Independent Sovereign Democratic Britain

Happily, we will now get an Independent Sovereign Democratic Britain, delivered by Brexit.

British sovereignty should no longer be shared and we should be represented abroad by only the British Government; the Sovereign-in-Parliament should be the final arbiter over British Subjects; and we should be Democratic not Bureaucratic.

I stood fast for this—I even had to leave Cameron’s Conservatives—but now the Referendum has delivered our British Will on this, even though the Liberal Democrats do not understand that. I want to be in Parliament to see that this is delivered.

I want to see stronger Defence—it has been cut too far; by definition,  no crystal ball can forecast when we may face an unforeseen danger.

I also want to see better use of the Armed Services abroad, used together with a Civilian Overseas Aid Service, to deliver Foreign Aid in kind on scene (no money handed over); and to be ready to help when Humanitarian and Natural Disasters occur. We need some change in Force structures and some new ships—Logistics, Humanitarian and Military Command and Support ships.  We should consider National Citizenship Service to augment Defence and Humanitarian Aid capabilities.

A Strategic Defence Review should look again at Force roles across the Globe, at Home Based Quick Reaction Mobile Regular Forces and at establishing Commonwealth Naval Task Groups, not least to share meeting Disaster Relief scenarios.

Security, Intelligence and Surveillance must be fully funded.

UK Border Controls and Immigration, post Brexit, should be wholly subject to the sovereign will of Parliament which alone should set and alter these laws and rules as required from time to time. 

Parliament should establish new criteria for British Citizenship, Immigration and Visa entry policies. 

I consider that we should avoid setting Migration level targets—the numbers are always arbitrary—but rely instead on sensible and balanced criteria.

For example, except for security reasons, tourists and visitors should be able to enter with minimal fuss, albeit with an insistence on the visitor being self sufficient and holding health cover insurance for the duration of the agreed length of stay.  Work Visas should be issued when jobs have been secured and health cover insurance provided by the visitor or employer. The employer might need to show that local recruitment was impractical.  A variety of visas would be needed -to cover students, for example.

Refugees should always be given exactly that— safe refuge—where there is a genuine need and usually where a proper approach has been made to the first British Authority with whom the refugee can make contact.  Refugees should be brought to Britain under proper control and suitably accommodated; their aim should be to return home when safe; otherwise, after a period set by Parliament, they should apply for citizenship and full residential status.

As I would like to introduce National Citizenship Service after the age of 18, I would like so see  all applicants for citizenship having to undertake such service, and to pass an English test.

Our Commonwealth Links have sadly diminished since we joined the EC/EU and we must revitalise those relationships in terms of free trade, cultural exchange and strengthen Defence co-operation. I’d propose a Commonwealth Free Trade Agreement.

Small Business: I have a solution to Late Payment Problem: HMRC should penalise late payers, via VAT returns. And I think the Business Rates system across the UK must be radically simplified to be based only on premises size (square footage), regardless of  site location or use, etc, in two bands: one for PLCs and a capped lower rate for SMEs.

National Lottery Ticket’s should include five option boxes so we can direct what benefits:  Research, NHS, Defence, Art & Culture and Community.

 Farming and Fishing should continue to receive, directly from the British Government, the subsidies currently received via Brussels.  Parliament should then, consulting with those industries, change  policies so that both CFP and the CAP fits our circumstances.

Universities  need a guarantee that there will be no non-security restrictions on visas for foreign staff or students.  Attracting foreign investment should be encouraged.

The NHS is vital but a thorough review is needed to get the available money more directly to the point of need.

Food and Fuel Poverty is best combatted by a good economy but we should immediately defy EU restraints and stop VAT on domestic energy.

Space Exploration:  Create a tax free unsubsidized regime to build the British Space Industry.

No more Onshore Wind Turbines unless directly owned, unsubsidized and run by local communities themselves.

Housing needs should be supported with any available public monies primarily being injected to support start up private home ownership.

What is going on?

An interesting slant of politics in Scotland.  I was asked to comment on the apparent status of the Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath seat.

What on earth is our focus now in Scotland?  

In my view, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath cannot be regarded as Labour’s safest seat – Gordon Brown is the reason it had that status.

No other Labour figure left in Scotland matches up to his reputation. 

