Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Hello again
Belatedly...a few comments on one of the most active months in UK politics since I last blogged. Holidays and golf are my excuse.
Election results
The results of the European and Local elections can't really give good guidance to a general election, partly because the turnout was so low and partly because there were clear signs of a protest vote. Labour's neglect of its traditional constituency explains the BNP's success in getting two MEPs. Like UKIP for the Tories, their vote was a cry for attention from the disenfranchised. The Tories did well but if the results were applied in a General Election, projections suggest they would only have a majority of 28.
The almost universal acceptance that Cameron will be the next PM does not take account of the enormous swing that the Tories need because of the massive bias in constituency allocations to Labour, with Scotland being the worst example. (Something that must be sorted out after the next election). Two other factors: with the general bias in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland, events in the devolved areas could have an exaggerated impact on the outcome. And if the chips are down, the Lib Dems are more likely to support labour, partly because most of their activists are left leaning and partly because they know the Tories will actually do things to get the economy straight again.
So although a Conservative Government is the most likely outcome of the next election, I wouldn't put much money on it. They aren't helped from not having coherent economic policies at the start of the recession, which gives them a weak base to comment on the economy now. They have a year to become coherent - or to hope Labour continues to implode.
A couple of local comments:
- my friend didn't win his local council seat. But he did hold off the NIMBY party to be second.
- in Northumberland there was a low turnout, but the Tory vote was up and the Lib dem vote down - albeit a little. This increases the chances that Berwick upon Tweed could become Conservative again. Which would be good: we need an MP who can actually do things for the area.
The almost universal acceptance that Cameron will be the next PM does not take account of the enormous swing that the Tories need because of the massive bias in constituency allocations to Labour, with Scotland being the worst example. (Something that must be sorted out after the next election). Two other factors: with the general bias in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland, events in the devolved areas could have an exaggerated impact on the outcome. And if the chips are down, the Lib Dems are more likely to support labour, partly because most of their activists are left leaning and partly because they know the Tories will actually do things to get the economy straight again.
So although a Conservative Government is the most likely outcome of the next election, I wouldn't put much money on it. They aren't helped from not having coherent economic policies at the start of the recession, which gives them a weak base to comment on the economy now. They have a year to become coherent - or to hope Labour continues to implode.
A couple of local comments:
- my friend didn't win his local council seat. But he did hold off the NIMBY party to be second.
- in Northumberland there was a low turnout, but the Tory vote was up and the Lib dem vote down - albeit a little. This increases the chances that Berwick upon Tweed could become Conservative again. Which would be good: we need an MP who can actually do things for the area.
Aftermath of the Moat
So much has been said about MP's expenses. A couple of thoughts from a different angle..
a) second jobs. One of Brown's responses to the scandal was to introduce a new set of rules about second jobs, with the intention of discouraging them. This was partisan - I suppose most Labour MPs couldn't get a second job which is why they disapprove of them. Seriouusly, it is surely better to have some MPs with experience of the real world rather than just being political clones or media tarts. I hope a new administration would actually promote second jobs for MPs.
b) creating an independent parliamentary regulator. The trouble is that an independent regulator means that no-one will be responsible for anything. The culture of "it's within the rules" will be emphasised; the regulator can't be that independent because it will be appointed (even if indirectly) by the Government; its members will likely want future quango roles. This approach is typical of so much delegation of miniterial responsibility to outside agencies. It means the buck is eternally passed.
Much better to have full disclosure of payments and to make MPs responsible and accountable. I repeat my earlier view: a closing Parliament should set the salaries for the next parliament - as the MPs would immediately be facing election. Expenses should be radically simplified to be consistent with normal overnight stays in business. Salaries should be increased, but to compensate there should be fewer MPs. And they should have a normal rather than a supernormal pension scheme to help them understand the real world.
a) second jobs. One of Brown's responses to the scandal was to introduce a new set of rules about second jobs, with the intention of discouraging them. This was partisan - I suppose most Labour MPs couldn't get a second job which is why they disapprove of them. Seriouusly, it is surely better to have some MPs with experience of the real world rather than just being political clones or media tarts. I hope a new administration would actually promote second jobs for MPs.
b) creating an independent parliamentary regulator. The trouble is that an independent regulator means that no-one will be responsible for anything. The culture of "it's within the rules" will be emphasised; the regulator can't be that independent because it will be appointed (even if indirectly) by the Government; its members will likely want future quango roles. This approach is typical of so much delegation of miniterial responsibility to outside agencies. It means the buck is eternally passed.
Much better to have full disclosure of payments and to make MPs responsible and accountable. I repeat my earlier view: a closing Parliament should set the salaries for the next parliament - as the MPs would immediately be facing election. Expenses should be radically simplified to be consistent with normal overnight stays in business. Salaries should be increased, but to compensate there should be fewer MPs. And they should have a normal rather than a supernormal pension scheme to help them understand the real world.
The reshuffle
The weekend speculation over Brown's future clashed with a golf weekend so much of it passed me by; my impression was that however bad the election results Brown would not go voluntarily and the Labour party could not finance an early election and most MPs would not want to lose their seats so it was unlikely he would go. And so it proved, although his eventual reshuffle proved he has little control over his party.
Cameron must be pleased: he needs Brown to stay in office to increase his chances of success. I asked a Labour supporting friend of mine to name one capable thing Brown had done in the last 12 years; I couldn't, and nor could they (well, they said his control, of the economy until the recent crash but early successes were the legacy of Ken Clarke's Chancellorship, and the later apparent success was merely a debt fuelled boom before the inevitable bust).
There's one problem of a weak PM, however: the risk of lots of badly thought through initiatives to make it look as though the Government has ideas and enwed energy. The track record is that most intiatives are announced and then fade away - but there's always a risk some may become policy. Like MPs expenses.
