To paraphrase Machiavelli, "For the Prince/Tyrant to stay in power, he must reward those who support him and weaken those who oppose him." In modern democratic language this would be "Maintain your core vote".
When historians look back at governments, they always focus upon what those governments achieved, what lasting legacy they left as a result of their time in power. Some governments are more memorable than others. I cannot help thinking that unless something dramatic changes in the next two years, the current government is not likely to leave much of a legacy beyond being a memorable coalition that muddled along during a severe economic depression.
The fundamental issue is that I cannot look at any of the government policies and think that they will help much. The language has been very much of austerity and surely successfully fixing or breaking the economy would leave a memorable legacy? In reality, I can only feel that the current period of government will be remembered as one of retrenchment.
By this I mean that just about every policy implemented by this government feels like it is aimed at removing something from most people. Welfare benefits, retirement age, pensions, wages, employee rights, right to privacy and so on. All the policies seeking to address these fundamental issues seem to take something away from the population at large. By unpleasant coincidence, many of these retrenchments benefit large corporations who have lobbied government or made political donations. While this may benefit a cosy elite, it does nothing to shore up the core vote or make the population want to re-elect a government that it thinks has taken so much away that was previously accepted as 'a right'. The equal marriage law is an exception and there are already hints that this surprising drive for this law by the Conservative is a desperate attempt to counter this perception, even at the cost of core party support.
No wonder the 'swivel eyed loons' are so strident, they themselves must feel the general frustration and while they may have some ideological affinity with the policies designed to pare back the state, they can also all too easily see that the few are making uncomfortable decisions not to the benefit of the many. Those politicians making the decisions benefit in the short to medium term, but those that come after them will suffer the consequences as seen by the rapid increase in voter disenfranchisement.
The coalition government is breaking one of Machiavelli's key rules, shore up your support and undermine your opponents. Labour know how to obey this rule and recent history shows that they will do this even at the cost of good government policies. Helping lobbyists and big businesses will not get the coalition votes, but then they will be in the money anyway so why should they care? Unlike the Princes and tyrants of Machiavelli's time, being toppled from power in a democratic society is unlikely to be fatal. It is a bit like those chief executive contracts, you get a golden handout from being kicked out rather than suffering some form of punishment. What a shame Ministers cannot be motivated by long term share options!
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, 24 May 2013
Thursday, 16 May 2013
Desperate denial
Recent political news have devoted countless column inches to the perceived rise in UKIP. Following this, it appears that the Conservative Party is in the process of imploding over Europe. For old fogies like me, this has very much a deja vu feeling as the Conservatives imploded over Europe in the last months of the Major Government, before Blair swept to power in 1997.
To date, the political reaction from all the mainstream political parties has been to blather on about how they need to reconnect with people and debunk UKIP's policies. If they believe this, they are in a desperate state of denial or do not want to publicly admit to knowing what is really going on. Some politicians are dropping pretty big hints that they know why UKIP are doing well, but they are staying 'on message' and talking about "engaging with people". I fear this approach is just kicking the problem to 2015 when a general election will make this issue someone else's problem. Sums up Government policy really!
So let's start with some basic political realities.
UKIP are a fringe party. This means that in terms of MPs and councillors, they are in the same category as the loony parties and the BNP/EDL or whatever they are called now. UKIP's policies are not as extreme as those parties, but it is not much more credible either. The voters know this. Debunking UKIP's more nutty policies is a waste of time because the voter is not interested in hearing it.
Also I do not consider the EU and immigration to be genuine voter issues. I am not saying the average voter is not concerned. What I am saying is that these topics are 'manufactured news'. They matter to the voter because the newspapers and politicians make it matter in order to promote their political viewpoints. In reality, ordinary people care about the economy, the NHS and social issues whether that be about social welfare, housing or crime.
So why are UKIP successful? They have no meaningful policies on those key issues.
UKIP are doing well because unlike all the mainstream parties, they are relatively honest both ideologically and in the way they approach politics. They have not made any promises that they have had to break and they are not tainted by the MP expenses scandal. Voters are turning to UKIP not because of their policies, but because the average voter is starting to hate the mainstream politician for their lies, broken promises and rampant corruption. This is a frightening concept for the big parties as it could signal a destruction in the political status quo that has been broadly prevalent in British politics for the last 70 years. In short, it threatens their cosy arrangement of pretending to represent the British electorate and pretending to offer a political choice at the ballot box.
I find Farage to be an enjoyable political figure to watch, but he preaches a very old and dangerous message. In the past that message would have been to blame the jews/blacks/gays/other religions/other nations for the problems being experienced by the population at large. Unfortunately such tricks remain as popular now as they did then, only the topic now is Europe and immigration. I have yet to hear a single coherent argument or economic case for how the UK would be better off pissing into the European tent from outside rather than going inside that tent and settling things the old fashioned way! The funny part is that the Germans are deeply frustrated because they see the UK as a potentially valuable ally for implementing much needed reform of the EU. Instead they just get lots of incoherent shouting and mixed messages. A bit like 1939 then...
In short, if the coalition government thinks that focussing on the EU and immigration is going to help them, they are in for a nasty shock at the next election. As was the case in 1997, the electorate were desperate to get rid of a corrupt political elite. Blair and Labour capitalised on this desire then, but with the Labour brand now firmly linked with that corruption that the electorate hated so much, what will happen in 2015? I fear that the current trend towards populist electioneering (as practised by UKIP) is only set to increase and so the political battleground will be fought over issues relating to the EU, immigration and the economy. The electorate will hate it, but will they hate it enough to do something unpredictable?
My prediction is not in 2015, but by 2020 things will get serious and probably messy.
To date, the political reaction from all the mainstream political parties has been to blather on about how they need to reconnect with people and debunk UKIP's policies. If they believe this, they are in a desperate state of denial or do not want to publicly admit to knowing what is really going on. Some politicians are dropping pretty big hints that they know why UKIP are doing well, but they are staying 'on message' and talking about "engaging with people". I fear this approach is just kicking the problem to 2015 when a general election will make this issue someone else's problem. Sums up Government policy really!
