The Policy Blender

Like I was saying, if we're all happy with the idea of biodiesel, why isn't something being done to promote it? Here's a hippy-leftie hypothesis: The oil companies don't own any farms. They have oil refineries which (admittedly with some investment) could easily be converted to refine vegetable oils. They have tankers, both road and sea, filling stations, staff, the entire network. Sadly it's these giant corporation who are going to make the money when and if biodiesel ever takes off, because they're in a perfect position to sell it to the customer. But they aren't doing it. Why not? Why not, dammit?! I want to know!

Here are some possible reasons:
1) Biodiesel is not as reliable as mineral diesel - it damages engines.
This is true, it can damage some engines, and needs to operate at a slightly higher temperature than mineral diesel. However, engines could easily be developed to run on biodiesel as efficiently as modern diesel engines take mineral diesel. If the oil companies and the car companies talk to each other a bit (it'd be a weird world if they aren't talking already about something), then it'd be an incredibly simple move to make, and with both organisations working together, it would provide a guaranteed return on the investments they made. Cameron would have a new biodiesel Lexus at the drop of a hat, and there are millions more like him.

2) There isn't the agricultural capacity to support the current oil usage with a vegetable-based alternative
So do some of it. Some is better than none.

3) No-one in important government positions, or in high-up places in car and oil companies gives a shit about anything that doesn't affect the time between now and the next election/their next annual bonus
I don't have a reply to this. Anyone?

Posted by Matt at 12:31 pm | Permalink | Comments

The Westminster gossip machine is awash with the name of a Labour MP who is rumoured to have had an affair with John Prescott.

We at Policyblender believe that it would be irresponsible to name names at this moment in time.

17:13 Update: Bugger it. It's her below. Bye John.

Posted by Ben at 2:34 pm | Permalink | Comments

Posted by Ben at 1:57 pm | Permalink | Comments

I’m a little behind on interweb political humour, so I thought I’d share my catch up.

Tim Ireland is on sparkling form with his reply to Dave the Chameleon.

Recess Monkey has been running a poll on what would be a good job for George Osbourne.

Posted by Ben at 12:34 pm | Permalink | Comments

Iain Dale, as ever, has hit the nail on the head concerning our some of our bottom-feeding lobby journalists who got hooked on New Labour press releases in the mid-nineties and have spiralled into dependency ever since. Mr Dale also lets the cat out of the bag concerning another Prescott affair – Guido is taking soundings as to whether to publish the name of the MP Prezza’s been bonking.

“…everyone in Westminster knows of Prescott's affair with a fellow Minister who has rapidly shot up the greasy pole (if you'll pardon the expression) after receving his patronage, but do we read about that in our newspapers this morning? Do we hell. Do we read about the serial Ugandan exploits of another senior Cabinet Minister, which are known to even the most junior journalist in Westminster? No. There are some serious double standards here. If a Tory or a LibDem is fair game to the media on the grounds of hypocrisy or public interest then surely the same rules should apply to government ministers. The reason they do not is because any journalist who published such a story would immediately find that their sources within New Labour mysteriously evaporated. So they remain complicit in an unspoken conspiracy. It stinks.”

Let’s add that to Charles Clarke’s recent woes, the police investigation into New Labour’s finances, Patricia Hewitt’s hilarious reception at the Royal College of Nurses following her hilarious statement that the NHS has just had it’s best year ever…

Posted by Ben at 12:15 pm | Permalink | Comments

I'm going to make some wild, possibly ridiculous claims about the things biodiesel coudl do for the world. For those of you unfamiliar with biodiesel, it's a vegetable oil based fuel that has been 'cracked' to make it less viscous, so it has all of the properties of mineral diesel.

Biodiesel requires little or no modification to your diesel engine. It only releases the carbon dioxide that is fixed in growing the plant you get the oil from. It releases few other emissions. These are the world problems I think it could solve.

1) Global warming. Whether you believe this is happening or not, less carbon dioxide emissions can be no bad thing. But if you do believe it's happening, it coudl stop a fifth of the world's population from drowning.

