Jacob Rees-Mogg rules out local referendums on fracking and says shale gas companies could canvas door-door

The business secretary has rejected local referendums as a measure of public consent for fracking.

Jacob Rees-Mogg at Conservative Party Conference
Photo: Telegraph

Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested that shale gas companies could instead canvass door-to-door for support.

Speaking at a fringe event at the Conservative conference, he said:

“I don’t think local referendums are necessarily the right idea. Turn out in local referendums can be very low so how much real validity would that give you as to the consent.”

He told the Chopper’s Politics Live podcast:

“What I think you need to get community consent is for the companies to go around door-to-door, as politicians do at elections, and ask people if they will consent in the community that would be affected.

He added:

“if they get 50% plus one in favour then they should be able to go ahead.”

People in shale areas who agreed to fracking should be paid compensation for disturbance and a royalty for any gas extracted, Mr Rees-Mogg said.

He asked the audience:

“So who doesn’t like it [fracking]? The socialists and Caroline Lucas. Well, that makes my heart bleed.”

Friends of the Earth’s energy campaigner, Jamie Peters, said this evening:

“It’s astonishing just how out of touch Jacob Rees-Mogg is on fracking.

“Communities across the country overwhelmingly oppose fracking because it causes earthquakes, industrialises the countryside and contributes to the growing climate emergency, while doing almost nothing to reduce soaring energy bills.

“Any attempt to bypass local democracy and force fracking on local people will simply make it even more unpopular, including in Conservative constituencies.

“Fossil fuels are outdated, dirty and costly. Ministers should focus on real solutions to the energy challenges we face by prioritising insulation and home-grown renewables – which are also cheap, clean and supported by the public.”

Jacob Rees-Mogg (right) at Conservative Party Conference Fringe event with Chris Hope Photo: Telegraph

Mr Rees-Mogg also said the earthquake rules on fracking should be relaxed. He described the 0.5ML limit when fracking must be paused as “ridiculously low”.

“.5 was set to stop fracking so we need to get to a more realistic figure but I can’t prejudge.

“I get expert advice, very clever people, boffins.”

Asked if he would agree to fracking in the back garden of his home in Somerset, he said:

“Of course I would, I’d be delighted, particularly if I get these royalties.”

He said:

“If we do what I am suggesting on shale gas, you will be doing a public service by having it in your back garden. But you also get paid for it. So, both the country wins and you win, Oh, even better, the environment wins because it’s lower carbon emissions than LNG. Bingo.”

[There are currently no exploration and production licences in Mr Rees-Mogg’s constituency, North East Somerset.]

Jacob Rees-Mogg at Conservative Party Conference Photo: Telegraph

In his speech to the conference, Mr Rees-Mogg referred to what he called “the challenge of intelligent net zero”. He said:

“It’s about making decisions that reduce carbon but also make us more prosperous.”

Quoting domestic shale gas as a good example, he said:

“It’s about a programme that makes sure we don’t harm our industry so that we go green in ways that create, rather than destroying prosperity.”

Dave Timms, head of political affairs at Friends of the Earth, said:

“If the business secretary is so keen on intelligent net zero, why didn’t he mention insulation and energy efficiency?

“Jacob Rees-Mogg fell flat on one of the most basic lessons of energy policy – the cheapest energy of all is the energy we don’t use.

“A nationwide, street by street insulation programme would reduce energy bills now and in the future, boost the economy with green jobs and cut planet-warming emissions from our homes.”

61 replies »

  1. Local communities will never accept a door to door survey carried out by industry as being legit. Not only are they not independent and have a vested interest but many of us will also remember how the agents employed by a certain UK fracking company were caught out pressurising landowners.

    I can see another U turn coming, either that or this will be treated and seen as nothing more than a Putin style referendum!