The same lesson holds now for the other parties – the Conservatives, for example, field Ruth Davidson as their asset – perhaps that is true – but who is their top slot leading light actually standing for Westminster?  And that question also applies to the Liberal Democrats.  Of course, Salmond has been outshone by Nicola as well.

None of this is surprising – even the media seem only to be capable of raising Scottish Parliament and Council issues. 

The whole devolution exercise has caused a schism in politics with a loss of focus here of what matters outside of Scotland; it all plays into the hands of the SNP. 

I do not believe that all of the electorate are taken in by this drift – after all is said and done, the SNP lost the referendum.  All Scottish Parties need to remember that.

Old Lessons to Remember

Cold War II would be a much better option than WW III.

A cold war brings stabilized tension, constant vigilance and constant caution - and with nuclear deterrence at its core - a permanent stand-off.

We face these new choices simply because the EU's little demagogues do not understand the innate fear of a Russian nation which was brought close to extinction by Napoleon and Hitler.

The old "spheres of influence" have been disregarded by the EU, Merkel and the woman the Russians call "that English woman", Baroness Ashton. A British Army subaltern doing War Studies would get it.

And let's not go near to even discussing Sturgeon's Stupidity on Trident.

United Nations is not fit for purpose

The United Nations Organisation is not fit  for purpose.

How is it that all of the independent sovereign nations of the world there gathered cannot act effectively against ISIL? 

ISIL, after all,  is an unrecognised self-proclaimed rogue “state” which stands condemned by all.

The UN, surely, if able to muster near unanimity, should have the necessary authority to act.

One bar to unanimous action may be the veto wielded by key states in the Security Council.  But do any of those support ISIL?  That is surely inconceivable.

Why no action? Perhaps some reform is needed in any event: should the General Assembly have the power, if wielded by a very high majority, say 80 or 90%, of all member nations, be able to overrule a minority view of just one veto wielding power, or to compel the Security Council to act?

Democracy Diminshed.

The Coalition Government has  diminished the political influence of MPs even further than had the Blair Government.

  

Today’s Parties want puppets and clones on their books.  Few MPs dare to act in keeping with the stance they professed when elected.   

Indeed, because of the Act passed by Blair’s government, the Parliamentary Parties, Elections and Referendum Act (PPERA), few candidates dared to put any view at variance with the Party Orders, lest they be forced to stand without Party endorsement, as Independent candidates, unable even to aspire to a description on the ballot paper.

PPERA was introduced because of the introduction of the system of Lists required for the proportional representation for elections to the Scottish Parliament, The Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies and the European Parliament.  

For the first time in British history, parties had to register with the state authorities in order to be eligible to field candidates for Parliament.  Prior to that, anyone or any group or party, could be or field candidates who were able to adopt a description, be it a Party Name, or something as simple as ”Independent  Communist”, to fight their corner to take a seat in Parliament.

But no more – since PPERA, only registered parties can have party names or descriptions and the candidates need the specific endorsement of a Nominating Officer, from the registered Party, in order to have the description on the ballot paper.

The exception, for a candidate not accepted to stand for a party, or not wishing to, is to stand as an "Independent”.  So what, you ask?

Well, in the past, a free spirit could distinguish his or her “independent”  status with some description – for example, “Independent Communist”,  "Independent For A Free NHS”, “Independent Conservative” etc.   The rule now is that the only default description is the single word “Independent”.  So two, or three, independent candidates on the same ballot paper cannot explain or describe themselves as in any way different from the others – are they to the left, right or centre?

A small, harmless shift, one night say. Especially if one is a bureaucratic party, determined to keep MPs in line -  lose the label, lose the seat.  Power has shifted, in this as in so much else, towards  the controllers at the centre – party bosses and bureaucrats.

  

That is not good for democracy. 

And the Coalition bent the constitution even further – gone now are the good old days when a Prime Minster had to command the confidence of a majority of individual MPs in the House of Commons. 

Losing an important vote meant being unable to govern as pledge; but the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in coalition sorted that –  they fixed the term of parliament so that they retain power even if they lose the support of MPs – and that has happened in this parliament. And adjust the margin by which dissent or dissatisfaction amongst MPs is needed before the cosy cartel can be challenged.

Are all our MPs now wimps? Why do they accept all of this?  To keep the job, regardless?