2) The fuel crisis. Oil prices are going up all the time, people are having to shoot other people to secure oil supplies (sorry, any opportunity to take a shot at Bush), and eventually, whether in ten or a thousand years, supplies will run out. So let's start growing our own now!

3) Urban pollution. If Asia's swelling economy is based on this entirely renewable fuel, then the Chinese won't need to start wearing dust masks in the big cities, like the Japanese do in Tokyo.

4) The political instability of the Middle East. Not just a dig at Bush, but if we've got an alternative to oil, people like Saddam won't be able to throw their weight around nearly as much.

5) The Common Agricultural Policy. Don't pay people not to farm, pay them to grow diesel!

It won't solve the traffic problems of course. But other than that, I can't see a problem with it. So how do we get everyone driving vegetable-oil-fuelled cars? And why hasn't it happened already?

Posted by Matt at 9:02 am | Permalink | Comments

Advertisers always like to keep the message simple - the New Tory message is "we have changed". The details are irrelevant to most voters. Daz does not advertise Persil's new formula, why is New Labour advertising New Tory policy changes?

...following on from their depiction of Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin as pigs, Labour will seek to elevate the level of political debate tonight by showing David Cameron as a reptile in a party political broadcast. They're also launching a website called http://www.davethechameleon.co.uk/. Perhaps the Conservatives should hit back with a website called http://www.tonyblairisacrook.co.uk/. But that would be petty, wouldn't it. Far better to let them swing on a rope of their own making.

Asked why the party had decided to make a personal attack on Mr Cameron, Local Government Minister Phil Woolas said: "Well, it is funny”.

Posted by Ben at 1:52 pm | Permalink | Comments

Posted by Ben at 11:36 am | Permalink | Comments

Daivd Cameron made a speech at the weekend indicating that the Conservative party must change. As the BBC gleefully pointed out, he made no reference to any of the issues we'd normally associate with the Tories. Instead, as far as I can glean from a half-concentrating assessment of second hand sources, he suggested that they need to listen to the electorate and piece together a group of policies that will get them votes. This is now an idea that seems to be coming from all three main parties - we don't want to influict any kind of views on you, just tell us what will keep us in power.

The Civil War ended in 1648, Charles I was executed and parliament became the ruling force. Since then, we've been in a democracy. To my understanding, democracy is where the people vote and get what the majority want. I'm amazed that it has taken three hundred and fifty years for us to figure out what a democracy is. That's what you're meant to do, guys, why haven't you been doing it for the last thirty-five decades?!

Posted by Matt at 12:50 pm | Permalink | Comments

Call me twisted but that story is both concerning and hilarious! It's concarious! Or hilarierning, even! Irresponsible parents are now feeding their children so much that not only are they at risk from heart disease by the time they're five, they're so fat that their kiddie seats can't keep them in one place in a car accident.

Apparently childhood obesity is concentrated in low-income families in the US. It's odd, because a hundred years ago, poverty would have led to children who were too skinny. Look how far we've come!

Even better, this lady says that the children being too fat for the car seats is the manufacturers fault. "As the number of obese children in the United States increases, it is essential to develop child safety seats that can protect children of all sizes and shapes," wrote study author Lara Trifiletti of Ohio State University in Columbus. "We hope that the results of this study can be used to influence future products brought to market."

You know, if they walked instead:

1) They wouldn't be so fat.
2) They wouldn't ever move fast enough to injure themselves
3) Global warming, the destruction of the rainforests and all that crazy hippy shit that they talk about here at work.
4) Less traffic, so the kids who aren't fat, and can therefore ride in a car safely, get to their destinations faster.
5) Less reliance on oil in the US (and the UK, we've got fat kids too), so they can get it all from Canada (or the North Sea in our case), saving transportation costs and (insert cheap shot at Iraq war here).
6) They'd get plenty of fresh air, just like their parents and their grandparents, they'd learn to appreciate the outdoors, they'd start playing games outdoors instead of GTA: San Andreas, they'd get an imagination, passion for life, a happy disposition that doesn't need anti-depressants, and they'd start to appreciate everything they have much more. They'd just become better people.

I propose that any parents with kids who are 'clinically obese' have their driving license revoked. It's for everyone's good.

Posted by Matt at 8:18 am | Permalink | Comments