  2. How long does he think it would take Cuadrilla’s 6 employees to canvas the 250,000-odd households in their PEDL area? 😂
    If they each did 50 a day 5 days a week it would take them nearly 4 years and even then nobody would trust the results! I suppose they could employ a small army of interviewers and get it done in a few months, but that seems unlikely. And what questions would they ask?
    What’s that? Oh he won’t be planning on asking us all? A stratified random sample of households is it? And exactly who in the sampled household gets asked? The owner(s)? All residents? All residents of voting age? Just the man of the house? (this is the Tories after all), the cat?
    Would a household with 6 residents get more weighting than a household with just 1? I mean he must have thought all this through surely? He wants to be pumping gas in 6 months so he must already have the answers here! I mean this is the easy bit of getting fracking started again isn’t it?
    I mean who exactly will be the sample population from which his “50% plus one ” (© Menzies M.) is decided? You know, I bet if you asked him he’d tell you that it’s up to the frackers to decide, because he won’t have a clue himself. And he’s already been told by Menzies that sampling households won’t wash hasn’t he?
    Or maybe they’ll just ask a few selected supporters and make it like a Russian referendum? That fellow from Kirkham, down in his basement with his flag, who keeps getting on the BBC said “yes” so let’s go full steam ahead. Wahey!
    I don’t THINK so!
    Or is he planning on them doing a survey for each well every time they find a new site, meaning a patchwork of permitted and unpermitted areas with no certainty for the industry or the community whether they get to carry on with the next well or not?
    Mind you that might work quite well for those of us who oppose this invasive industry as once they mess up again or cause further quakes and disturbance they will never get consent for any wells after the first one.
    Its’ hard to believe that a sitting MP could say “What I think you need to get community consent is for the companies to go around door-to-door, as politicians do at elections”, and then rule out a referendum, because the bit he is missing there is that after the door to door schmoozing we get to VOTE. That’s how he got to be where he is. Doh!
    And then he describes the 0.5 limit as “ridiculously low” thus demonstrating that he has no comprehension of how the seismic TLS was supposed to operate, or that it was actually designed and agreed to by Cuadrilla, or that the current 0.5 limit failed to stop the 2.9 Ml quake from happening.
    Honestly, it is quite scary that this preening poltroon is a government minister in charge of anything, let alone our energy policy in the middle of a national energy crisis and a global climate crisis.

    • https://storage.googleapis.com/cdn.thelondoneconomic.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/043b09b3-featureimage.jpg – *Jacob Rees-Mogg was accused of ‘arrogance’ and ‘entitlement’ whilst lounging in Parliament during calls from a wide range of mixed MP’s to “sit up”! *
      A pertinent question that arises, is that. Is it up to, or down to the new business secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg, to dictate who does, or who does not carry out a referendum/poll/council questionnaire, local or otherwise, whether to allow fracking to take place in their locality or not?
      Will the residents and staff and trust owners of 34 local hospitals, which are already in danger of imminent structural collapse. An issue which the government is dragging its feet to even remotely satisfactorily address. When even without the additional threat to life and limb and property including schools, homes and public buildings, from fracking earthquakes and pollution. To be approached by any ‘potential, as yet, unspecified fracking industry operators’, who have a declared interest in finding a positive result? In Parliament, declared private interest would exclude such a one from voting or taking part in the discussion.
      A far better method would be to allow all local councils to carry out a publicly accountable survey of all residents, rather than a biassed and publicly unaccountable private operator or their hired survey organization to carry out a referendum without public accountability or oversight.
      The question of the recent referendum in Ukraine to pass regions of Ukraine to Russian ownership is a case in point.
      Perhaps the same examination and scrutiny should be operated in local fracking regions where fracking is proposed? Perhaps our ‘Trussian’ (thanks Iaith1720) government could then claim that the areas that could be ‘persuaded/bribed/falsified’ to allow such a ‘take over’ would be essentially by the potential fracking operators to do whatever they want? Since the consequences would be much the same in practice. Also, would the objecting residents to fracking be forced to leave these ‘fracking owned zones’ and move across the county borders as the Russian citizens who moved across borders to avoid being called up to fight in Ukraine/Russia, only to find themselves in another ‘owned fracking zone’?

