work towards the targets on climate change and the UK’s energy security.
To overlook wind energy or put too high a reliance on offshore wind generation and fledgling micro-generation technology would condemn the UK to: missing our renewable energy targets; falling short of our commitment to tackle climate change; drifting away from energy independence at a time when it is essential; and contributing to a significant deficit in the country’s short-term energy supply. At this stage, it is unclear as to whether David Cameron appreciates or even fully understands this.
Glancing over our shoulders, many members of the Labour party will have been deeply affected by the impact of coal-pit closures, and also the pernicious influence of the West’s oil addiction on global foreign policy. For these reasons, there is a genuine sense of hope and optimism when the UK’s renewable energy potential is cited as the "Saudi Arabia of green energy". As an island, Britain has 40% of Europe’s wind resource, with strong winds both on and offshore – this is a position we should maximise as a country. Most promising of all is the glittering potential that exists for green collar jobs.
It is clear that the previous tensions between trade unionists protecting energy industry and jobs, and green campaigners protecting the environment, represent a fractious relationship of the past. At a time when there 60 applicants for every vacancy on the Isle of Wight, this growing red-green consensus recognises that to endanger 600 jobs and disperse a skill base that has been nurtured on the Isle of Wight within a fledgling green industry would be disastrous for the country, its manufacturing base and the climate change agenda as a whole.
Although Ed Miliband has met with the sit-in protestors, offered assistance in re-training those made unemployed, awarded £6m to the wind turbine firm's research centre to create some new jobs and promised to shake up the planning system to speed up wind projects, if Labour is seriously committed to preserving the skill base that has been nurtured on the Isle of Wight within a fledgling green industry, and also providing UK industry with an accessible source of turbines (as opposed UK firms shipping over turbines from Germany and Denmark), the substantive solution is nationalisation of the plant. This outcome would also inevitably see Ed Miliband graduate from activists' favourite to the party’s new best hope.
In electoral terms, nationalisation would surely claw back some of Labour’s disillusioned, dejected and dispersed masses - after Norwich, Labour activists need some hope. But looking ahead, I think this current red-green resonance may be a prophetic allegiance and a natural consensus to build the future foundations of the party, regardless of whether or not this happens in the political wilderness.
For further resources on wind power and sustainable enegry, see David MacKay's "Without Hot Air".
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Keep up the good work!
The problem with Nationalisation is, we nationalise failed businesses and wonder why we can't fix them. Start nationalising a few successful businesses and we may have better luck.
If you are looking for a platform from which we might win the next election, look no further than changing the leader
I'm all in favour of saving jobs-but buying the company?
Vestas are making really healthy profits. It's just they can make more money in the US market, where there's a much bigger appetite for onshore (and offshore) wind. The issue is that at present, the factory is geared to making small wind turbines that are not suitable for the UK onshore market.
Cheers
If you are right, then they will find a purchaser. If you are wrong, you are wrong.
In either event, there is no reason to nationalise them.
Meanwhile, I note that you describe wind power as a "meaningful" form of electricity generation. What on earth does that mean? Efficient? Economical? Reliable? I think not!
We need to get control of our British industry back for the benefit of our British workers.
I don't think any of this BNP propaganda should be allowed on a site sponsored by the Labour Party.
I HAVE SPENT 30 YEARS WORKING HARD FOR THE INTERESTS OF BRITISH WORKERS THROUGH THE LABOUT PARTY AND VARIOUS TRADE UNIONS.
WANTING TO DO THE BEST FOR THE WORKERS OF THIS COUNTRY SHOULD BE CENTRAL TO LABOUR PARTY POLICY
I find this comment deeply offensive. It should be removed.
Personally I think we should be focussing on equiping UK workers with the skills they need to compete on a Global Market. We hear Global this and that, and our big businesses make huge amounts of money, well it's time we all had a share in it.
Global rights for all, not just multi-nationals!!!
I did not misinterpret Tom's comment; I knew exactly what he meant and I have no problem with it.
My original posting and follow ups have been entirely tongue in cheek to poke fun at the politically correct language that the Left have been trying to impose on us all.