So let's start with some basic political realities.
UKIP are a fringe party. This means that in terms of MPs and councillors, they are in the same category as the loony parties and the BNP/EDL or whatever they are called now. UKIP's policies are not as extreme as those parties, but it is not much more credible either. The voters know this. Debunking UKIP's more nutty policies is a waste of time because the voter is not interested in hearing it.
Also I do not consider the EU and immigration to be genuine voter issues. I am not saying the average voter is not concerned. What I am saying is that these topics are 'manufactured news'. They matter to the voter because the newspapers and politicians make it matter in order to promote their political viewpoints. In reality, ordinary people care about the economy, the NHS and social issues whether that be about social welfare, housing or crime.
So why are UKIP successful? They have no meaningful policies on those key issues.
UKIP are doing well because unlike all the mainstream parties, they are relatively honest both ideologically and in the way they approach politics. They have not made any promises that they have had to break and they are not tainted by the MP expenses scandal. Voters are turning to UKIP not because of their policies, but because the average voter is starting to hate the mainstream politician for their lies, broken promises and rampant corruption. This is a frightening concept for the big parties as it could signal a destruction in the political status quo that has been broadly prevalent in British politics for the last 70 years. In short, it threatens their cosy arrangement of pretending to represent the British electorate and pretending to offer a political choice at the ballot box.
I find Farage to be an enjoyable political figure to watch, but he preaches a very old and dangerous message. In the past that message would have been to blame the jews/blacks/gays/other religions/other nations for the problems being experienced by the population at large. Unfortunately such tricks remain as popular now as they did then, only the topic now is Europe and immigration. I have yet to hear a single coherent argument or economic case for how the UK would be better off pissing into the European tent from outside rather than going inside that tent and settling things the old fashioned way! The funny part is that the Germans are deeply frustrated because they see the UK as a potentially valuable ally for implementing much needed reform of the EU. Instead they just get lots of incoherent shouting and mixed messages. A bit like 1939 then...
In short, if the coalition government thinks that focussing on the EU and immigration is going to help them, they are in for a nasty shock at the next election. As was the case in 1997, the electorate were desperate to get rid of a corrupt political elite. Blair and Labour capitalised on this desire then, but with the Labour brand now firmly linked with that corruption that the electorate hated so much, what will happen in 2015? I fear that the current trend towards populist electioneering (as practised by UKIP) is only set to increase and so the political battleground will be fought over issues relating to the EU, immigration and the economy. The electorate will hate it, but will they hate it enough to do something unpredictable?
My prediction is not in 2015, but by 2020 things will get serious and probably messy.
Thursday, 11 April 2013
When is welfare really welfare?
There seems to have been a fair bit of argument in recent weeks about welfare, those who claim it and so on. The coalition is claiming that it is cracking down on the skivers. Some thing this is a good thing, others think it is all a smokescreen.
So what is the truth?
I think the pie chart (sorry I do not have the source, but it looks mostly credible) tells a rather interesting story. There is also a website devoted to covering this issue - http://www.neweconomics.org/mythbusters. It is a pity actual monetary figures are not used to support the pie charts, but they do tell an interesting story which runs counter to the current political narrative. No doubt a decent bit of research, which I do not propose to do at this point, would unearth the proper figures.
From a cynical civil servant perspective, all the political narrative about welfare is a complete farce and hot air. Unfortunately I do not just mean the coalition's figures either, the opposition are also being very disingenuous.
The truth is that almost every single government and opposition policy for reforming the welfare state is either pointless or will make the problems worse. They will either achieve little or cause counter-productive effects. The whole debate is about political ideology and has almost no grasp of the realities on the ground.
Let's be clear, the benefits system can be abused. A family containing 6 or more children, some of whom are disabled, with adults out of work will be able to generate a significant income from benefits. Distasteful and unfair as this may be, this type of claimant represents a rather small amount from the total benefits bill. However, it is far easier to try and implement policies that target these and other relatively small groups than it is to get to grips with the welfare system as a whole.
Fundamentally, you have to ask what is the government's total welfare bill going on and how much disposal income does it actually give people? For example, housing benefit in the pie chart above represents a significant chunk yet this is hardly likely to result in disposable income for the claimants as they are likely to pass it directly onto private landlords. In fact, if the bill really is this high, does it make the case to bring back council housing? Not only would government and local councils actually get a return from such housing (the old paying rent versus paying a mortgage argument) such a policy would assist in depressing rents and house prices. Not perhaps a popular outcome, but necessary if you want to reduce living costs and create a sustainable economic environment where people can live within their means and spend money in the wider economy.
I would also seriously question as to how much money is going into 'enablers' as part of the overall welfare budget. The government is currently paying hundreds of millions of pounds to companies dealing with job seekers, disability claimants etc. By any recognised measure, including from the government's own reporting, these companies are significantly under-performing to a degree that is a political scandal. Sadly, these companies and their management heavily influence and donate to the political parties so this sort of expenditure will not be reigned in which is a shame as a huge amount of money could be saved.
Whatever the 'facts' it seems to be a ridiculous state of affairs that the state is supposedly shrinking, with so much being privatised and yet the government is spending far more each year than it did when it had several national industries to manage. Where is all the money going? Apart from to the banks of course! Welfare is just part of a much broader problem. It is all politics, with spin and untruths flying everywhere and no coherent and credible plan with cross-party support for getting to grips with it. Sadly it serves a political purpose of providing a smokescreen that hides the enormous political failure of various government to be able to implement good policies.
So what is the truth?
I think the pie chart (sorry I do not have the source, but it looks mostly credible) tells a rather interesting story. There is also a website devoted to covering this issue - http://www.neweconomics.org/mythbusters. It is a pity actual monetary figures are not used to support the pie charts, but they do tell an interesting story which runs counter to the current political narrative. No doubt a decent bit of research, which I do not propose to do at this point, would unearth the proper figures.