      • There are existing methods YYL to make certain such surveys are conducted correctly, with oversight but confidentially. Most market research for products in the UK already use such systems.
        Not sure whether applied in the Ukraine, certainly not used much in Russia, but par for the course in UK.
        The Scottish Referendum showed the problem with public scrutiny. Right up to the exit poll, the result was too close to call it was stated, with those who stated they were undecided assumed to split their vote. Except most in Scotland at the time would admit most of the so- called undecided would vote to stay in UK but were afraid to openly declare that. Looks as If Moggy is more knowledgeable about such matters than being given credit for.

        Also, here in the UK if you don’t like something authorized locally you have a choice. To move away from those left whinging about the inequity of it or stay put and ignore them.

        • Firstly, I would suggesting my full name when writing to me. I consider your truncated version, and that of your fellow, to be rude.
          Secondly, since you have at last actually responded, unlike your slogan symptomatic fellow. You can reply to all the raised points as posted by myself and others previously. Which your fellow has not done

          Perhaps you will now refer to my original comments in order to discuss the 34 hospitals, schools and private and public buildings that are already in imminent danger of structural collapse because of * RAAC – Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete * use in roof structures (which is structurally unsound aerated concrete) and how these buildings local to proposed fracking, as yet unspecified, would be effected by earthquakes caused by fracking. Namely, danger to life and limb when floors and roofs collapse under the additional stress of local earthquakes, which will inevitably and predictably caused by proposed local fracking

          Then you can explain how the legal conditions that defined the causes of earthquake damage from fracking can be even safely demonstrated without a survey carried out of every building within 50 miles local to the fracking attempt. The fracking operator would then be bound to insure every building with damage potential, and be made legally liable for any deaths and injury caused by the structural damage and collapse of the surveyed buildings.

          Then you can explain why the 0.5ml (on the Richter Scale) cause of earthquakes is no longer valid under modern earthquake measuring technology and therefore needs to be entirely redefined before any changes are made. – * The Richter scale doesn’t measure quake damage (see: Mercalli Scale – https://www.sms-tsunami-warning.com/pages/mercalli-scale ) which is dependent on a variety of factors including population at the epicentre, terrain, depth, etc. An earthquake in a densely populated area which results in many deaths and considerable damage may have the same magnitude as a shock in a remote area that does nothing more than frightening the wildlife. Large-magnitude earthquakes that occur beneath the oceans may not even be felt by humans. *

          The Richter Scale limit must be re-evaluated for actual damage potential using Moment Magnitude Mercalli Scale measurements. Which measures damage potential that the Richter Scale does not do. Without that, measurements under the Richter Scale are meaningless for measurement of potential or actual damage.

          Neither the new PM Liz Truss, and the new business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, or Kwasi Kwarteng, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, appear to have any idea of the extent of knowledge and experience required to make any decision to lift the fracking moratorium and are at a loss to even approach the geological and damage parameters involved. Let alone make any decision on aspects they know nothing about. The decision to lift the fracking moratorium appears to be based upon doubtful ideological prejudicial politics, not the complexities of practicalities and engineering science involved in any such decision.

          I do not agree with your estimation that surveys by an operator with a vested interest in only one side of the /referendum can be safely conducted independently without prejudice, without public participation and oversight. Particularly when bound by unknown and unannounced terms of confidentiality (meaning secretively).
          Any such poll must be conducted in public with attendant public monitoring and independent counting of the physical poll itself, house to house or by post, and be involved in the hand counting and collating of the results. Unlike your fellow, I would trust the participating members of the public to carry that out without prejudice. Something which is lacking in the pro fracking responses so far, which exhibits extreme one-sided prejudice.

          Following the recent Truss U-turn on lifting the 45p tax on higher incomes, (was it Kwasi Kwartengs idea?) the announcement for lifting the fracking moratorium appears even more vulnerable to imminent failure and U-turn. (Liz Truss idea)

          • [Edited by moderator]

            I do not care whether you agree it can be done safely or properly. It is done all the time here in UK and high standards are maintained.

