HIPs don't lie

It’s not that home information packs are intrinsically wrong; it was the way they have been handled. Any attempt to criticise the way they are being set up is presented as the evil machinations of a sinister cabal of wreckers and polluters.

The packs are meant to include energy performance certificates, which will show how economically a house performs in energy consumption. These certificates are compulsory because of EU legislation, and so will have to be introduced anyway. The other elements of the home information pack are separate from these certificates. Yet to hear our Dead Leader and his juniors tell it, anyone who criticises any aspect of the packs is essentially an eco-terrorist.

Wary of being thwarted by vested interests in maintaining the status quo in housebuying, with its sundry scams and consumer tripwires such as multiple surveys on the same property, the government have hunkered down and snapped at anyone daring to come close, friend or foe. They were warned a year ago that their plans hadn’t been thought through, and more recently were told that far too little was in place for their shiny new scheme, but they just snapped some more and accused everyone else of wrongthink. This is a dangerous mentality, suggesting excess levels of hubris and idiocy. It almost makes their attempts to “seek consensus” look good.

If they truly are concerned that people should improve their houses for the sake of the environment, why not knock VAT off boilers, lagging, solar panels etc? Actually, Tony did put his name to a domestic solar panel grant a few years ago, but he soon lost interest and the grant has since been slashed. Maybe he has been planning a grant for domestic nuclear installations instead.

The packs in themselves are ultimately a pretty good idea. There is too much about the way they are being brought in, however, that reminds you that this is the same crowd that brought you rural farm payments and the increasingly wayward tax credits scheme. Thank God these are the people who have opted to set up and run a national ID register. Just imagine what chaos there would be otherwise.

Sistaz!

“I don’t want to do this any more,” said one of my colleagues, a woman in her 50s, as we left the building. “I just want to spend my days riding my horse. But my husband doesn’t earn enough to keep me in the custom I’m used to.”

“Nice. Have you told him so?” I grinned.

“But that’s how it used to be,” she said. “We were always told, ‘Find yourself a rich man who can keep you’. I didn’t want any of that, I wanted to be independent. But as you get older... I should have gone to the south of France and shown myself off on the beach when I still had my looks. Far too late now. My daughter’s the same. She used to go out with [international UK rugby player]. Very tall. He used to fill my kitchen. She used to say, ‘But mum, he’s boring’. I’d say, ‘I don’t care. Stay with him!’. But she didn’t. She’s too much like I used to be. Still, she’ll learn.”

Squirrels

Thanks to psychonomy for passing this on—and indeed for transcribing it in the first place:

The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): When I flicked through a newspaper this morning, I could not figure out why on earth someone had done a diary piece about how many times I have mentioned the word “squirrels” in the past six months. I thought, “Blimey, someone’s calculated this”. It was only seven times; the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is apparently on 200. With the reshuffle coming, the piece said that I do not have much time to make up in mentioning the word “squirrels”. Well, squirrels are actually very important. Red squirrels are more important than grey squirrels. I now realise why someone has been alerted to the fact that squirrels need a mention.