From a cynical civil servant perspective, all the political narrative about welfare is a complete farce and hot air. Unfortunately I do not just mean the coalition's figures either, the opposition are also being very disingenuous.
The truth is that almost every single government and opposition policy for reforming the welfare state is either pointless or will make the problems worse. They will either achieve little or cause counter-productive effects. The whole debate is about political ideology and has almost no grasp of the realities on the ground.
Let's be clear, the benefits system can be abused. A family containing 6 or more children, some of whom are disabled, with adults out of work will be able to generate a significant income from benefits. Distasteful and unfair as this may be, this type of claimant represents a rather small amount from the total benefits bill. However, it is far easier to try and implement policies that target these and other relatively small groups than it is to get to grips with the welfare system as a whole.
Fundamentally, you have to ask what is the government's total welfare bill going on and how much disposal income does it actually give people? For example, housing benefit in the pie chart above represents a significant chunk yet this is hardly likely to result in disposable income for the claimants as they are likely to pass it directly onto private landlords. In fact, if the bill really is this high, does it make the case to bring back council housing? Not only would government and local councils actually get a return from such housing (the old paying rent versus paying a mortgage argument) such a policy would assist in depressing rents and house prices. Not perhaps a popular outcome, but necessary if you want to reduce living costs and create a sustainable economic environment where people can live within their means and spend money in the wider economy.
I would also seriously question as to how much money is going into 'enablers' as part of the overall welfare budget. The government is currently paying hundreds of millions of pounds to companies dealing with job seekers, disability claimants etc. By any recognised measure, including from the government's own reporting, these companies are significantly under-performing to a degree that is a political scandal. Sadly, these companies and their management heavily influence and donate to the political parties so this sort of expenditure will not be reigned in which is a shame as a huge amount of money could be saved.
Whatever the 'facts' it seems to be a ridiculous state of affairs that the state is supposedly shrinking, with so much being privatised and yet the government is spending far more each year than it did when it had several national industries to manage. Where is all the money going? Apart from to the banks of course! Welfare is just part of a much broader problem. It is all politics, with spin and untruths flying everywhere and no coherent and credible plan with cross-party support for getting to grips with it. Sadly it serves a political purpose of providing a smokescreen that hides the enormous political failure of various government to be able to implement good policies.
Friday, 8 February 2013
Scottish Independence - Vision versus pragmatism
If recent surveys are to be believed, the yes campaign for Scottish independence is not doing very well and so political questions are being asked why this is the case. Having met and worked with a fair few Scots over the years, I think I have the answer. For some reason, Scots tend to be very pragmatic. I cannot explain why, maybe it is a cultural trait brought on by the weather!
Actually, I think the SNP and the yes campaign are doing a very poor job of selling their case and as a professional civil servant (with Machiavellian leanings, let's not deny that!) I can recognise some of the tactics the yes campaign is using which is so spectacularly failing. They are too reliant on making the emotional case for independence and they are totally failing to make the pragmatic or hard nosed case that the Scots want to know about. Listen to them when they answer questions, the responses are always about how wonderful and liberating independence would be with Scots choosing their destiny and making their own vision. I think they could just save everyone a lot of waffle and simply say, "vote for independence because we all hate those Conservative/Southern tossers telling us what to do!"
I have never been able to fob off a Scot that I have worked with by giving a vague answer talking about 'vision' or 'choices'. Like I said, they always seem to be very pragmatic and can smell bullshit! The staff members who I count as the best staff I have managed have all been Scottish and I put this down to, in part, their willingness to challenge me and to try and drill down to the facts.
So what 'facts' do the SNP use to support their case for independence as well as their more emotive arguments?
I have paid a fair bit of attention to the debates, both for professional reasons and out of curiosity and I have to confess that as an outsider who is meant to be looking for this sort of detail I cannot even answer that question. Even more of an issue for me is that I have read a bit of SNP sponsored analysis and assessments of what an independent Scotland would mean in a practical sense. I threw all those reports away with disgust, the quality of analysis was so bad. Their is plenty about their 'vision', but absolutely nothing about how they will make that vision a reality.
I should like to use a simple example. When Philip Hammond, then recently made Secretary of State for Defence, was told of Alex Salmond's plan to ask for the Scottish proportion of the armed forces, his response was devastating. "The UK Armed Forces are a highly integrated and very sophisticated fighting force.The idea that you can sort of break off a little bit, like a square on a chocolate bar, and that would be the bit that went north of the border, is frankly laughable." You need to only to have a cursory glance at the UK armed forces to realise that he is right. For a more in-depth analysis of the poor thinking that went into this policy by the SNP, this rather good post from the thinpinstripedline covers it rather well.
But let us move on from those flaws and focus on the parts that matter to the Scots. Reportedly many Scots are anti-nuclear weapons and the SNP are very happy to espouse their 'vision' of Scotland being nuclear weapons free. Of course this really means nuclear submarine free since all the submarines, nuclear armed or otherwise, tend to be supported from the same base. Having set out this 'vision' how do the SNP intend to make it a reality? More importantly, how do they intend to deal with the consequences of this policy? Remember that in politics almost nothing is black and white, there are always consequences. Well believe it or not, the SNP did sponsor a report into this issue. Unfortunately, they seemed to have given it to Greenpeace to do the analysis. It is so bad, I will not even link to it for fear of promoting a travesty of economic analysis! Effectively, the SNP have no plan or even any credible economic figures to even form a plan. Thus the thousands of Scots living on the west coast who directly or indirectly benefit from the millions brought into the local economy by the Clyde naval base would lose a significant source of income. This does not even touch on the likelihood of the British government in a pique of anger at losing the independence vote scrapping naval ship orders and refits conducted at both Glasgow and Rosyth dockyards. What was that about pragmatic Scots and turkeys voting for Christmas..?