Examples of this are: Up until recently (until Labour found they were losing votes to the BNP) if anyone expressed the mildest concern about about the level of immigration into this country they were condemned as racist. If someone expresses unease about the idea of children being adopted by a homosexual or lesbian couple they are immediately classified as homophobic. If it is thought that some jobs are more suitable for a man/woman rather than a woman/man then that is sexist. If someone says "British jobs for British workers" then they are BNP supporters!
Accusing someone of discrimination is a very serious business. Not tongue in cheek.
It is also legally actionable in some circumstances and you should have clarified his meaning before going off on a tangent.
This is a debating site, so debate, even the Trolls generally avoid clumsy accusations like yours and it is not "political correctness", it is good manners. I think we have all broken the "political correctness" rules so far, that is one of the reasons I like this site.
I did not accuse Tom of discrimination, I just said that a statement he had made was discriminatory - which indeed it was "control of British industry for the benefit of our British workers" advocates discriminates against non British workers.
However, there is a big difference between accusing someone of making a discriminatory statement - which I did tongue in cheek - and claiming they discriminated - which I did not.
I am not sure that calling me a Troll is good debating etiquette but I do like you comment about breaking rules on political correctness.
Correction: I see on re-reading that you did not call me Troll - I apologise.
personally I think you should just bite the bullet and apologise to each other, heck I'll apologise too if it helps, I'm not proud, life is too short.
As it stands it is discriminatory and therefore not Labour speak or politically correct.
It is the wild and indiscriminate use of words like 'inclusive' and 'discriminatory' that have driven many of Labour's traditional supporters into the BNP's less-inclusive tent.
(Before you call me 'racist', stop a minute and consider your response)
STOP PRESS!
Sungei - my apologies: I neglected to read the whole thread and had a momentary lapse of my ironic faculties.
This the sort of New Labour politically correct bollocks that is driving our traditional long-term supporters away from the party.
If you are typlical of the current active party membership then we've got no chance.
You are now really being insulting to suggest that I could possibly be an active member of the Labour Party - please withdraw this comment it is offensive in the extreme(but I won't SHOUT about it.)
Clearly it wasn't the intent as defined by the reaction OK.
With you all the way. It was Britain's industrial and manufacturing base that put the 'great' in Great Britain.
But your comments about the 17th/18th century elites, who built their wealth on the back of the slave dominated industries of the West Indies/America, and grand larceny in India is about right.
The justification, as always, was that we stopped the French doing the same thing. So maybe not all bad.
Why Germany or Denmark? When Vestas were closing their factory in Scotland, the SNP Scottish Government stepped in,the factory has been taken over by Skykon and now there's huge investment in the factory and a boost in employment. Which begs the questions -- why nationalise the Isle of Wight factory? And would it be legal under European law (I don't believe it would be)?
The EU is part of the problem not the solution.
Not sure about your European law comment. Personally, I don't know of any reason or law that would stop the UK Government from owning the plant. For whatever reason (presumably economic and technical reasons), most UK companies ship their turbines over from Denmark and Germany.
On your second point, if the UK has a wind turbine factory already and most UK companies are shipping from Denmark and Germany -- how would nationalising one factory solve the problem? If you're correct that most UK companies ship from Denmark and Germany then your solution would have the taxpayer take on an unprofitable business, and put jobs in the privately invested Skykon factory at risk. To nationalise the Vestas factory makes no sense whatsoever and seems to be based entirely upon idealism. Perhaps a more realistic option would be that, if we are to assume we continue to subsidise the power companies for building wind-farms, wouldn't it be better as part of the terms of agreement to ensure the turbines are built in the UK?
My main point though was about what benefits nationalisation of the Vestsas factory would bring because I don't believe there are any. Gabe's suggested advantage seemed to focus on providing a market in the UK for energy companies to purchase from. When I pointed out that there is already a UK market the reply is: For whatever reason (presumably economic and technical reasons), most UK companies ship their turbines over from Denmark and Germany. How does nationalisation solve those presumed problems? It doesn't hang together well, I think the idea is not thought through and without merit, and it seems Labour List is jumping on an idealistic bandwagon with the petition.