            As far as your nonsense about what Ministers know or don’t know, then since when have they ever been expected to know all the nitty gritty of their department? If that was the case my taxes would be a whole lot lower without all those Civil Servants and advisors to pay for.

            Other than that, if you require further education sorry but that is not my responsibility, or choice.

            • You didn’t read what I wrote Martin Frederick Collyer. At least one of us can be respectful. Perhaps your education is lacking in that respect?

              Equally I have already educated you as I have demonstrated in each post. However, since you fail to reciprocate by addressing the pertinent facts.

              Contrarily, to your claim, there has been no publicly accountable oversight in earlier polls by fracking operators prior to the fracking moratorium being imposed. The exact reverse has been reported.

              Perhaps you could redeem yourself by answering the extremely pertinent questions regarding the 34 hospitals which are already in danger of imminent structural collapse without the additional danger from earthquakes from fracking in the locality.

              As for education, I have provided very pertinent eduction to you and your slogan symptomatic fellow. But neither have said anything relevant to my perfectly valid questions regarding the inevitable earthquake effects on 34 hospital, school, private and public buildings similarly afflicted with imminent structural collapse even without earthquakes caused by fracking. Which indicates either inability to justify imposing fracking upon the unwilling public.
              Many of whom have already stated frack free zones against impose fracking as said by others. Something that should exclude any fracking operator from carrying out any such referendum or poll would be an operator that has a vested interest in the result. That would apply in Parliament too. Something Jacob Rees-Mogg should be well aware of.

              Again you have provided no proof that any such unbiased poll/referendum has ever been carried out previously in similar circumstances. In fact the reported evidence is quite contrary to such a claim. Where fracking operators were attempting to cajole and influence the voter in order to derive a positive result. That is not an unbiased pole/referendum.
              Since you provide no evidence or proof of your claims and still avoid the fact that 34 hospitals, schools and public and private buildings are in imminent danger of structural collapse without the additional dangers to life and limb, through structural collapse if or when the fracking moratorium is lifted. I therefore suggest you educate yourself and your fellow slogan symptomatic friend. Is that sufficient education for you to be going on with?

              Then you can explain the legal and engineering requirements to lift the fracking moratorium, the move away from the out of date Richter Scale for earthquake measurement towards the Mercolli and Moment Magnitude measurements to assess the real damage effects of earthquakes on buildings and the legal constrictions to earthquakes which are now out of date and need to be re-evaluated in respect of buildings already in danger of imminent collapse.

              • [Edited by moderator]

                Reference your nonsense about hospitals.

                They obviously need repair. That will require some taxation. Wonder if any comes from imported gas? Nope. From gas produced in UK? Yes.

                But it might be difficult to get builders to repair as they have largely vanished as their supply chain has been stopped as they have had to meet the same seismic event levels as set for fracking operators. Equally, geothermal energy also disappeared for the same reason. No chance of the Swansea Lagoon as the Lizard cannot be blasted to Kingdom Come to obtain the granite blocks-which might be an upside. Tube trains in London have ground to a halt, so other sources of UK taxation also reduced. Our food will be without salt, and many more casualties will be in hospital from unsalted pavements and roads.

                Do I need to go on?

                That is the problem with your contrived attempt. At the end of the day, in a country that suffers/doesn’t notice, hundreds of seismic events per year that happen naturally, if there are buildings in need of repair they should be repaired. Repairing buildings costs money, often via taxation. UK taxation is not gained from importation of basic materials. Lithium mining in Cornwall was supported recently by Channel 4 for the same reason. Yet, mining in Cornwall has previously caused many deaths and damaged buildings.

                Perhaps look at Staufen (Germany)- geothermal- and then link that to hospitals in UK? Except there has been geothermal in Southampton for many years and Southampton General Hospital is fine, I understand. Even across the pond, the skyscrapers point to the sky, even in Texas. Perhaps they are in good repair due to all the money that is generated from fracking in the State? Where they moan as their gas has increased in price to $7/MMBtu on the Henry Hub but by the time it appears on the Dutch TTF it is $47/MMBtu, with Rystad reporting, ” although relatively elevated for the (US) domestic market, US and European price differences are so wide producing and shipping US gas across the Atlantic, even allowing for the pricey liquefaction process, is still economically advantageous.” To the Americans, not the Europeans. And that process is adding to emissions.