This is just defence. Look at SNP policies and (lack of) analysis on various other important issues such as energy generation, economic policies, fishery management, funding the NHS, being a part of Europe... the list goes on. There is a complete lack of anything proving that Scotland would be better off. The Scottish Executive has civil servants, what are they doing? Aren't they drawing up any detailed plans on how to sustain an independent Scotland? Surely they are not going to start doing the work on trying to exploit Scotland's strengths after the date of the referendum with no preparatory work being done beforehand? As a UK civil servant, where do I start if I am told to work with the Scottish civil servants on 'sorting things out'? One of the most frustrating aspects of my job is dealing with people who do not really know what they want. I shudder to think what this would be like on a national scale.
Normally, this lack of detail does not matter in politics and when campaigning on an issue. Good looks, down to earth charm, appealing to emotions and an inspiring oration on how wonderful life will be are the tools of the trade for the competent politician selling their big idea to the electorate. This is the fundamental flaw with democracy, appearance and emotion is everything, substance and hard nosed realism is meaningless. Yet the Scots seem determined to prove this is not the case with them. They may yet teach the other regions in the UK something about democracy during this referendum. Pragmatism and critical analysis have their place in a functioning democracy, lose it at your peril!
Actually, I think the SNP and the yes campaign are doing a very poor job of selling their case and as a professional civil servant (with Machiavellian leanings, let's not deny that!) I can recognise some of the tactics the yes campaign is using which is so spectacularly failing. They are too reliant on making the emotional case for independence and they are totally failing to make the pragmatic or hard nosed case that the Scots want to know about. Listen to them when they answer questions, the responses are always about how wonderful and liberating independence would be with Scots choosing their destiny and making their own vision. I think they could just save everyone a lot of waffle and simply say, "vote for independence because we all hate those Conservative/Southern tossers telling us what to do!"
I have never been able to fob off a Scot that I have worked with by giving a vague answer talking about 'vision' or 'choices'. Like I said, they always seem to be very pragmatic and can smell bullshit! The staff members who I count as the best staff I have managed have all been Scottish and I put this down to, in part, their willingness to challenge me and to try and drill down to the facts.
So what 'facts' do the SNP use to support their case for independence as well as their more emotive arguments?
I have paid a fair bit of attention to the debates, both for professional reasons and out of curiosity and I have to confess that as an outsider who is meant to be looking for this sort of detail I cannot even answer that question. Even more of an issue for me is that I have read a bit of SNP sponsored analysis and assessments of what an independent Scotland would mean in a practical sense. I threw all those reports away with disgust, the quality of analysis was so bad. Their is plenty about their 'vision', but absolutely nothing about how they will make that vision a reality.
I should like to use a simple example. When Philip Hammond, then recently made Secretary of State for Defence, was told of Alex Salmond's plan to ask for the Scottish proportion of the armed forces, his response was devastating. "The UK Armed Forces are a highly integrated and very sophisticated fighting force.The idea that you can sort of break off a little bit, like a square on a chocolate bar, and that would be the bit that went north of the border, is frankly laughable." You need to only to have a cursory glance at the UK armed forces to realise that he is right. For a more in-depth analysis of the poor thinking that went into this policy by the SNP, this rather good post from the thinpinstripedline covers it rather well.
But let us move on from those flaws and focus on the parts that matter to the Scots. Reportedly many Scots are anti-nuclear weapons and the SNP are very happy to espouse their 'vision' of Scotland being nuclear weapons free. Of course this really means nuclear submarine free since all the submarines, nuclear armed or otherwise, tend to be supported from the same base. Having set out this 'vision' how do the SNP intend to make it a reality? More importantly, how do they intend to deal with the consequences of this policy? Remember that in politics almost nothing is black and white, there are always consequences. Well believe it or not, the SNP did sponsor a report into this issue. Unfortunately, they seemed to have given it to Greenpeace to do the analysis. It is so bad, I will not even link to it for fear of promoting a travesty of economic analysis! Effectively, the SNP have no plan or even any credible economic figures to even form a plan. Thus the thousands of Scots living on the west coast who directly or indirectly benefit from the millions brought into the local economy by the Clyde naval base would lose a significant source of income. This does not even touch on the likelihood of the British government in a pique of anger at losing the independence vote scrapping naval ship orders and refits conducted at both Glasgow and Rosyth dockyards. What was that about pragmatic Scots and turkeys voting for Christmas..?
This is just defence. Look at SNP policies and (lack of) analysis on various other important issues such as energy generation, economic policies, fishery management, funding the NHS, being a part of Europe... the list goes on. There is a complete lack of anything proving that Scotland would be better off. The Scottish Executive has civil servants, what are they doing? Aren't they drawing up any detailed plans on how to sustain an independent Scotland? Surely they are not going to start doing the work on trying to exploit Scotland's strengths after the date of the referendum with no preparatory work being done beforehand? As a UK civil servant, where do I start if I am told to work with the Scottish civil servants on 'sorting things out'? One of the most frustrating aspects of my job is dealing with people who do not really know what they want. I shudder to think what this would be like on a national scale.
Normally, this lack of detail does not matter in politics and when campaigning on an issue. Good looks, down to earth charm, appealing to emotions and an inspiring oration on how wonderful life will be are the tools of the trade for the competent politician selling their big idea to the electorate. This is the fundamental flaw with democracy, appearance and emotion is everything, substance and hard nosed realism is meaningless. Yet the Scots seem determined to prove this is not the case with them. They may yet teach the other regions in the UK something about democracy during this referendum. Pragmatism and critical analysis have their place in a functioning democracy, lose it at your peril!
Tuesday, 5 February 2013
Energy strategy? What energy strategy!
When it comes to examining UK energy policies and strategies for the National Grid for the last fifteen years and up to the present day, things do not look rosy. If I were to articulate UK aspirations for its future energy consumption, I would break it down into two clear objectives:
1) Reduce the environmental effects of current energy sources (I do not just mean reduce carbon emissions).