Why? Power generation permeates 100% into the wider economy; make power generation expensive; goods and services become more expensive. Competitiveness is lost; more jobs are lost.
The fact that the Vestas factory has closed for cheaper manufacture elsewhere is a damning indictment on the cost of doing business under a Labour Government. If the Vestas plant in the UK cannot make turbines at a cost effective price; they go out of business. Instead of demanding nationalisation of a business that cannot make money; the argument must be what can be done to lower its operating costs?
What role can government take to help achieve that aim? The answer is a simple one: take less money from the businesses in tax and make the cost of compliance (government red tape) cheaper to run the business.
Lastly, planning permission. Wind generation is optimally placed in areas of high wind intensity; no wind, no power. In the UK; wind intensity is not in urban or land-based areas (the exceptions being Cumbria and the Scottish Highlands). The highest areas of wind intensity are offshore and that's where 70% of the UK wind generation capacity is placed. It seems that the Tories understand that and Labour don't.
The thing is that quite a few important issues are being overlooked so that Milliband can make the UK appear to be tackling a problem, a problem that will not be solved with wind turbines.
Quote from latest Private Eye:
"Wind is quite weak and unreliable. So also are these massive modern wind turbines. A turbine of any kind produces energy by employing the momentum of what passes through its blades. Momentum is mass times velocity. Both water and wind do not have very high velocities, whether driving an old corn mill or a modern turbine-driven electric generator. The big difference is that water is nearly a thousand times as dense as air, so water-driven turbines are far more powerful and reliable than wind turbines.
Politicians are besotted with wind turbine energy, which they subsidise with our public money to a ridiculous cost to us. Our electricity costs will soon cripple our economy, as will the blackouts when the wind doesn't blow. We have massive tidal resources in Wales. The Bristol Channel has the second highest rise and fall of tides in the world. These tides are reliable, set by the moon's position and gravity relevant to planet earth. We can predict tidal water movements to the minute for a thousand years into the future. We cannot accurately predict the wind for the next five minutes."
Personally Bill, the government should forget wind and go nuclear. Fast breeder nuclear power and create a hydrogen infrastructure to power fuel-cell powered transport announcing the phasing out of petroleum based transportation in 30 years.
At a stroke that would have the potential to invigorate economy, boost manufacturing and enhance our energy security.
This obsession with wind power is just farcical. They require backups from either nuclear or coal-powered plants because when the wind doesn't blow, we get no power. Why subsidise an unreliable source of power and cause many other problems attempting to plant wind farms where it is unsuitable to do so?
Until the political parties get serious about power generating for this new century, we may as face the fact that we will be having rolling blackouts or at the very least brownouts over the coming decades, but at least we'll be saving the planet eh? Millions will go without heat or light but still be expected to function in modern society and turn up for work on time, look after their families and pay extortionate rates of tax whilst living in the dark ages - literally. All because politicians would prefer to be popular with the minority rather than tackle the issues for the majority. This isn't just a Labour thing, it is the whole political establishment. Far more interested in short term political gains rather than long term planning for the livelyhoods and living conditions of the nation.
Private Eye had an interesting letter in it this last week all about wind power and the alternative to it, water power. I might send a copy of it to the Milliband brothers, neither of them have the foggiest about the climate and wouldn't know a eustatic change if it drowned them!
As I understand it (and maybe I missed something here), its not my single responsibility to write posts everytime there's an industrial closure. I have a very keen interest in the environment. In fact, you should definitely feel free to write any article you feel needs to be written. It's the beauty of free speech.
I think the Miliband brothers, between them, have done a great job in dealing with the UK's climate change agenda so far.
And could you explain in your opinion what you think the Milliband brothers have got right with their policies to 'fight' climate change? Seriously, be very interested to know your opinion.
I strongly suspect that you may violently disagree with what I'm about to say. But the UK has been doing well (nowhere near good enough) but well under the leadership of the Milibands. Ed took the initiative on Carbon Capture and Storage (clean coal). We were the first country to have legally binding carbon reduction targets. Ed took a bold move in making the target 80% rather than 60%. The most recent bill included a lot of good stuff - it fleshed out a lot of the targets with firm action. And finally, it seems like Ed is really going to power into the Copenhagen summit and lead the discussions. Like the UK should.