Cameron must be pleased: he needs Brown to stay in office to increase his chances of success. I asked a Labour supporting friend of mine to name one capable thing Brown had done in the last 12 years; I couldn't, and nor could they (well, they said his control, of the economy until the recent crash but early successes were the legacy of Ken Clarke's Chancellorship, and the later apparent success was merely a debt fuelled boom before the inevitable bust).
There's one problem of a weak PM, however: the risk of lots of badly thought through initiatives to make it look as though the Government has ideas and enwed energy. The track record is that most intiatives are announced and then fade away - but there's always a risk some may become policy. Like MPs expenses.
Meanwhile, elsewhwere in the world...
As we contemplate our relatively minor problems there are two major events in the Middle East, in Iran and Pakistan. No-one based here can understand what's really going on. But the outcome will have a major impact on the world's stability and the economy. In Iran, I hope the groundswell of disgust against an obviously faked election result will lead to a loosening of the regime's control and a normalisation of life and realtions with gthe rest of the world. Iran is a country of civilised intelligent people: it should be our friend. Pakistan's army is at last taking action after decades of being in thrall to fundamentalism mainly because of an irrational fear of India. Too little? Too late? Again, who knows, but its a problem the West has helped cause and we must hope Pakistan can resolve.
Wednesday, 27 May 2009
Banking problems
Amid the expenses scandal the Treasury Select Committee published its latest findings on the problems in the banking system. It was generally a good report - it is generally a good and thorough committee - which identified many causes, including Governance, Auditors and Credit Rating Agencies. But its headline factor was problems in the bonus system, suggesting that the regulators were not taking this aspect seriously enough. I can’t see this as being the main reason. Human beings will always push the envelope, be it in banking innovation or expense claims, and unquestionably the asymmetric nature of rewards (reward for success, reward for failure) was a factor.
But because it is human nature to push, it is critical that there is a good legal or regulatory framework. The real problem was the lack of proper controls on bank (and quasi-bank) balance sheets so they over-expanded and created significant off-balance sheet exposure, and that the tri-partite regulatory framework meant no-one had a combination of overall responsibility, market knowledge or experience.
This aspect is to be covered in the next report from the Committee but in the meantime it would be wrong to let jealousy make the focus on remuneration rather than flaws in the regulatory system.
But because it is human nature to push, it is critical that there is a good legal or regulatory framework. The real problem was the lack of proper controls on bank (and quasi-bank) balance sheets so they over-expanded and created significant off-balance sheet exposure, and that the tri-partite regulatory framework meant no-one had a combination of overall responsibility, market knowledge or experience.
This aspect is to be covered in the next report from the Committee but in the meantime it would be wrong to let jealousy make the focus on remuneration rather than flaws in the regulatory system.
Saturday, 16 May 2009
Travels
I've been in Suffolk to help a friend who is standing for Suffolk County Council, although I haven’t yet found anyone to pay my expenses. I then went to the Chelsea flower show in the hope of finding out how to spend them. If I get them.
We were mainly delivering leaflets, stopping occasionally to interact with voters. I had wondered about the abuse we would receive as representatives of a flawed political system. But as I had found before, people were remarkably polite and on the whole pleased to see a candidate.
Northumberland has much to learn from Suffolk. Yes, there was the same enormous variety of care in gardens and houses, beautiful next to non-maintained, the same fascinating insights into people's lives: the hall filled with a 10-piece drum kit, the leopardskin cat-suit casually flung over the stairs, the stuffed dog in the window. But almost all the houses had letterboxes. Almost all clearly said what name or number they were. The passion for anonymity must be a Northumbrian thing.
Will my friend win? Well, he's a Tory standing against a sitting LibDem, with about a 10% swing needed. And Suffolk is a successful Tory council. I am biased, but I think the Tories have come out of the recent sleaze headlines marginally better than the other main parties. The main hassle is that a couple of local landowners have formed an independent party to protest against the development of an entertainment and indoor ski-complex on their doorstep. And although its real nimby stuff, an independent party could well get a lot of disaffected votes. I hope not: such votes, while sending a message, do not help effective management of a County Council.
The second part of my trip was to the Chelsea Flower Show. As always a combination of inspirational and depressing. The show gardens don't seem to have powerful perennial weeds; their wild gardens are so perfectly wild; their flowers are impervious to being battered by wind and rain. The highlights for me were James May's plasticene garden, the three major show gardens (Daily Telegraph, Laurent Perrier and the Perfumed Garden), and the smaller cottage gardens.
As always it is interesting how so many of the designers ha
ve the same drifts of green and purple perennials, the same blocks of limestone and water. In some ways its like fashion: the same influences emerge at the same time to form a trend. But actually, the gardens have looked very similar for a number of years. Nigel Havers had a guest spot on the BBC suggesting that all the designers used common blocks of plants and landscape and just took it in turns to move them around each year.
Perhaps, to quote David Cameron, its time for a change.
One other thing: the general mood seemed pretty optimistic, especially from the sculptor I saw opening a bottle of champagne for the customer who had just bought the five-figure sum sculpture. There was no shortage of people wandering around, no shortage of money being spent in the nearby bars although there was a shortage of taxis.
We were mainly delivering leaflets, stopping occasionally to interact with voters. I had wondered about the abuse we would receive as representatives of a flawed political system. But as I had found before, people were remarkably polite and on the whole pleased to see a candidate.
Northumberland has much to learn from Suffolk. Yes, there was the same enormous variety of care in gardens and houses, beautiful next to non-maintained, the same fascinating insights into people's lives: the hall filled with a 10-piece drum kit, the leopardskin cat-suit casually flung over the stairs, the stuffed dog in the window. But almost all the houses had letterboxes. Almost all clearly said what name or number they were. The passion for anonymity must be a Northumbrian thing.