                Sorry, but when I do a jigsaw, I do try and get the pieces to fit rather than take a lump hammer to force something into place that doesn’t fit. Now, you may have good reason to want the $47 to continue, but I don’t. And UK hospital repairs is a piece that belongs in another picture.

                [Edited by moderator] influence attempts upon voters is routine here. UK voters are pretty good at seeing through all that. Even in USA where $billions are spent to influence voters they still make up their own minds. Strangely, (lol), many will still make up their minds based upon the benefit to them as individuals and not just society as a whole. That worries certain people, and some are represented on this platform, but that will remain the reality. And advertising still seems to be worthwhile for those who continue to spend £billions to influence, and crowd funding continues for those who want to influence in another way. Goodness, even costly algorithms are about, and their influence can be accepted or rejected too.
                Those who lose in the process then claim the result was rigged, or others involved in the process were idiots because they were influenced in a different way. However, if they do it before the process takes place it reveals something else.

                • [Edited by moderator]

                  Referencing the 34 hospitals, schools, public and private buildings and their residents, patients, children and staff that will be killed or injured when in imminent danger of structural failure and collapse, even without the additional threats of much worse earthquakes resulting from fracking.
                  And you call that threat to life and limb, to so many innocent men women and children, “nonsense”? Obviously, whatever distance you reside from the United Kingdom has scrambled your sense of responsibility to others here. To the extent of reckless abandonment and potentially fatal irresponsibility for promoting fracking damage to life and limb consequences in the United Kingdom along with various other fracking fanatics. Who remain uninformed if not ignorant of the complexities involved in fracking and the resulting damages.

                  You are also wrong on the minor earthquakes that occasionally tremor in the British Isles, when earthquakes from multiple fracking locations could double, or even increase the damage factor to the power of ten or more. Then how many lives will be lost and who will be made responsible? The Richter Scale damage factor from earthquakes, as I have said before, is not fit for purpose. Only the Mercalli measurement scale will do that, and the Richter scale is long out of date and almost useless for doing anything but factorising a surface tremor and then only where instruments are located.
                  *Richter’s scale was modelled on the stellar magnitude scale used by astronomers, which quantifies the amount of light emitted by stars (their luminosity) To Richter, a high-magnitude earthquake was one with strong ground vibration. Thus, for the Richter Scale, has no direct connection to any of the properties of the causative fault. (and their damage potential).

                  That about does it for lifting the moratorium from fracking, but there is one(?!) more fallacy in your argument.
                  And that is this, that you claim that the dearth of building materials and the costs involved will not allow these 34 hospitals, schools, public and private buildings which are structurally unsound to be repaired, made safe, or rebuilt. Then that is an even further indication that the much more damaging earthquakes caused by fracking must be prevented, and that can only be achieved by preventing further fracking at all, until a survey of all structurally compromised buildings are fully carried out in the potential locality, in order for them to be repaired as and when building materials are made available at an affordable cost. Or that those buildings, sensitive to imminent structural collapse, are insured by the fracking operators and any legal costs and injuries or deaths are paid for by the fracking operators.
                  Anything less, is tantamount to at least criminal negligence.

                • Oh dear.

                  [Edited by moderator]

                  I repeat, hospitals that need repair should be repaired. Different issue to fracking.

                  Please show me any incident of hospitals collapsing and loss of life from fracking anywhere in the world. There have been over 2m wells fracked. Has there been any loss of life as a result of hospitals collapsing or any buildings collapsing? Indeed, from all the seismic events that occur in the UK every year, have there been any hospitals collapsing, any loss of life? But obviously any building needing repair should be repaired as UK could suffer another hurricane, or a winter with heavy snowfall.