We must restore the convention we had when we were British, that is, that the Government must have the confidence of the House in order to govern, that MPs should not fear for their futures more than they do for the country, and that free spirits can stand as Independents but with some description,  so that the electorate can distinguish their intent.

EU Benefits Ruling

A "win" on one issue in an EU court is not a restoration of our sovereignty or a "victory" - hooting hurrah for this result is understandable but the next EU legal decision may equally go the "other" way.  They are deciding - we are ruled.

We WOULD be better of OUT.

The Express is right - and I hope you all see it.

Oh, well, maybe the Scottish Express will not publish. So take a look at this:

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/416554/EU-membership-now-costs-British-business-billion


And remember, UKIP has being saying this for a wee while now.

Does your councillor or MSP care?

What do you think?

http://joshrjones.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/white-throated-needletail.html

There is no sanity in the SNP or Coalition Governement wind energy policies.  If you voted for one of them - think again.

Does the Media make or report the news?

PRESS RELEASE IMMEDIATE
UKIP's Chairman in Scotland, Mike Scott-Hayward, has welcomed an Evening Express poll in Aberdeen which shows UKIP ahead of the Liberal Democrats, and just a neck behind the Labour and the Conservatives.

"The poll shows the SNP 35.7%, Conservative 11.9%, Labour 11.9%, Labour 10.3%, UKIP 8.7% and Liberal Democrats 4.8%.

"In contrast to this clear balance seen by the voters, BBC Radio Scotland held a radio hustings excluding UKIP from the panel. The usual Beeb judgement is that only the last election counts, not the present situation or the future. The panel on Brian Taylor's Big Debate was a four party melee - a very noisy incident often reduced to a level of shouting that equalled the unreasoning level of noise I heard on the streets of Edinburgh a fortnight ago.

"I acknowledge that Brian did play sound clips from other candidates, including Otto Inglis of UKIP, but the balance of babble might have been brought round to a better debate had the parties now showing above, say, 5% in the popular polls, all been participants.

"The rules followed by the BBC do entrench the establishment - luckily, voters are not bound by the same fixed mentality and I forsee UKIP beating at least one, or perhaps even two, so called major political parties here in Scotland, as we are already doing elsewhere in the UK".

Mike Scott-Hayward
Chairman UKIPScotland
07917365197/01334655040

SNP – NOT JUST THE TORIES – ARE ATTRACTED BY UKIP

SNP – NOT JUST THE TORIES – ARE ATTRACTED BY UKIP

Across the United Kingdom, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) is attracting increased support, from the previously disengaged and from those now disenchanted with the existing politic elite. According the UKIP, the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats have seen supporters switch to them as, indeed, have some councillors.

This trend is also evident in Scotland where, according to the Chairman of UKIPScotland, Mike Scott-Hayward, even the SNP are now vulnerable to UKIP at grass roots level.

“We were delighted to hear a speech from a prominent former member of the SNP, Michael McCafferty, at our Spring Gathering in Edinburgh,” Mike Scott-Hayward explained.

“We paraded a range of speakers who had previously been members of other parties, and of none, putting to rest the myth that we are comprised simply of former Tories.

"Sure we have ex Tories, including me, but that is just part of the picture.Michael McCafferty, who had been involved with the SNP since from the late eighties and rose to being a member of the YSN National Executive, is now well ensconced with UKIP."

Mr McCafferty told the UKIP Gathering that he had come came to feel that the SNP had turned into just another party of ‘yes’ men and its obsession with the EU seemed misplaced.

He said, “Norway was always trumpeted by Alex Salmond as a role model for Scotland, and yet it wasn’t controlled by Brussels. Indeed the two most prosperous countries in Europe – Switzerland and Norway were fully independent which led me to question the SNP policy of further European integration.

“It was only by spending time in Ireland that I saw the true face of the EU. Ireland had bravely voted ‘no’ to the Lisbon Treaty, but a dodgy rerun got Brussels the ‘yes’ result it wanted. With the EU and IMF firmly in charge now, the country is but a shadow of itself, and is simply a pawn in a bigger game, in which Brussels owns the board and the pieces.

“The situation in Ireland, and in some of the other European countries, encouraged me to look again at the EU. The hand of Brussels was behind all of the major issues affecting the continent, and the UK was similarly being drawn into this economic and social mess.