Will my friend win? Well, he's a Tory standing against a sitting LibDem, with about a 10% swing needed. And Suffolk is a successful Tory council. I am biased, but I think the Tories have come out of the recent sleaze headlines marginally better than the other main parties. The main hassle is that a couple of local landowners have formed an independent party to protest against the development of an entertainment and indoor ski-complex on their doorstep. And although its real nimby stuff, an independent party could well get a lot of disaffected votes. I hope not: such votes, while sending a message, do not help effective management of a County Council.
The second part of my trip was to the Chelsea Flower Show. As always a combination of inspirational and depressing. The show gardens don't seem to have powerful perennial weeds; their wild gardens are so perfectly wild; their flowers are impervious to being battered by wind and rain. The highlights for me were James May's plasticene garden, the three major show gardens (Daily Telegraph, Laurent Perrier and the Perfumed Garden), and the smaller cottage gardens.
As always it is interesting how so many of the designers ha
ve the same drifts of green and purple perennials, the same blocks of limestone and water. In some ways its like fashion: the same influences emerge at the same time to form a trend. But actually, the gardens have looked very similar for a number of years. Nigel Havers had a guest spot on the BBC suggesting that all the designers used common blocks of plants and landscape and just took it in turns to move them around each year.Perhaps, to quote David Cameron, its time for a change.
One other thing: the general mood seemed pretty optimistic, especially from the sculptor I saw opening a bottle of champagne for the customer who had just bought the five-figure sum sculpture. There was no shortage of people wandering around, no shortage of money being spent in the nearby bars although there was a shortage of taxis.
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Four legs good, two legs better (2)
I nearly commented last year on the antics by some MPs (encouraged by the Speaker's committee) to try to stop information about their expenses and addresses being available to the public (despite their forcing of similar information about Councillors). I couldn't be bothered in the end because it all seemed so inevitable. Any anger at their hypocrisy and self centredness was smothered by their blatant lack of interest in their electors views.
But happily a combination of public interest, the efforts of a few good MPs, dedicated digging by some bloggers and a newspaper trying to increase its circulation has brought the whole sorry saga into the open. It's really satisfying to see MPs being scared: they and the main party leaders have to realise how they are regarded by the public before they institute necessary reforms. My main worry is that the public humiliation will be so great that we will all get tired of it and forget the reform bit.
I think one reason the public are so angry is that they have seen Government impose more and more controls and irritants on our lives. In most cases any mistakes we make in our dealings with Government, even unintentional or minor, are punished by instant and non discretionary fines. Its therefore galling to see MPs assuming they will be let off their mistakes if they just say sorry.
Here's a selection of thoughts:
- You've got to admire someone who can claim for clearing a moat. I noticed during my campaign last year that Tories tended to have the best gardens, and similarly Tory MPs tend to have the classier expense claims. Moats, landscaping, chandeliers are surely preferable to porn films and wide screen TVs. And I do think Cameron responded as a leader more quickly and firmly than Brown.
- The current Speaker is a block on reform (as well as being out of his depth). Things won't start to get sorted out until he goes.
- I don't think most people go into politics to screw the public. I think they do want to serve. Our Tory candidate wants to make a difference; to her potential constitutents, not herself. Our MP, albeit largely ineffective, does not come across as venal and has genuinely helped individuals. But its easy to get absorbed into "the system". As it is in any job. Like journalism. Or banking. (I wrote earlier on why the bank bonus culture delevolped and got out of line. I think there are similarities between MPs and bankers, which makes it even more satisfying to see the MPs who whinged about bonuses being shown up as hypocrites). So they need a control mechanism, a framework, to keep them in line.
- Paying back the expenses is fashionable. BUT: where are they getting the money from? Not many people can write a cheque for tens of thousands immediately. I suspect there must be some loans from party funds. And Hazel Blears paying the taxman the tax she would have paid on her house sale: if the sale was valid for tax purposes - as it probably was - then the payment she is now making will be treated as an advance on tax she owes. So she is misrepresenting the true picture again.
- People shouldn't let their disgust at how a large number of MPs have behaved stop them from voting, and they should vote for the person or party who most reflects their instincts. Lord Tebbit's intervention - "don't vote for the main parties" - is from a tired man who can't accept his irrelevance in today's world; the main potential beneficiary in the European elections (UKIP) have just as bad a record on expense manipulation as any other party and can offer no help to the development of the UK in Europe.
- The main parties need to ensure there is a review and cull of the worst behaved MPs by local associations so that next year's elections introduce fresh blood into Parliament.
- There should be fewer MPs (with greater equality of numbers of voters) who are paid more; the expense system should be massively simplified. Yes, some office support, travel and overnight accomodation expenses for out of London MPs is fair. But such amounts should be justified, published and according to a simple scale. Which does not include financing a property empire or supporting interior design boutiques.
- MPs shouldn't be prevented from having outside jobs. I can see that a good MP should be busy. But MPs today live in a protective bubble with an increasing number never having had a proper job. Having MPs with outside experience is a good thing. Any restriction on outside jobs should be accompanied by a restriction on the amount of time MPs can serve – perhaps 2 terms. And perhaps that term restriction would be a good thing anyway. It would make MPs more independent and likely to hold the Government to account. But even in that case I'd hate to see a Parliament without people with outside interests. The key is that the time and rewards of such jobs are public.
- Wider reforms to separate the executive from legislature shouldn't be ruled out, but I'd rather see an effort to make what we have work properly rather than postpone improvement by carrying out a long term review.
In the meantime, taken from a Commentator on Guido:
Westminster Ode, sung to the tune of the Strawbs - Part of the Union
Now I’m a Westminster man
Amazed at what I am
I say what I think, that Inland Revenue stinks
Yes I’m a Westminster man
When we meet in Westminster Great Hall
I’ll be voting with them all
With a hell of a shout, it’s “Bail our Banking Brothers out!”