2) Get away from unstable sources of energy such as foreign oil and gas.
Governments of various colours and in various countries seem to broadly agree with these objectives, but the UK government (past and present) is making a pig’s ear of it! Prevarication, self interest, contradictory policies, greed and incompetence all feature in the rich tapestry that is the recent history of UK energy generation. This is immensely frustrating because with clear leadership and sensible planning and management the two objectives named above can be achieved. I do not believe they are mutually exclusive and in fact I also think there are several opportunities that can be exploited. Sadly the incoherent approach to this issue is having a ripple effect across much of Whitehall disrupting other areas of government business, what should be simple has become complex.
So to repeat one of my favourite phrases when faced with a complex problem, “Let’s simply.” What are the options for obtaining more energy for the grid.
Options for construction available now
Nuclear power plants
Coal fired power plants
Gas fired power plants
Oil fired power plants
Wind farms
Solar panels
Dam projects driving turbines
Tidal barriers
Biofuel
Energy from Waste
Possible future construction options
Fusion/thorium power plants
Underwater turbines
Wave power
No doubt there are a few choices I have missed, but the above seem like a nice wide choice to me. Let’s rule out the impractical ones first. That means coal and oil are out as these run counter to the objectives stated above. We can rule out solar for the UK Grid except for micro generation. I definitely think solar should be used for people’s homes, but I find it rather annoying that solar panels are still horribly expensive and no one has yet been clever enough to make them resemble roof tiles thus improving their looks. While solar would benefit individual householders, this is not an answer to powering the Grid. I am also outright rejecting biofuel. It cannot be generated in any kind of sustainable way to fuel the National Grid or as a vehicle fuel. Anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves or psychotic enough to willingly suggest we condemn millions of people to starvation.
Gas power is a bit of a gamble right now as to make it compliant with the objectives makes the leap of faith that the UK is able to exploit domestic gas reserves, mainly through fracking. I am assuming that methane gas generation from agricultural means is unsustainable for similar reasons to biofuel. I am going to rule gas out at this stage as it currently relies on foreign gas reserves unless proven otherwise. It may well be that fracking will prove to be viable, but you cannot make a multi billion pound decision on a maybe! OK I lie, the government makes those decisions all the time, but I am going to make the small point that if the UK does have enough shale gas to be worthwhile, it might be best to use it for powering vehicles rather than power stations as gas can use the current infrastructure methods with relatively minor adjustments. This is a decision that is best put off until we have the ‘ground truth’.
I have put underwater turbines and wave power as possible future options and I have to confess they hold a great deal of appeal to me. Sadly the investment in this area has been lacking and so I am not aware of anyone who is able to claim these are options available today. I definitely think research money needs to be poured into these areas in a big way. Sadly this money is being hovered up by wind farms. As for fusion/thorium, I attended an excellent lecture on this topic last year by a scientist specialising in this field and so I know we are a long way away from being able to deploy it, thus this option goes into the long term research pile.
Energy from waste (EfW) does have its uses and is a much better way to get rid of rubbish than landfill. I have no reason to doubt government claims that a properly managed EfW plant does not cause adverse health impacts to nearby residents, but I am aware that lots of people have their doubts on this matter. Either way, I can only see a limited future for EfW plants, they can contribute to the national grid, but due to NIMBYism and the logistical impracticalities of trying to funnel huge amounts of rubbish to them daily, I just cannot envisage there being that many of them. Like solar, they can contribute rather than deliver anything hugely substantial.
This effectively leaves the UK with looking at nuclear power or renewable energy as its best options. This is no kind of earth shattering revelation, but it helps to recap why we find ourselves with these options. For me, a complex picture has been simplified. Now it is time to dig a bit deeper into the implementation of these options.
Implementing tidal barriers
The fact that we do not have more of this form of power generation is down to lack of vision and lack of sensible planning and financing. Like EfW and solar, it probably could not meet all our electricity needs without having a disproportionate effect in various unspoilt areas. However, there is definitely scope for at least building a number. One of the most prolific, reliable and untapped resources available to the UK is being completely wasted. It is nothing short of stupid and the government's unwillingness to properly fund this sort of option itself does the UK a great dis-service. Waiting for the private sector to fund such big projects is pointless as history has shown that only governments are really prepared to make this sort of long term investment.
Building wind farms
I see a role for wind farms, just not in the numbers so desperately put forward by government policy. For me, this technology is readily implementable, hence its appeal, but its returns will not justify the huge capital outlay currently being committed into it. The reason being is due to its intermittent power output, their unpopularity with locals and the disruption they cause to important systems such as radars. Where I do see a role for wind farms is when linked to a dam/resevoir project. The power gets generated by the water flowing down from the dam or reservoir and a small number of wind farms can be used to power the pumps that push the water back up again. Again, wind farm or wind farms linked to a dam is an option that contributes to the needs of the Grid, but cannot in themselves satisfy the requirements.
Implementing the nuclear option
Well known technology with a pretty good safety record in the UK, there is a lot to be said for nuclear and many people already have. The biggest issue, as it has always been, is what to do with the waste. Sadly attempts by successive governments to privatise or delegate the management of this problem has been an unmitigated mess. This does not help allay a negative perception of nuclear power held by the population at large. In short, the nuclear industry and successive governments have buggered it up, covered up their poor decisions and so few people trust the nuclear option. The government now needs to recover from the poor decisions made in the past and rebuild some kind of new nuclear power capability. This is not going well and with now only one French company able to dictate terms the situation is not going to get better. This obsession with trusting the market to make big investments without significant subsidy is a complete fallacy. It is true of nuclear as of any of the other power generation options available.
Conclusion
Well I do not want to run around screaming that we are doomed and I say that as I suspect that when things get desperate someone will, by necessity, show some leadership and make things happen. Just expect the whole process to be very painful and very expensive.