“But one man was speaking up against this European madness….and it wasn’t Alex Salmond. Indeed it was only when I heard Nigel Farage last year, telling Merkel and Obama to butt out of Britain’s business that I finally decided that it was time to get back into the political game, by joining UKIP.”

Cohesion against the madness of wind as a significant energy source

There are a plethora of anti- wind energy groups.

Some wonder why they are not better co-ordinated and why a new  political party has, despite being little more than a group of single issue lobbyists, has registered?

Don't be confused - the ant-wind lobbies are all united together against wind energy; they have a strong message and Scotland Against Spin does quite well in reaching out to them all. 

As they all, however, lack political clout, some have formed a party.  That doesn't solve the wider issue, because the new party's policies are inept.

The reason for the lack of proper clout lies in the persistence of  political loyalties amongst the lobbyists.  This makes it difficult for the various groups to present a single clear political message.

So,  for most part, they proclaim the need to be "non aligned" in order to keep folk on board.

No one who is truly active on any political issue, however, can be wholly devoid of a party political view or avoid a party preference; for the thinking majority, innate and natural party loyalties are hard to drop.  

It is impossible to divide one's soul between a blind loyalty and a conflicting political objective. So there in the unspoken coalition of supporters of all parties (all but UKIP supporters) in which each member silently bears the dilemma that the party for whom loyalty is felt, does in practise support, promote and implement the abhorrent wind energy polices.  

The question is, can "non-alignment" defeat the dynamics of that dilemma?  Need it?  Will the dilemma lead to much, or continual, repositioning?

When the opportunity to have an impact greater than simple objection and protest arrives, that is, when standing at the ballot box, each individual will have to face down their own demons.  

Will they vote then for undying loyalties that promote wind and accept the drive from the EU, or will they think afresh and vote for UKIP, against both the stupidity of wind as a significant energy source, and against the continued subjugation of the UK to EU rules?

We will have to wait to see what they do on the day. In the meantime Salmond sails on, the Coalition continues dodging, and the EU seems unassailable.  A huge rise in UKIP members and poll support for our clear message could, however, shock the incumbents into policy change.

Scotland's New Party

Created wholly out of the swelling disillusionment with the Governents' Energy Policies, a new anti wind turbine party has appeared on scene.

Of course it raises the anti wind profile, but it doesn't raise the chances of success for two good reasons - splits any real anti-wind vote away from UKIP, and, like the established incumbents, ignores the fact that the driver is the EU, to which they all kow tow.

The real threat to the complacency of those in power will come from UKIP when all anti-wind activists vote for us (secretly if they wish). 

Which party has a policy to scrap DECC?

Which party has a policy to Repeal the Act? 

Which party will STOP subsidies, not simply switch the revenue source? 
 

EU OIL GRAB - UK/SCOTLAND BEWARE!

IMMEDIATE

Not only the SNP but the whole Scottish Nation has to wake up to the realities of sovereignty.

Mr Salmond wants out of the UK and into the EU - Amendment 63 to the Fisheries' Policy should wake him up. It is a the clear intention of the EU body politic to take full central control of, basically, everything. Here that foreign collective bureaucracy wants to sneak in central sovereign control of our sea bed - UK or Scottish, whatever the result of the Scottish Referendum

That means the EU is staging a oil grab - and a lot more.

Scotland ; wake up! We need a United Kingdom that has wrestled itself free from the central control of the EU body politic. There is no such thing as Independence in the EU, Alex. And the UK itself is in the same trap. We most certainly would be Better Together and Better of Out - and UKIP alone, it seems, offers that."

NOTES

---

EU threatens Essential Sovereignty:

Time for that Referendum Dave?

Hidden in an amendment within a huge report on the EU’s Common Fisheries policy, UKIP has discovered an attempt by Brussels to seize control of the UK seabed, owned by the UK Crown: A power grab that should trigger a UK Referendum.

The vast majority of the mineral rich seabed, inside the 12 mile limit of British Territorial Waters, is Crown Estate, or property of the Crown and the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.

Yet Amendment 63 would permit the EU to claim ownership via a direct power grab, without any consultation or prior approval from British people, the British Parliament or the Queen.