And the rise of the factory’s fall
Oh, you don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
You don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
You don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
Huge pension till I die
Huge pension till I die
Westminster has made me wise
To the lies of the Telegraph spies
And I don’t get fooled by the Parliamentary rules’
cause I always read between the lines
And I always get my way
As I vote for my Brothers higher pay
When I show my MP card to the Scotland Yard
This is what I say:
Oh, oh, you don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
You don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
You don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
Huge pension till I die
Huge pension till I die
Before Westminster did appear
My life was half as clear
Now I’ve got the power, expenses to devour
Each and every day of the year
So though I’m a Parliamentary man
I avoid Revenue’s plan, claim all the expenses that I can
And though I’m not hard, the sight of my MP card
Makes me some kind of superman
Oh, oh, oh, you don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
You don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
You don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
Huge pension till I die
Huge pension till I die
You don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
You don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
You don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
Huge pension till I die
Huge pension till I die
But happily a combination of public interest, the efforts of a few good MPs, dedicated digging by some bloggers and a newspaper trying to increase its circulation has brought the whole sorry saga into the open. It's really satisfying to see MPs being scared: they and the main party leaders have to realise how they are regarded by the public before they institute necessary reforms. My main worry is that the public humiliation will be so great that we will all get tired of it and forget the reform bit.
I think one reason the public are so angry is that they have seen Government impose more and more controls and irritants on our lives. In most cases any mistakes we make in our dealings with Government, even unintentional or minor, are punished by instant and non discretionary fines. Its therefore galling to see MPs assuming they will be let off their mistakes if they just say sorry.
Here's a selection of thoughts:
- You've got to admire someone who can claim for clearing a moat. I noticed during my campaign last year that Tories tended to have the best gardens, and similarly Tory MPs tend to have the classier expense claims. Moats, landscaping, chandeliers are surely preferable to porn films and wide screen TVs. And I do think Cameron responded as a leader more quickly and firmly than Brown.
- The current Speaker is a block on reform (as well as being out of his depth). Things won't start to get sorted out until he goes.
- I don't think most people go into politics to screw the public. I think they do want to serve. Our Tory candidate wants to make a difference; to her potential constitutents, not herself. Our MP, albeit largely ineffective, does not come across as venal and has genuinely helped individuals. But its easy to get absorbed into "the system". As it is in any job. Like journalism. Or banking. (I wrote earlier on why the bank bonus culture delevolped and got out of line. I think there are similarities between MPs and bankers, which makes it even more satisfying to see the MPs who whinged about bonuses being shown up as hypocrites). So they need a control mechanism, a framework, to keep them in line.
- Paying back the expenses is fashionable. BUT: where are they getting the money from? Not many people can write a cheque for tens of thousands immediately. I suspect there must be some loans from party funds. And Hazel Blears paying the taxman the tax she would have paid on her house sale: if the sale was valid for tax purposes - as it probably was - then the payment she is now making will be treated as an advance on tax she owes. So she is misrepresenting the true picture again.
- People shouldn't let their disgust at how a large number of MPs have behaved stop them from voting, and they should vote for the person or party who most reflects their instincts. Lord Tebbit's intervention - "don't vote for the main parties" - is from a tired man who can't accept his irrelevance in today's world; the main potential beneficiary in the European elections (UKIP) have just as bad a record on expense manipulation as any other party and can offer no help to the development of the UK in Europe.
- The main parties need to ensure there is a review and cull of the worst behaved MPs by local associations so that next year's elections introduce fresh blood into Parliament.
- There should be fewer MPs (with greater equality of numbers of voters) who are paid more; the expense system should be massively simplified. Yes, some office support, travel and overnight accomodation expenses for out of London MPs is fair. But such amounts should be justified, published and according to a simple scale. Which does not include financing a property empire or supporting interior design boutiques.
- MPs shouldn't be prevented from having outside jobs. I can see that a good MP should be busy. But MPs today live in a protective bubble with an increasing number never having had a proper job. Having MPs with outside experience is a good thing. Any restriction on outside jobs should be accompanied by a restriction on the amount of time MPs can serve – perhaps 2 terms. And perhaps that term restriction would be a good thing anyway. It would make MPs more independent and likely to hold the Government to account. But even in that case I'd hate to see a Parliament without people with outside interests. The key is that the time and rewards of such jobs are public.
- Wider reforms to separate the executive from legislature shouldn't be ruled out, but I'd rather see an effort to make what we have work properly rather than postpone improvement by carrying out a long term review.
In the meantime, taken from a Commentator on Guido:
Westminster Ode, sung to the tune of the Strawbs - Part of the Union
Now I’m a Westminster man
Amazed at what I am
I say what I think, that Inland Revenue stinks
Yes I’m a Westminster man
When we meet in Westminster Great Hall
I’ll be voting with them all
With a hell of a shout, it’s “Bail our Banking Brothers out!”
And the rise of the factory’s fall
Oh, you don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
You don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
You don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
Huge pension till I die
Huge pension till I die
Westminster has made me wise
To the lies of the Telegraph spies
And I don’t get fooled by the Parliamentary rules’
cause I always read between the lines
And I always get my way
As I vote for my Brothers higher pay
When I show my MP card to the Scotland Yard
This is what I say:
Oh, oh, you don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
You don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
You don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
Huge pension till I die
Huge pension till I die
Before Westminster did appear
My life was half as clear
Now I’ve got the power, expenses to devour
Each and every day of the year
So though I’m a Parliamentary man
I avoid Revenue’s plan, claim all the expenses that I can
And though I’m not hard, the sight of my MP card
Makes me some kind of superman
Oh, oh, oh, you don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
You don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
You don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
Huge pension till I die
Huge pension till I die
You don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
You don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
You don’t get me, I’m a Parliamentarian
Huge pension till I die
Huge pension till I die
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Should our word be our bond?