You're right. They've announced these things, but they are pushing a technology, i.e wind power, in a way they suggests they don't know much about power generation or demands.
Tidal power is guaranteed continuous, except briefly at the low and high tide points.
The fact is, that there is overwhelming evidence that air speed can get below the required level over quite large parts of the country for much longer periods than was thought, even a few years ago.
It's like the Victorians putting sails on steamships. You wouldn't use them out of choice, but handy if there is absolutely no other option.
The most effective sites for wind turbines are on the western, northern Scottish coast. Unfortunately due to the NETA rules(How power companies buy sell/transmit power) introduced by this government, companies are disproportionately penalised for sending power over long distances.
In effect this means wind turbines have to be sited in less than optimum conditions, seemingly where they annoy swing voters the most.
Bill's comments on Eco towns can't really be contradicted.
I don't think we can ignore the need for a balanced source of energy supply, but the overwhelming emphasis on wind power is currently not defensible in technical terms.
Basically we need in for all forms of generation, a capability to supply 24/7. If we build something else to cover the wind farms slack period, then we've built two things to supply one lot of power. Hardly a good use of the earth's resources.
Seriously Gabe, wind turbines, or more accurately the positioning of them is very flawed. Eco towns are even more seriously flawed and are destined to become future sink estates. And we are on the brink of an energy crisis that will effect the whole country now, not in 50 years time.
Unless the politicians address real issues and take action to counter the effects, they can spout percentages all they like. The 80% target is totally unrealistic and would send up back to the 18th century if we try to meet it. We can't even come close, especially when you consider the methods that the Millibands have presented in order to meet these pie in the sky targets.
Please don't think that I'm shouting you down here Gabe, I'm not. I realise you are passionate on the issue of climate change, but we need a realistic approach, something doable. Not just words from a politician who clearly understands little of the problem, let alone the solutions.
I would never, never violently disagree with you, in fact I don't doubt a word you have just said. But my sources tell me that CO2 emissions have increased since 1997 (I asked Ed why he quoted from 1990 and not 1997 and he refused to respond).
Targets are no good if not backed up with firm action.
It's time MP's showed some courage and conviction.
(Incidently I have just applied for a hustings as it beats tearing my hair out ;) )
If it is not profitable and unlikely to make a profit in the near future, why should taxpayers incur the liability for the losses it will make?
Wind turbines are already subsidised to a ludicrous extent. They are an expensive, inefficient means of generating electricity and only do so when it is windy (ie not when it is very cold in January) so you need back-up power stations as well. They are one of the dafter results of attempts to "cut emissions".
The business is profitable. However, the demand for turbines isn't what it should be because of the NIMBYism, which is particularly rife in Tory-run councils.
If you think Britain working towards energy security (we import 50% of our gas from Russia), capitalising on our 40% share of Europe’s wind resource when there's a huge, fast-paced green movement happening in USA and Europe, saving 600 skilled jobs for an industry that's just getting going and working towards our legally binding climate change targets is 'daft' then perhaps you could offer some alternatives...
Your solution, as you state it, would result in warehouses full of unused wind turbines. I also imagine it would freeze innovation within the company as state run organisations have no incentive to do so.
If it is not profitable, than Socialists would nationalise it to make it a further drain on the taxpayer.
For once nimbyism is a blessing, as anything that scuppers the stupidity of relying on wind power as a meaningful source of energy is to be welcomed.
It's a meaningful source of energy. Given that you're probably a Tory, it's your kind of thinking that will make the Tories so comprehensively hated, if they get elected.
My flatulence is a source of energy, too. But not a 'meaningful' one.
As far as wind power is concerned, all these massively expensive farms need reliable energy sources to back them up. The more farms we erect the more back-up we need. And the energy cost we pay in their construction and maintenance is huge.
Once we have clean, reliable nuclear power...which we should have invested in years earlier...we'll be energy efficient as well as safe from oil producer blackmail.
In the meantime wind power has infinitely more onanistic content than real usefulness.