Judging an idea from whence it came

It's a terrible error of logic to judge an idea purely by looking at who is proposing it. Even the most wildly in error people have been known to have a good idea or two. However, it's still a reasonable rule of thumb to use: if an idea is being proposed by those you consider batsh.....well, maybe I won't use that word, if an idea is being proposed by those you normally regard as being in error, the idea will probably fail your own tests of its reasonableness.

So, seeing the following signing a letter to The Guardian today did not fill me with hope for the validity of the idea they were supporting:

Neal Lawson Compass, Gavin Hayes Compass, Ed Matthew Friends of the Earth, Tony Juniper, Kate Green Child Poverty Action Group, Roy Hattersley, Chuka Umunna, Nicky Gavron, Cllr Jon Collins, Richard Burden MP, Karen Buck MP, Roger Berry MP, Prof Ruth Lister, Tony Robinson, Dave Prentis Unison, Keith Norman Aslef, Guy Palmer New Policy Institute, Helena Kennedy QC, Tony Woodley Unite, Andrew Simms New Economics Foundation, Wes Streeting President, NUS

As far as I can tell there's only one economist there and that's Andrew Simms, he who told us that as Vanuatu was the happiest place on earth for its carbon budget therefore we should all live as Stone Age tribesmen (a course of action which does include the admittedly fun aspects of introducing both penis sheaths and the worship of the Duke of Edinburgh as a living God into British life).

And yes, their idea is indeed silly. It's that windfall tax idea again which I discussed here.

Put simply, in order to get fuel prices down we'd like to have a greater supply of fuel and lower demand for it. These people are insisting that we should take the money away from those who would go and find more fuel and give it to the people who want to buy fuel. That is, their plan for reducing prices is to reduce supply and increase demand.

No, maybe I will use that word: this is batshit crazy.