There are no certainties in politics, but it at least looks likely that Labour will not have a majority after the next election. But it is currently committing to expenditure - in other words contracts - which a new Government may not wish to fulfill. Many of those contracts will be multi-year, and a new Government will potentially have to meet them or suffer penalty clauses.
The latest discussion on ID cards prompted this thought, and there are probably other silly projects which we cannot afford even if we wanted them; NHS databases also come to mind.
Is it ever appropriate for an opposition to give notice to potential contractors that it will not be obliged to continue with a contract if it is elected to Government? I see pluses and minuses:
- a contract is a contract, and a Government has to govern. So an opposition should not normally disrupt this.
- a Government can commit future governments to long term expenditure against the wishes of the elctorate and a new Government.
Exceptionally I think an opposition should warn commercial firms that they do not support a long term arrangment and that they cannot expect compensation if it is cancelled. ID cards certainly shoudl be covered by this; I belive some of the PFI contracts should have been. And I would also like to see any partial privatisation of Post Offices reversed - but it looks as though if that happnes it will be on the back of Tory votes.
The latest discussion on ID cards prompted this thought, and there are probably other silly projects which we cannot afford even if we wanted them; NHS databases also come to mind.
Is it ever appropriate for an opposition to give notice to potential contractors that it will not be obliged to continue with a contract if it is elected to Government? I see pluses and minuses:
- a contract is a contract, and a Government has to govern. So an opposition should not normally disrupt this.
- a Government can commit future governments to long term expenditure against the wishes of the elctorate and a new Government.
Exceptionally I think an opposition should warn commercial firms that they do not support a long term arrangment and that they cannot expect compensation if it is cancelled. ID cards certainly shoudl be covered by this; I belive some of the PFI contracts should have been. And I would also like to see any partial privatisation of Post Offices reversed - but it looks as though if that happnes it will be on the back of Tory votes.
Monday, 4 May 2009
A sight of summer?
I wrote last year about the benefits of less street furniture and more mutual respect between different types of road user. There's much evidence that making people responsible for their own actions improves road safety. But there's such a big road safety lobby which needs things to be done to justify its existence that we spend without thinking of effectiveness, we react without looking at the real problem: we initiate without implementing.
And of course this applies to many aspects of Government not just road safety. The default option for many years has been to unthinkingly add a raft of rules and processes in an attempt to solve problems. I don't just blame the current Government - remember the dangerous dogs act, never mind poll tax.
I have hoped for a long time that Ronald Reagan's rumoured instruction
"Don't just do something, stand there!"
becomes the default, or at least the initial, response to all problems but the most urgent or life threatening.
I think there are signs that the mood of the people is starting to rebel against the never ending flow of new hassles in their daily lives. This is coupled with the lack of money available for Government initiatives.
And this morning my heart pounded with joy, not with the sight of May blossom, but rather an article in the Times by one of their columnistists who doubles as a BBC presenter which made similar points. These hearts of the establishment have so long encouraged foolish action. It's a delight to see an establishment commentator starting to question the effectiveness of this approach.
One article doesn't make a summer. But could it suggest a trend?
And of course this applies to many aspects of Government not just road safety. The default option for many years has been to unthinkingly add a raft of rules and processes in an attempt to solve problems. I don't just blame the current Government - remember the dangerous dogs act, never mind poll tax.
I have hoped for a long time that Ronald Reagan's rumoured instruction
"Don't just do something, stand there!"
becomes the default, or at least the initial, response to all problems but the most urgent or life threatening.
I think there are signs that the mood of the people is starting to rebel against the never ending flow of new hassles in their daily lives. This is coupled with the lack of money available for Government initiatives.
And this morning my heart pounded with joy, not with the sight of May blossom, but rather an article in the Times by one of their columnistists who doubles as a BBC presenter which made similar points. These hearts of the establishment have so long encouraged foolish action. It's a delight to see an establishment commentator starting to question the effectiveness of this approach.
One article doesn't make a summer. But could it suggest a trend?
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Grumpy old man
I called in at the National Railway Museum in York. I'd strongly recommend it: it's free and it's fascinating (although a little full of slightly strange people ogling railway engines and spare parts).
But it reminded me just how far standards have fallen. Travelling on the East Coast line used to be a pleasure. But since National Express took over the franchise from GNER almost everything has got worse - comfort, standard of food, ease of booking, lack of newspapers. They have now stopped the restaurant service and are in the process of putting back ticket barriers on platforms. Fortunately, they are losing money so there is a chance they will have to hand back the franchise, as GNER did. Hopefully any new franchise will include service standards.
Here is a photo of LNER's place setting for dinner. Followed by the current effort.
Enthusiasts may appreciate this background information on the route. A film was made about it in the 1950s.
Does this make me a grumpy old man? Probably. But I feel better for writing this. And it does reinforce one of my messages: as a country, we too often forget the value of things as we focus on the price.
Wednesday, 22 April 2009
April 2009 Budget
Its a real struggle to think of something to say. I listened to the budget driving along the M1 (if I were witty and concise I would make a pun along the lines of it doesn't matter what measure you use, M0, M1,M3 or M4, the Government has lost control, but as I'm not I won't) and struggled to keep awake. The other options were a Flying Pickets CD or Jeremy Vine: the latter would have been even worse and I saved the former for driving through London.
Taking the main things in turn:
It's not Darling's fault. I suspect history will show he was a decent person doing his best to cope with what was left behind (think of the analogy of the person with the shovel following the elephant).
The debt position is truly scary. Not just the scale of what was announced yesterday, but the fact the amounts assume a major pick up in the economy quite quickly. There will have to be savage cuts in Government spending in due course (fortunately there's so much stupid spending that will be easier done than said, although cutting public sector pensions will probably cause tension and strikes).
There were lots of superficial schemes to provide help for specific groups or sectors - but as is typical there were very few details which probably means they won't actually happen. As Cameron noted in his reply, the schemes announced in the last budget mostly haven't been taken up.