However, if the UK government suddenly became rational and started to make decisions today to try and puruse the objectives stated above then the options really are quite simple as there is effectively little choice. For starters, a minimum nuclear option needs to be pursued sufficient to ensure that it covers the minimum power requirement for the UK in 10-15 years time. As a stop gap, some gas power plants will probably need to be built or upgraded to keep the lights on, but if shale gas is proven as viable then expect this to become a major solution even though the gas should go to transport or export. Everything else will have to go into renewable power generation. There will not be one solution that can be used, wind power alone will not do it, nor will the others as it effectively has to be a bit of everything.
Which brings me neatly onto the opportunities. If only the UK was significantly investing in nearly all the renewable/sustainable options outlined above, not just wind power (mainly wind, tidal, wave, under water and nuclear), I think it would set the UK up for being able to export that expertise and technology. There is no doubt that there will be a huge demand worldwide for sustainable energy generation and various countries will be interested in various solutions. There is a gap in the market for these sort of technologies and the country that corners this market will make a fortune. Most of those at the top of the coalition get this, but they seem incapable of implementing it, crippled by vested interests and hostile backbench MPs. This lack of leadership and foresight will cost the UK a unique opportunity and while it is not impossible to come back from this, there can be no doubt that other countries will soon overtake the UK and try to claim the wealthy prize that lies at being the successful leader in this field. We had our chance and we are blowing it. The success of nations in the 20th century revolved around securing access to energy and resources and using it for their development, I doubt very much the next century will be much different in that regards.
Disclaimer: I am not a passionate advocate of the green movement who, with some notable exceptions, do not think things through very well or argue their case with anything more than idealism. As a civil servant I have just looked at the opportunities that are available to the UK and I can see the dangers of not gaining self-sufficient and sustainable power generation. The UK in itself cannot make more than a smudge in reducing world carbon emissions nor can it really persuade other developing countries to cut back on their own development. But the UK could just focus on making the technologies work at which point the economic case would far outweigh the environmental case as far as other countries are concerned and thus the objectives of the green movement would be met by simple self promoting economics.
Saturday, 26 January 2013
European Games
First off, a declaration. I am very much pro the EU, but not uncritically so. Even its most ardent supporters openly acknowledge that things are not perfect and a lot more needs to be done. For me, however, the EU is at its best when it protects EU citizens from their national governments. Without the EU, many bad laws would have been enacted by the British Government, particularly those that impacted on freedoms or our protections, particularly from large corporations. Examples such as the 90 days detention, the BT Phorm trials and the ongoing anti-competitive investigations by the EU into Microsoft, Apple, Intel and Google are prominent in my mind. So for all its faults, particularly in the way it operates and spends money, there are a lot of good things to say about what the EU does.
And so I now look at Cameron's speech on Europe which is still generating significant press coverage. My verdict is that there are some good principles in there. The Germans and the French do want the UK to get more involved, to push for beneficial change to the EU and to counter the perceived dominance of those two countries on most European issues. The UK is seen as a major player with a lot that it can bring to the table. However, I can only think that Cameron's strategy in pushing for this change is driven by political pressures, not by any realistic analysis of how best to go about bringing change and thus improving the EU. The European way of doing business is very much about obtaining consensus. Turning up from the beginning with a threat and a list of demands does not get things off to a good start!
My view is very much that Cameron (or any PM) should have simply signalled that the UK want to propose a number of changes which the UK feels is needed for itself, but would also benefit the EU as a whole. This could have been reinforced by a statement that the EU was becoming democratically tenuous in the UK (and other countries) and so it is critical that the UK government is able to demonstrate that the EU remains relevant and beneficial to the lives of UK voters. This is the sort of position that European leaders can understand and agree with. It is both a promise to be reasonable and a threat to challenge the democratic legitimacy of the EU if it cannot reform.
As for the issue of a referendum, Cameron is being as hypocritical as he accuses Alex Salmond and the SNP of being over the issue of Scottish independence. If you are going to have a seismic referendum, you should set the date to be as short as decently possible only allowing enough time for a proper debate and not such a long period that it creates a whole load of planning and investment uncertainties. I am not saying that there should not be a referendum, but either it should be called quickly or Cameron should have left it as an unspoken threat for the EU to ponder over. That way, the UK has a strong hand in its negotiations, EU leaders can hardly be motivated to avoid the threat that a referendum brings if it is an inevitability. I fear, that the political pressure has over-ruled any common sense on this matter.
I know from my own work that being a leading member of the EU brings significant benefits to the UK and I am going to share one example that illustrates this point. About five years ago I was dealing with a problem where working with the US was being problematic due to the way the Americans implemented their laws when co-operating with foreign governments. This issue was causing huge delays to work and creating a whole host of problems such as legal liabilities and delays to the UK. The UK had spent years trying to solve this problem, but to no avail as the Americans were not willing to change their position. My boss and I therefore approached our counterparts in the other five biggest countries within the EU to ask if they were having the same problems. Lo and behold they all replied that they were and so we set up several meetings to discuss it and to hammer out a strategy. We then invited the Americans to meet all six of us to discuss this problem which they willingly did. As a result, the Americans realised that they had a problem that needed fixing and so they went away and did so. For them, this was the ideal international co-operative scenario - the UK led the big European nations to clearly articulate the problem. Once the Americans proposed a solution, it could be agreed by the Europeans as a whole thus saving them from having to repeat the work for other countries and everyone went away happy.
Now of course, I can also give several examples of where working within the EU has not been so successful. But the example above illustrates why so many nations, both and and out of Europe want the UK to remain a leading member. It also shows how the UK is able to make itself more influential than if it tried to solve all these problems on its own. This is influence that political blustering and a UK only attitude cannot buy, it would be ludicrous to claim that giving it up would not have significant consequences. Is it worth what we pay the EU? That is a much harder question to answer, but what is clear is that the situation is far from black and white and the UK would be unlikely to be able to use the money saved to be able to protect its interests and influence world events as effectively as it does now.