Under David Cameron’s “Referendum Lock” this should be subject to a direct appeal to British voters.

Speaking in the debate in Strasbourg this morning, Stuart Agnew MEP, the UKIP fisheries spokesman, said of the amendment, tabled by a Spanish MEPs,

"The British people, Parliament and Her Majesty the Queen will also be alarmed to discover that Amendment 63 would create a new power without a word of objection by Her Majesty's Government or the Tories.

“That power is sovereignty over the seabed as opposed to merely controlling the fish in the water above it. Any new power must mean a UK referendum.

“Therefore if this amendment is carried it must be the subject of a UK referendum under Mr Cameron's ‘referendum lock’.”

Later Mr Agnew said, “If this legislation is passed, then Cameron is duty bound to give us that vote under his own law”.

Notes

Statement by David Cameron, 25/5/2010

“My Government will introduce legislation to ensure that in future this Parliament and the British people have their say on any proposed transfer of powers to the European Union.”

The amendment

Amendment 63

Proposal for a regulation

Part I – Article 5 –indent 1

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
– ‘Union waters’ means the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States with the exception of the waters adjacent to the territories listed in Annex II to the Treaty;	– ‘Union waters’ means the waters and the seabed under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States with the exception of those adjacent to the territories listed in Annex II to the Treaty;

Justification

In order to include sessile species.

Video of Speech by Stuart Agnew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ELeQM4Tq0--

Gawain Towler
Press Officer
EFD Group in the European Parliament
UK Independence Party

Tel: +44 (0)207 2229365

GSM: +44 (0) 7879339509
Skype: gawain.towler1

http://www.efdgroup.eu/
http://www.ukip.org
http://englandexpects.blogspot.com/
www.twitter.com/gawain.towler1

Cameron is buying time

Cameron is buying time to get the Tories beyond the next General Election, on grounds that UKIP has shown him are those the public wish to address. His confusion, as Salmond rightly says, is that at heart he still agrees with Nick and wants to stay in the EU.
 
He must also know that negotiating will lead nowhere - he can never hope to get a final settlement; that is not the way the EU works. But his gloss will work for many top Tories who want also need to sneak past the next ballot box. Even Boris is putting on a show of support - that is my big disappointment today - and so we can all expect a review of policy by the Tories if they ever get back in and get to sit at the negotiating table with the EU bureaucracy. They will say they tried thier best!
 
As Salmond says, they are doing the two horse thing. But so is he! Salmond talks about Scottish Independence as if he means that the Scots will govern Scotland. His other horse is the "in Europe" bit - the confusion he is palming off on the Scots is to pretend that there is such a thing as "independence in Europe". There is not. How can any nation state, the UK or, if Salmond gets a positive vote, even Scotland, call itself sovereign when a foreign collective makes 80% of its laws?
 
Scotland needs to be out of the EU as much as does the UK as a whole - and the best way to achieve that is to remain United and to have an in/out EU vote. The chattering political class is truly confused - Cameron's EU option is an attempt at selling a dummy, and from Salmond a wee pretendy independence option for Scotland alone.
 
Clearly, the hopping about by Cameron, Milliband's closing the door on EU debate, Nick not letting anyone have an EU referendum now, and Salmond's play on the use of the word "independence" means more people will turn to UKIP in Scotland; our numbers have come up by 25% in the last three months because, I believe, UKIP offers what the British want - a sovereign United Kingdom freed from the EU political machine.

UKIP is turning the screw on the complacent governing elite.

A little anecdote for you all on lobbying methodology whilst the topic is in the air.

Demonstrations work, and I advocate regularity, e.g. a frequent demo at the Council and outside the MP and MSP surgeries, whenever they have them. As well as the bigger events.

But my anecdote relates to subtle political pressure: the ruling class is now very aware of the surge in membership and rise in popularity of UKIP, and are on watch to see that they are not outflanked by us. Is that so, you say? How does Mike know this?

Well, a few weeks ago I published a Press Release to the effect that UKIP will monitor cases for fraud etc. The Press ignored this but I published it on FB and Blogger, but I have since had several direct approaches by people suffering the blight of turbines, and at a loss as to what to do. They have all asked their elected representatives for help, and to little avail. So they called me, having found me via FB, my blog etc.

I am no expert, but have political experience and am now in the process of advising them - still to get round them all, some far afield, but I will do it. 