The tax increase for higher paid people is silly: it will raise no extra money, in fact it may lead to lower revenues as people adjust their behaviour. It will serve one purpose: it is highly political. Coupled with the rushed attempt to change MP's allowances announced by Brown on Monday, it is an attempt to widen the gap between Labour and the Conservatives and to show the Conservatives as only caring for the wealthy. I suspect that won't work: it's too easy to point out that every Labour Government has left office with unemployment higher than when it came in, and with Government finances in a worse state.
So, I think it was another irrelevant budget. Actually, the strategy of making a lot of noise and doing too little too late may not be such a bad one. Government actions often have unintended consequences, and letting the economy sort itself out with little interference will probably work, although more slowly and with more pain than might have been the case.
I bumped into a London estate agent today as I headed home: his comment (and he wasn't trying to buy or sell anything for me, so I believe him) was that there were signs of activity and London prices below £1m seemed to have reached a floor. Activity above that was still very slow. He was also pleased that bankers had become even more reviled than him.
Taking the main things in turn:
It's not Darling's fault. I suspect history will show he was a decent person doing his best to cope with what was left behind (think of the analogy of the person with the shovel following the elephant).
The debt position is truly scary. Not just the scale of what was announced yesterday, but the fact the amounts assume a major pick up in the economy quite quickly. There will have to be savage cuts in Government spending in due course (fortunately there's so much stupid spending that will be easier done than said, although cutting public sector pensions will probably cause tension and strikes).
There were lots of superficial schemes to provide help for specific groups or sectors - but as is typical there were very few details which probably means they won't actually happen. As Cameron noted in his reply, the schemes announced in the last budget mostly haven't been taken up.
The tax increase for higher paid people is silly: it will raise no extra money, in fact it may lead to lower revenues as people adjust their behaviour. It will serve one purpose: it is highly political. Coupled with the rushed attempt to change MP's allowances announced by Brown on Monday, it is an attempt to widen the gap between Labour and the Conservatives and to show the Conservatives as only caring for the wealthy. I suspect that won't work: it's too easy to point out that every Labour Government has left office with unemployment higher than when it came in, and with Government finances in a worse state.
So, I think it was another irrelevant budget. Actually, the strategy of making a lot of noise and doing too little too late may not be such a bad one. Government actions often have unintended consequences, and letting the economy sort itself out with little interference will probably work, although more slowly and with more pain than might have been the case.
I bumped into a London estate agent today as I headed home: his comment (and he wasn't trying to buy or sell anything for me, so I believe him) was that there were signs of activity and London prices below £1m seemed to have reached a floor. Activity above that was still very slow. He was also pleased that bankers had become even more reviled than him.
Sunday, 19 April 2009
Eddie George
Sad to read about the death of the previous Bank of England Governor, Eddie George.
He was very successful as the first Governor managing an independent monetary policy. This was after expressing grave concern about the transfer of bank regulation to a new Financial Services Authority, without any clear responsibilities for financial stability being allocated. At Gordon Brown's instigation.
In the last year, he saw the consequence of that bad policy.
He was very successful as the first Governor managing an independent monetary policy. This was after expressing grave concern about the transfer of bank regulation to a new Financial Services Authority, without any clear responsibilities for financial stability being allocated. At Gordon Brown's instigation.
In the last year, he saw the consequence of that bad policy.
Saturday, 18 April 2009
Blog Power
The political headlines of the last few days have been dominated by the news that the Prime Minister employs unpleasant people to do unpleasant things. Forgive me for not being surprised. However, it is good that the worst excesses of spin have been at least temporarily toned down. I take three important lessons from this:
a) The “new labour” Government project has mostly been about presentation, not implementation. True in the beginning (see Sultans of Spin, written 10 years ago) and true now – when almost none of the announced initiatives to help the economic problems have been implemented.
b) Blogs have become important. Not many of them – they are mostly (including this one) self indulgent – but a few are influential. My successful neighbour first introduced me to political blogs. There are lots, mostly just repeating predictable stuff about their interpretation of political events and not worth bothering with. I have settled on three I read regularly (although this blog has a feed from Total Politics magazine’s summary of latest posts from their top 25 political blogs):
Guido Fawkes. Guido is the blogger who broke the recent story, and incidentally a number of other scandals. I enjoy his blog: he is a libertarian who recognises the flaws in politicians (they are after all human), but despises the hypocrisy in so many of them. Most of his posts are not about serious issues – but some are, and they usually present new information (at least to those of us not in the Westminster bubble). He is not (despite some press comment) particularly right wing; he’s (to repeat the point) a libertarian.
Iain Dale. Iain really cares about politics. He networks furiously and therefore keeps up to date with most political issues. He is a conservative (in most ways, my sort of conservative i.e. a bit soft and cuddly). These two are the most widely read political blogs by a long way, and are anti Government. I think there are two reasons why the most popular blogs are not of the left: first, because the left is in power, and comments from an opposition are usually more interesting, and second because blogs are about freedom of expression, the left tends to be about centralised control. I have looked at various labour and liberal bloggers but they all seem full of the usual stuff you would expect. One exception:
John Prescott. I’ve always respected him as a genuine person. He has been mocked for his presentation – but you always know what he means. And his blog is equally straightforward in presenting an alternative point of view
c) Old media (MSM, or mainstream media in blog terms) like newspapers TV and radio have been shown to be at best ineffective and at worst unreliable in telling us what’s going on. Guido wrote about this in the Times (and on his blog): newspapers primarily nowadays write what they have been told to write by their informants. They do not generally apply a veneer of editorial control. The most blatant example recently was the Telegraph spinning the Labour line about the email scandal, apparently primarily because their journalists were drinking buddies of Labour’s attack squad. MSM is usually necessary to bring a story to fruition, as happened in this case, but too rarely does it initiate anything. Other examples: listen to the Today programme. Very rarely do its lead stories talk about what has happened and analyse that; they usually talk about what is going to be announced or happen and talk about what the initiator wants. This is called leading the news, but its really about unthinkingly spinning a line.