And so I now look at Cameron's speech on Europe which is still generating significant press coverage. My verdict is that there are some good principles in there. The Germans and the French do want the UK to get more involved, to push for beneficial change to the EU and to counter the perceived dominance of those two countries on most European issues. The UK is seen as a major player with a lot that it can bring to the table. However, I can only think that Cameron's strategy in pushing for this change is driven by political pressures, not by any realistic analysis of how best to go about bringing change and thus improving the EU. The European way of doing business is very much about obtaining consensus. Turning up from the beginning with a threat and a list of demands does not get things off to a good start!
My view is very much that Cameron (or any PM) should have simply signalled that the UK want to propose a number of changes which the UK feels is needed for itself, but would also benefit the EU as a whole. This could have been reinforced by a statement that the EU was becoming democratically tenuous in the UK (and other countries) and so it is critical that the UK government is able to demonstrate that the EU remains relevant and beneficial to the lives of UK voters. This is the sort of position that European leaders can understand and agree with. It is both a promise to be reasonable and a threat to challenge the democratic legitimacy of the EU if it cannot reform.
As for the issue of a referendum, Cameron is being as hypocritical as he accuses Alex Salmond and the SNP of being over the issue of Scottish independence. If you are going to have a seismic referendum, you should set the date to be as short as decently possible only allowing enough time for a proper debate and not such a long period that it creates a whole load of planning and investment uncertainties. I am not saying that there should not be a referendum, but either it should be called quickly or Cameron should have left it as an unspoken threat for the EU to ponder over. That way, the UK has a strong hand in its negotiations, EU leaders can hardly be motivated to avoid the threat that a referendum brings if it is an inevitability. I fear, that the political pressure has over-ruled any common sense on this matter.
I know from my own work that being a leading member of the EU brings significant benefits to the UK and I am going to share one example that illustrates this point. About five years ago I was dealing with a problem where working with the US was being problematic due to the way the Americans implemented their laws when co-operating with foreign governments. This issue was causing huge delays to work and creating a whole host of problems such as legal liabilities and delays to the UK. The UK had spent years trying to solve this problem, but to no avail as the Americans were not willing to change their position. My boss and I therefore approached our counterparts in the other five biggest countries within the EU to ask if they were having the same problems. Lo and behold they all replied that they were and so we set up several meetings to discuss it and to hammer out a strategy. We then invited the Americans to meet all six of us to discuss this problem which they willingly did. As a result, the Americans realised that they had a problem that needed fixing and so they went away and did so. For them, this was the ideal international co-operative scenario - the UK led the big European nations to clearly articulate the problem. Once the Americans proposed a solution, it could be agreed by the Europeans as a whole thus saving them from having to repeat the work for other countries and everyone went away happy.
Now of course, I can also give several examples of where working within the EU has not been so successful. But the example above illustrates why so many nations, both and and out of Europe want the UK to remain a leading member. It also shows how the UK is able to make itself more influential than if it tried to solve all these problems on its own. This is influence that political blustering and a UK only attitude cannot buy, it would be ludicrous to claim that giving it up would not have significant consequences. Is it worth what we pay the EU? That is a much harder question to answer, but what is clear is that the situation is far from black and white and the UK would be unlikely to be able to use the money saved to be able to protect its interests and influence world events as effectively as it does now.
Monday, 3 December 2012
The Leveson report is in – Protecting liberty or curtailing free speech?
And so Lord Leveson has delivered his esteemed judgement in a truly impressive 2000 page report. Typical lawyers, they always have to go overboard with the wording! For all that, it is a serious study with a lot of analysis behind it and so none of its recommendations should be dismissed lightly or quickly.
Leveson has pretty much publicly confirmed what anyone who has had any professional dealings with the media already knows. On the whole they lie. A lot! The reasons for this are many, but it boils down to deadlines, lack of standards and professionalism and outright political or commercial bias. This is on top of the mistakes that any pressured written work will have. This is not to tarnish all journalists with the same brush, but for anyone who takes pride in their work it is unacceptable to put a misleading statement into the public domain, I still remain horrified by how often the media reports opinions and complete fabrications as fact. I am a big fan of proper investigative journalism, which in many ways mirror some of the basic principles in being a good civil servant – find out what is going on and get it confirmed/checked from more than one source if possible. If this is not possible, make this clear and say it is the best judgement that can be made with the information available.
Leveson draws a crucial distinction between what is put on the internet and what has a ‘big name’ behind it. The mainstream media claim to have the high ground when it comes to news because unlike some random blogger they have the resources and people to add credibility to their articles or posts. We cannot just make free market claims that if people do not believe the veracity of the press they will go elsewhere. This might be true of blogs in the ‘wild west’ of the internet, but the mainstream press is not as diverse and the tricks used to manipulate people are subtle and well used. In short, the mainstream press have a tremendous capacity to ‘influence’ people for good or for bad and so they have a lot of power. What Leveson highlights all too starkly is that this power is too often abused with little in the way of restraint or punishment against its misuse. In short, it is a very unhealthy situation for a democracy to be in and something has to change. He make take nearly 2000 pages to say this, but I can only say that I fully agree with Leveson’s observations of the problems of the press.
Many comments and articles have been written about how the British media is controlled by a small number of wealthy individuals and it cannot be denied this is one problem, but I would argue it is certainly not the only one. One of the other big problems is the belief that the press protects liberty. While this is true in part, what this belief does is provide a good excuse for vested interests to clamour against reform. The mainstream press is not just ugly, it is clearly corrupt, self-promoting and in worse cases actually restricts liberty not safeguards it. The most obvious cases of the way liberty is restricted are those of hacking victims and those who are victims of vigilante justice promoted by the press. Less obvious is the way the press curtails critical reporting for ‘editorial reasons’ or the fact that complex issues are dumbed down and presented in a way to reduce independent/critical thought by the reader. Liberty and free speech will not be preserved by entrusting its protection to a group of journalists motivated by a variety of factors, but by making sure the population at large is well informed and able to articulate its feelings in a coherent way that politicians can listen to.