Now, here's the rub: I advised one caller, amongst other things, to write to a party leader specifically outlining the mix of horrors suffered and the lack of help received from the elected.  I also advised that the point should be made that UKIP had been approached - i.e. I was cc'd into the email to the said party leader. The point was to rattle a cage. Politics, you see. I also arranged to call to discuss the case.

Last week, I was able to visit as promised and on arrival was surprised to see another caller already there, discussing the case. The woman visitor concerned seemed a bit embarrassed when we were introduced, and she left without further ado. 

So what?

Well, it transpired that the visitor was an elected local councillor, and had revealed that she was calling on behalf of the said party leader and on behalf of the party's local MSP as well.  There is no doubt in my mind that the sudden and immediate attention, where previously there had been lethargy, was clearly a direct result of UKIP involvement and a party attempt to defend their indefensible policies and to cover their flank.

Get it right in 2013.............

Hi Folks
Please do think about this - I would say that if UKIP has the policy you want - e.g. to repeal the Climate Change Act - you should stress that time and time again.  

If you really want to put pressure on the Goverrnment, to rattle those cages, then bite the bullet and join UKIP and vote for us across the country - what can be wrong with voting for what you want, rather than for old loyalties - loyalties that are one way streets - loyalty expected from you by parties that have the wrong policies but implore you to stick with them?

Smell the coffee and make a sensible New Year's  Resolution to start playing "real politics".   You must have toyed with the idea - now do it.


Merry Christmas

I would like to extend an invitation to any remaining Conservative supporters

A few days have now passed since UKIP's great performances in the English and Welsh Police Commissioners elections and in three Parliamentary by-elections.


We came second in two by-elections and third in two Police Commissioner elections. In Durham, we seem to be replacing the Tory party. We also beat them in Middlesbrough and trounced them in the Police elections where we had more activists at the count than they could muster.

I would like to extend an invitation to any remaining Conservative supporters and voters in Scotland, who may still believe in the freedom and independence of the United Kingdom, to join UKIP now. You will be very welcome.

I also extend this invitation to traditional Labour voters who believe in their country and in the social mobility that we espouse and which Labour's Islington set decry.

Moreover, I know that some Liberal Democrats, indeed some in office who have spoken to me in private, feel that the EU is getting to big for its boots. Liberal Democrat leaders sold out on many policies for the sake of power - and they used to want us to think they are a party of principles. They have proven they are a party of first principles - that is, putting the party and themselves first, not you nor the country."

Calling Alex Salmond.........

Angela Merkel reportedly told the European Parliament, just before heading of to chat to Coalition Dave in Downing Street, “Of course the European Commission will one day become a government, the European Council a second chamber and the European Parliament will have more powers – but for now we have to focus on the euro and give people a little more time to come along."

Now, the First Minister and his separatist bedfellows should ponder hard on what their Independence in Europe really means. Alex Salmond need not ask any lawyers - just ask Angela.

The solution, of course, is independence - for the UK out of the EU.

Sea Change - too slow - take five easy steps now.

The vote was a good call, and the media does need to take notice of the real sea change,  but a far more effective measure would be for the dissenting Tories to take five simple steps to put it all right. 

They simply need to take five steps across the floor, become UKIP MPs and bring real infleunce to the House.

Tory Wind Bluff and Bluster

UKIP Scotland Chairman has dismissed a Tory ploy to hide the fact that the Coalition Government is behind funding the surge in wind farms.

"The Tories have now got everyone bothered about the costs of the planning system and about planning authorities being overwhelmed bybturbine applications.

 

"Yes, it is a waste, but let's get back to the real issue - the economic waste of useless turbines, and the desecration of our landscape. The cost of all the wind energy policies far outweighs the cost of the planning burden on councils, and the Tory politicians have cunningly got away from explaining why their party doesn't  scrap the subsidies and stop the whole nonsense.

 

"It's a red herring.

 

"Liz Smith MSP says 'It is extremely worrying that so many of these local authorities are unable to outline to overall financial cost of this.'

"So, can the Coalition Government outline the full costs of what all the subsidies will amount to over the full life of their schemes?  And how much of the country will be covered by wind farms?

 

"The Conservatives can't see the economic wood for the turbines"