What to do? First, recognise MSM for what it is: the presentation of what people want to be presented, and assume its misleading, be it celebrity relationships or Government policies. Second, read/listen/watch more than one media channel, including the blogosphere. I haven't seen In the Loop yet - but I'm sure it will describe the inevitable outcome of the new labour project very well.
Or of course just get on with your life and ignore it all.
In a week when the Government now makes ISPs keep records of what we all read on the web, and a month when it has started to keep records of where we all go on holiday its very satisfying that it’s been caught out because it can’t keep control of its data. But that’s a subject for another day.
a) The “new labour” Government project has mostly been about presentation, not implementation. True in the beginning (see Sultans of Spin, written 10 years ago) and true now – when almost none of the announced initiatives to help the economic problems have been implemented.
b) Blogs have become important. Not many of them – they are mostly (including this one) self indulgent – but a few are influential. My successful neighbour first introduced me to political blogs. There are lots, mostly just repeating predictable stuff about their interpretation of political events and not worth bothering with. I have settled on three I read regularly (although this blog has a feed from Total Politics magazine’s summary of latest posts from their top 25 political blogs):
Guido Fawkes. Guido is the blogger who broke the recent story, and incidentally a number of other scandals. I enjoy his blog: he is a libertarian who recognises the flaws in politicians (they are after all human), but despises the hypocrisy in so many of them. Most of his posts are not about serious issues – but some are, and they usually present new information (at least to those of us not in the Westminster bubble). He is not (despite some press comment) particularly right wing; he’s (to repeat the point) a libertarian.
Iain Dale. Iain really cares about politics. He networks furiously and therefore keeps up to date with most political issues. He is a conservative (in most ways, my sort of conservative i.e. a bit soft and cuddly). These two are the most widely read political blogs by a long way, and are anti Government. I think there are two reasons why the most popular blogs are not of the left: first, because the left is in power, and comments from an opposition are usually more interesting, and second because blogs are about freedom of expression, the left tends to be about centralised control. I have looked at various labour and liberal bloggers but they all seem full of the usual stuff you would expect. One exception:
John Prescott. I’ve always respected him as a genuine person. He has been mocked for his presentation – but you always know what he means. And his blog is equally straightforward in presenting an alternative point of view
c) Old media (MSM, or mainstream media in blog terms) like newspapers TV and radio have been shown to be at best ineffective and at worst unreliable in telling us what’s going on. Guido wrote about this in the Times (and on his blog): newspapers primarily nowadays write what they have been told to write by their informants. They do not generally apply a veneer of editorial control. The most blatant example recently was the Telegraph spinning the Labour line about the email scandal, apparently primarily because their journalists were drinking buddies of Labour’s attack squad. MSM is usually necessary to bring a story to fruition, as happened in this case, but too rarely does it initiate anything. Other examples: listen to the Today programme. Very rarely do its lead stories talk about what has happened and analyse that; they usually talk about what is going to be announced or happen and talk about what the initiator wants. This is called leading the news, but its really about unthinkingly spinning a line.
What to do? First, recognise MSM for what it is: the presentation of what people want to be presented, and assume its misleading, be it celebrity relationships or Government policies. Second, read/listen/watch more than one media channel, including the blogosphere. I haven't seen In the Loop yet - but I'm sure it will describe the inevitable outcome of the new labour project very well.
Or of course just get on with your life and ignore it all.
In a week when the Government now makes ISPs keep records of what we all read on the web, and a month when it has started to keep records of where we all go on holiday its very satisfying that it’s been caught out because it can’t keep control of its data. But that’s a subject for another day.
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Is the end Nigh?
Prompted by a comment on a previous post, I went to see "The Age of Stupid".
It's a documentary, with a bit of drama, about climate change. The drama shows one of the last remaining humans in 2055 in an enormous tower in the Arctic, which was an archive of almost everything valuable that had ever been produced or found. The man had apparently created and collected the archive himself. It was enormous: the carbon expended in its creation kept me worried throughout the whole film. The documentary showed him selecting excerpts from a series of stories from 2007/8, interspersed with comments about climate change, big business and George Bush. The stories were about a trainee doctor in a Nigerian village next to an oil processing plant; an Indian entrepreneur launching a low cost airline; a couple of refugee Iraqi kids; a retired oil worker who survived Hurricane Katrina; a French mountain guide mourning the shrinking of glaciers; and a British wind farm developer. They were interesting stories presented in a brief and shallow way: the good thing was that unlike the rest of the film they alluded to the issue rather than shouted about it.
Would I recommend it? No. I’m not sure what the point of the film was: it had too many unchallenged sweeping allegations to convince anyone not already convinced about the dangers of climate change. And it did not offer solutions. But it was mildly entertaining (is that patronising enough?), so my rating, to quote the Hitch Hiker’s Guide about Earth would be: Mostly Harmless.
I think the issues around environmental damage are better set out, and in a more balanced way, in a book called Collapse (about how societies fail or succeed) by Jared Diamond; he gave an hour plus talk about the book a couple of years ago which is I think more challenging than the film. The book covers many themes and problems; my main take on it was that our biggest current worry should be over-population rather than carbon usage, and trying to manage birth rates globally would be our best chance of avoiding societal and environmental collapse.
The issues are also set in out in a less balanced way by Michael Crichton (of ER and Jurassic Park fame) in his book State of Fear (criticised by some for mixing science with a thriller and spoiling both aspects). My overriding thought from the book is that the main drive behind the climate change campaign is to increase the powers of the state by frightening people into submission. Although fear of terrorism has now been picked up as the main reason for state expansion and interference, the climate change campaign started before 9/11. And petty though they may seem in the bigger picture, replacing heat generating light bulbs with mercury filled low light bulbs and encouraging fly tipping and poor public health by restricting litter collections are examples of this.