                  Your contrived and badly manufactured piece of pure scaremongering does not fit this jigsaw. Besides which, I have yet to see any proposal that fracking for gas in the UK might take place within the vicinity of a hospital. Not too sure if there are any quarries plonked close to hospitals either. Two pretty basic flaws to your piece. Your piece belongs in that box labelled, hospital repairs. I believe that one may be stuck at the back of the cupboard whilst the money required is being spent on helping people pay their energy bills.

                • [Edited by moderator]

                  People are already in danger of death and injury due to this government’s refusal to address the 34 hospitals, schools, private and public buildings in danger of imminent collapse. Those are residents, like myself. Yes, sorry about that, I was born raised and educated right here in the United Kingdom and so were my parents, and theirs. [Edited by moderator]

                  You can also apologise to the men women and children in the United Kingdom whom you have insulted by assuming that their lives and that of the relatives and children mean absolutely nothing to you whatsoever, just so long as you get your precious fracking imposed on their unwilling lives.

                  You have stated, without evidence, that * I repeat, hospitals that need repair should be repaired. Different issue to fracking. * No, that is not true at all. You are wrong and I have provided you with detailed linked evidence that debunks that very uneducated statement.
                  I have demonstrated with official reports from the NHS structural assessment team to Boris Johnson, and earlier to previous prime ministers, in order to raise their attention to the 34 hospitals are already in danger of imminent structural collapse, without any additional dangers from earthquakes caused by fracking. And where is your evidenced, linked and proven, that those reports are not true?
                  In any reply you make, you must state with linked evidence that those proven, linked documents are not true, because you can’t.
                  Then you can also prove with linked documents proof, that further, much more dangerous earthquakes, measured on the Mercalli measurement scale, that does assess the damage potential of earthquakes, when the government’s use of the out of date Richter scale magnitude measurement does not assess potential and actual damage potential and was never designed to do so.
                  Then you can explain why there is an almost universal objection to the fracking moratorium being lifted because it has been demonstrated and proven by the fracking moratorium data that emerged after Cuadrilla caused local earthquakes of 2.9 on the Richter scale, that shook buildings, broke windows, cracked ceilings and walls. Cuadrilla attempted to deny it was anything to do with their fracking operations and then, if they did agree to compensate victims, Cuadrilla then attempted to impose Non Disclosure Agreements which stated that it was nothing more than “good will” and nothing to do with Cuadrilla’s fracking operations.
                  There is the evidence of the bribery you chatter on about so much. However it shows the reverse of all your arguments regarding polls and referendums and proves that the as yet unknown fracking operators are totally unsuitable for carrying any poll/referendum at all.
                  And Jacob Rees-Mogg wants them to carry out door to door polls/referendums? That is like giving a student the right to judge their own exam results with government approval without any public oversight, participation or approval.

                  Safe fracking can never be used in the geologically complex fractured, fissured and slip plate complex formations that will inevitably cause further earthquakes which will threaten the collapse of all structurally weakened buildings due to the inappropriate used of RAAC in the roofs and floors.
                  How many men, women and children will those imminent structural collapses kill or injure when or if the onshore fracking moratorium is lifted? Who will be responsible for collapsed buildings and deaths and injuries of those people unfortunate enough to be patient sand staff in hospitals, children and teachers in schools, residents and staff in private and public buildings? I say again there must be intensive detailed structural surveys of all the buildings in the potential location of fracking zones at a diameter of say 50 miles. Further those buildings and the people must be insured by the fracking operators and any resulting building collapse, injuries and deaths be laid directly of the door of the government and the operators, and further fracking operations be banned for the foreseeable future.
                  I have already educated you on all these facts of the matter, and as with other posts I see you never reply addressing the awkward (to you) issues and factual proven linked and verified truth of any situation. [Edited by moderator]

                  [Text added at poster’s request]

  3. Prior to the moratorium on fracking some communities had already canvassed their local residents door to door and declared themselves Frack Free Zones. I would assume any fracking companies stupid enough to try and survey these areas are wasting their time and money.

  4. Maybe surveying without offering something to benefit locals is different to offering them a reward to benefit them?

    Seemed acceptable and worked for wind turbines.

    As for pressurising landowners, some people have very short memories! Good job many do not.

    • I think that you are confusing reward with bribe Martin, it will be tempting for those who are struggling to pay the higher bills that the Tories have just caused and maybe a few will be forced to say yes . Will they also pay for building insurance for these households , we know that people can’t get insurance against damages caused by fracking.Wind turbines cannot be compared to fracking, apples and oranges so I don’t see your point . My memory is actually fine Martin, it’s cancer I have not dementia.

  5. Well Rees-Mogg has to compensate the Nimby/ Antis somehow, cause everyone’s looking for a handout anyhow!
    That’s why they are so angry and frustrated, they cannot wait to get their hands in to the cookie jar!! And they call the prospecting companies Greedy!

      • Who is an American John?, Fracking is the way to get out of an Energy Crisis, But tunnel vision, and the brainwashing of an entire nation, feeding mis-information to the uneducated, That only goes one way and we know how that pans out!!

  6. I don’t think Rees-Mogg has ever visited a fracking site or he would realise that one cannot be set up in a ‘back garden’. The former Cuadrilla site at Singleton on the way to my late father’s was at least an acre. Even if his country estate in Somerset is of sufficient extent, has he asked his wife her opinion? As for canvassing door to door, this reminds me of the recent ‘referendums’ in Eastern Ukraine, if it’s not a secret ballot, someone with a vested interest can make it all up.

  7. Ermm, Jono, you hadn’t posted! I was referring to your buddies at PNR who thought it was open season on landowners. Not sure dementia is the issue, just a failed attempt to change the history.

    You may not see my point, but many people did not want wind turbines in their locality until bribes/inducements/whatever were offered. Industrializing the countryside was one of the gripes! Insurance can be obtained for any risk. If the premium is a little higher, then the inducement needs to allow for that.

    Those higher bills? You mean higher energy costs as the big one. Didn’t know your lot lobbying away were all Tories, Jono. How has that gone? What has resulted? Oh yes. Energy insecurity and elevated energy bills.

    As for preening poltroons, OMG! Just suffice it to say back in my day there were plenty of companies who would be available to do the leg work for conducting door to door canvassing. They must still be there, as they call at my door quite regularly conducting surveys on behalf of various organizations. Rarely offering inducements. If they did, they might get more of my attention.

    Who will be surveyed is interesting, and will the more local get more consideration? Perhaps 50% vote for the landowner? LOL. But, logically, the location of houses to the individual site should get weighting. What if there are few houses close to a site? Then the offer to each household could be adjusted upward.

    Goodness, the estate agents could have a field day selling high priced houses to antis who wanted to move in to get a vote!

    • ahem

      As regards Wind Farms, Solar, Biomass, Fracking and inducements this research is interesting and rather shows Fred’s lack of understanding of the national mood.

      “As interest in fracking in the UK increases due to high energy costs, Diffusion’s report finds that just 8% of Labour voters and 10% of Lib Dem voters display support for the development of a fracking site within one mile of their property, even if they were to receive a 50% reduction in their electricity bill in exchange.

      Total % of UK adults supporting the building of the following, within one mile of their home, if it meant that they got a discount of 50% on their electricity bills?

      All Con Lab Lib Dem
      Solar Farm 73 68 83 82
      Wind Farm 67 59 79 78
      Biomass Plant 35 36 37 37
      Fracking Well 17 29 8 10

      • ahem
        So, why the hysteria?

        Lack of understanding of the national mood. Well, it will not be the national mood that decides, so how about that for a lack of understanding. And, what about the mood when energy cost subsidy goes? And do polls show the national mood? Recent track record in UK not very good in that respect, and in other countries probably worse.

        Strange that Ruth reported another poll that 53% may be interested. Obviously, someone just wants to consider some polls and not others. Maybe total energy bill is important? Maybe where a lot of gas boilers exist? Maybe when they will be limited, maybe shortly?

        So, looks as if fracking sites should be in Tory constituencies with a lot of gas boilers, then reaction! Good job there are a lot of them. I can think of one, can you? Not sure that within that one the drivers plonking diesel into their 3-liter monsters will be too worried about energy bills, but there will be many others who are. Meanwhile, in inner cities I don’t suspect the Labour voters will even be asked the question.