I’ve always been nervous of people who cannot imagine they are wrong. I was a member of Greenpeace for many years (I still have the green umbrella with the “Stop Acid Rain” logo I used in the City, instead of a tightly furled black one) but left when they campaigned to stop Shell from disposing of the Brent Spar platform in what seemed to be a sensible way. They seemed driven by distaste for Big Oil rather than logic. That approach worries me about so much of the “carbon is evil” campaign. One of the telling scenes for me in Age of Stupid was the wind farm entrepreneur driving away from his country home in the middle of a wind farm free area of natural beauty (in his black BMW) saying that the reason people objected to wind farms was that they spoilt the view.
The reason I object to wind farms is not the view: it’s that they are ineffective; they wouldn’t exist in the scale they do if the Government wasn’t over-subsidising them compared with other energy sources.
So what would I do? To coin a phrase from our Prime Minister, it’s a global problem. So although they are full of soundbites and achieve little, we should participate in the various global conferences/agreements. But perhaps we could set an example by mostly communicating by video-link and email? We should be encouraging population control at the same time as trying to improve developing world healthcare. We should encourage the taxation of aircraft fuel to try to offset the real cost of flying. Nationally, we should be investing in nuclear energy and carbon capture coal power stations (if the figures add up for the latter). We should be providing more grants for micro-power generation at home. We should be encouraging refuse collection and not seeing it as a way for Councils to make money: bulk recycling is most efficiently done centrally – but we should make shops be responsible for their own packaging. We should not build a third runway at Heathrow; we can tax aircraft fuel on internal flights even if we cannot on international ones. We should establish a carbon trading system and as a nudge for the consumer and a sop for statists, charge for plastic bags.
But despite all this I suspect the solution to global warming will come from new technology of which we are not yet aware so both nationally and internationally we should support pure as well as applied scientific research.
It's a documentary, with a bit of drama, about climate change. The drama shows one of the last remaining humans in 2055 in an enormous tower in the Arctic, which was an archive of almost everything valuable that had ever been produced or found. The man had apparently created and collected the archive himself. It was enormous: the carbon expended in its creation kept me worried throughout the whole film. The documentary showed him selecting excerpts from a series of stories from 2007/8, interspersed with comments about climate change, big business and George Bush. The stories were about a trainee doctor in a Nigerian village next to an oil processing plant; an Indian entrepreneur launching a low cost airline; a couple of refugee Iraqi kids; a retired oil worker who survived Hurricane Katrina; a French mountain guide mourning the shrinking of glaciers; and a British wind farm developer. They were interesting stories presented in a brief and shallow way: the good thing was that unlike the rest of the film they alluded to the issue rather than shouted about it.
Would I recommend it? No. I’m not sure what the point of the film was: it had too many unchallenged sweeping allegations to convince anyone not already convinced about the dangers of climate change. And it did not offer solutions. But it was mildly entertaining (is that patronising enough?), so my rating, to quote the Hitch Hiker’s Guide about Earth would be: Mostly Harmless.
I think the issues around environmental damage are better set out, and in a more balanced way, in a book called Collapse (about how societies fail or succeed) by Jared Diamond; he gave an hour plus talk about the book a couple of years ago which is I think more challenging than the film. The book covers many themes and problems; my main take on it was that our biggest current worry should be over-population rather than carbon usage, and trying to manage birth rates globally would be our best chance of avoiding societal and environmental collapse.
The issues are also set in out in a less balanced way by Michael Crichton (of ER and Jurassic Park fame) in his book State of Fear (criticised by some for mixing science with a thriller and spoiling both aspects). My overriding thought from the book is that the main drive behind the climate change campaign is to increase the powers of the state by frightening people into submission. Although fear of terrorism has now been picked up as the main reason for state expansion and interference, the climate change campaign started before 9/11. And petty though they may seem in the bigger picture, replacing heat generating light bulbs with mercury filled low light bulbs and encouraging fly tipping and poor public health by restricting litter collections are examples of this.
I’ve always been nervous of people who cannot imagine they are wrong. I was a member of Greenpeace for many years (I still have the green umbrella with the “Stop Acid Rain” logo I used in the City, instead of a tightly furled black one) but left when they campaigned to stop Shell from disposing of the Brent Spar platform in what seemed to be a sensible way. They seemed driven by distaste for Big Oil rather than logic. That approach worries me about so much of the “carbon is evil” campaign. One of the telling scenes for me in Age of Stupid was the wind farm entrepreneur driving away from his country home in the middle of a wind farm free area of natural beauty (in his black BMW) saying that the reason people objected to wind farms was that they spoilt the view.
The reason I object to wind farms is not the view: it’s that they are ineffective; they wouldn’t exist in the scale they do if the Government wasn’t over-subsidising them compared with other energy sources.
So what would I do? To coin a phrase from our Prime Minister, it’s a global problem. So although they are full of soundbites and achieve little, we should participate in the various global conferences/agreements. But perhaps we could set an example by mostly communicating by video-link and email? We should be encouraging population control at the same time as trying to improve developing world healthcare. We should encourage the taxation of aircraft fuel to try to offset the real cost of flying. Nationally, we should be investing in nuclear energy and carbon capture coal power stations (if the figures add up for the latter). We should be providing more grants for micro-power generation at home. We should be encouraging refuse collection and not seeing it as a way for Councils to make money: bulk recycling is most efficiently done centrally – but we should make shops be responsible for their own packaging. We should not build a third runway at Heathrow; we can tax aircraft fuel on internal flights even if we cannot on international ones. We should establish a carbon trading system and as a nudge for the consumer and a sop for statists, charge for plastic bags.
But despite all this I suspect the solution to global warming will come from new technology of which we are not yet aware so both nationally and internationally we should support pure as well as applied scientific research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