        • Oh Fred 😂

          Do you know what is the percentage of dwellings within 1 mile of PNR with a connection to the gas grid?

          PS it will be the national mood that decides because that is what will prompt the inevitable U turn. Fracking is not a hill the Tory party as a whole wants to die on, even if Fred tells them they should,

          • Why 1 mile reaction? Is that somehow critical? Are you suggesting only they should be considered? If so, most operators should be able to make their inducements so large the 1 mile locals could leave their properties empty and spend their time in the Seychelles!

            Dying on a hill? OMG someone who thinks whether a few sites may start fracking in the next couple of years will somehow make much difference to the future of the Tory Party! Really, reaction? Do behave.

            You really need to up your game. Your lay off seems to have made you drift into fantasy much quicker.

              • Nope, it shows inaccuracy in the polls.

                My one at 53% is closer to the Bull, so must be the accurate one!

                • MARTIN 🤣

                  Noooooo your POLL is wrong and JACK is delighted to highlight your errors with some factual evidence..

                  MARTIN , you , as a ONE MAN BAND seem to be so busy these days trying convince the UK public that lowering the value of their homes , destroying the environment , ramping up climate change and greatly increasing their risks of getting cancer , leukemia and other serious illnesses is in someway worth it , for the national interest .

                  That you keep missing this , you naughty boy . So here it is again , just for you MARTIN , what are your thoughts ????????

                  Alliance of NURSES for a HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT……… Fracking DANGERS


                  The readers are waiting MARTIN .

                • Oh, I prefer the alliance of nurses who used to hold some of the best parties when I was a youngster.

                  Sorry to have to inform you they knew about some interesting things, but fracking was not one of them.

                  They were however quite inclined to risk their health with some interesting forms of consumption and activity.

                  So, with two million wells already fracked where is all the successful litigation? No proof in that pudding. And, no, nothing to do with money. Successful litigation has been achieved against energy companies-like those electrical distributers responsible for causing forest fires resulting in huge loss of property and deaths. What is easily available for litigation is money, but proof may be a harder job. So, what is left is someone just plonking out scare stories. Nurses are not immune to that either, but the majority party on. Thankfully.

                  Wonder if this winter when nurses advise elderly patients to “keep warm” they will be ready for the reply?

                • Well Ladies and Gentlemen of the forum , TAKE NOTE at MARTIN’S feeble attempt to discredit and downtread on the valuable, qualified statements that NURSES have made , warning of the dangers of Fracking .

                  Please note ……… This is only MARTIN’S ” opinion ” backed up with his usual, sweet nothing.

                  MARTIN , OF COURSE you were there at NURSES parties in your youth .

                  There’s more chance of you being there at ” THE SEALING OF MAGNA CARTA – 1215 ” than at ANY nurses party .

  8. Jacob Rees-Mogg recently stated:
    “It (fracking) is safe, it is shown to be safe, the scare stories have been disproved time and time again.”
    and ‘’…to those living and working near to (fracking) sites, tolerating a higher degree of risk and disturbance appears to us to be in the national interest’’ (22/09/2022).
    But production scale fracking in the complex faulted geology of the Fylde has not been shown to be safe.
    Residents close to fracking in relatively densely populated Lancashire may expect damage to homes from induced earthquakes, noise, air pollution and high volume methane emissions accelerating the climate emergency.
    Moreover according to recent peer-reviewed studies, we will also have to tolerate increased risk of:
    childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, increased mortality in the frail & elderly, exacerbation of asthma, strokes, heart-attacks and heart-failure, premature and low birth weights, adverse birth outcomes including major congenital anomalies, severe neonatal morbidity and increased neonatal mortality, vasculitis, rashes, chronic rhino-sinusitis, migraine headaches, fatigue and increased anxiety and stress levels. Workers inhaling silica sand dust will also have an increased risk of silicosis (irreversible lung disease).

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s