The danger of the press is not only that they have colluded in reducing informed free speech by the population, but they have cluttered the communication from the population to those at the top and so the politicians themselves cannot clearly hear the ‘will of the people’. This has been frequently referred to as “the Westminster Bubble” The press are just as guilty as the politicians for this state of affairs and they live in a state of denial about their culpability. Leveson has challenged this and the completely hypocritical response from the elements of the press saying that he will curtail their free speech reveals the state of denial or worse still their desperate desire to preserve this unsustainable relationship which is significantly undermining British democracy.
In conclusion, I believe Leveson is totally right, a self regulated body cannot work and so some statutory legislation/regulation is needed. The trick is to do it in a way that preserves the essential components of liberty and free speech that are so vital for a properly functional democracy. A self regulated press has been shown to fail (through countless other enquiries) to do this and so another approach is needed and it needs to have teeth and to be free from political control.
Saturday, 10 November 2012
Not enough plebs
There can be no doubt that UK politics has entered a very divisive phase with the mainstream press and politicians daily engaging in class war. The Conservative Party is politically vulnerable on this front and so opposition politicians have shed any reluctance in detoxifying politics and are sticking it to the Government every chance they can get.
It seems to be a successful strategy with a Conservative Party unable to manoeuvre itself clear of the political broadsides. Andrew Mitchell's 'pleb' comments really should not have been much of a story. It can hardly be a surprise that current or past Government Ministers of all political shades think little of the 'lower' orders. Yet the whole Mitchell saga fuelled the political narrative of a leadership completely out of touch with the mainstream UK. With so many rich and public school educated people sitting in the Cabinet it seems incredible that Cameron along with the Conservative and Lib Dem leadership seem to totally lack the political survival skills that necessitate more women and 'working' class visibility at the top of Government, but that is what is happening.
At the other end of the scale of the Conservative Party, MPs such as Nadine Dorries, with a more 'humble' background are making a political pigs ear of things. Whether she is going to the jungle of Australia to 'spread politics' or to pocket the £40k fee for making an arse out of herself is open to debate, but it will undoubtedly fuel the belief at the 'upper ranks' of Conservative Party that those plebs within cannot be trusted either. Meanwhile they still have no real strategy of making the Conservatives look more electorable and so they can only pray for an economic miracle, throw out a bevy of clever sounding policies or just give in and make sure they get as much out of being in charge as they can before they are voted out in 2015. Civil servants can only wonder if the latter strategy is being pursued at times due to the incoherent and unpopular policies coming out of No.10, however, like the Labour and Lib Dem politicians they are keeping their heads down and letting the Conservative politicians take the flak.
Class politics has always being prevalent in British politics, but it seems to have reached new levels now. In part this is because there can be no doubt that those at the top are protecting themselves and their friends while enriching themselves at public expense. However, what has made the narrative really acidic is a belief by the UK electorate that the politicians are really making a hash of the UK economy. In recent weeks I have been meeting a lot of business men and women in the course of my duties and I have yet to meet any that thinks the Government knows what it is doing. If they do not believe things are going to get better then it is no wonder that the UK economy is not being led by a private sector recovery. In the meantime the electorate just reads the headlines and despairs.
Unfortunately the civil servants just feel the same way, backed by the fact they can see it happening first hand and with that level of de-motivation, do not expect Government to get any better. You reap what you sow and having castigated the civil service and marginalised those not in the exalted ranks, the politicians are fast running out of lower level support, vitally needed to make their policies happen.
It seems to be a successful strategy with a Conservative Party unable to manoeuvre itself clear of the political broadsides. Andrew Mitchell's 'pleb' comments really should not have been much of a story. It can hardly be a surprise that current or past Government Ministers of all political shades think little of the 'lower' orders. Yet the whole Mitchell saga fuelled the political narrative of a leadership completely out of touch with the mainstream UK. With so many rich and public school educated people sitting in the Cabinet it seems incredible that Cameron along with the Conservative and Lib Dem leadership seem to totally lack the political survival skills that necessitate more women and 'working' class visibility at the top of Government, but that is what is happening.
At the other end of the scale of the Conservative Party, MPs such as Nadine Dorries, with a more 'humble' background are making a political pigs ear of things. Whether she is going to the jungle of Australia to 'spread politics' or to pocket the £40k fee for making an arse out of herself is open to debate, but it will undoubtedly fuel the belief at the 'upper ranks' of Conservative Party that those plebs within cannot be trusted either. Meanwhile they still have no real strategy of making the Conservatives look more electorable and so they can only pray for an economic miracle, throw out a bevy of clever sounding policies or just give in and make sure they get as much out of being in charge as they can before they are voted out in 2015. Civil servants can only wonder if the latter strategy is being pursued at times due to the incoherent and unpopular policies coming out of No.10, however, like the Labour and Lib Dem politicians they are keeping their heads down and letting the Conservative politicians take the flak.
Class politics has always being prevalent in British politics, but it seems to have reached new levels now. In part this is because there can be no doubt that those at the top are protecting themselves and their friends while enriching themselves at public expense. However, what has made the narrative really acidic is a belief by the UK electorate that the politicians are really making a hash of the UK economy. In recent weeks I have been meeting a lot of business men and women in the course of my duties and I have yet to meet any that thinks the Government knows what it is doing. If they do not believe things are going to get better then it is no wonder that the UK economy is not being led by a private sector recovery. In the meantime the electorate just reads the headlines and despairs.
Unfortunately the civil servants just feel the same way, backed by the fact they can see it happening first hand and with that level of de-motivation, do not expect Government to get any better. You reap what you sow and having castigated the civil service and marginalised those not in the exalted ranks, the politicians are fast running out of lower level support, vitally needed to make their policies happen.
Tuesday, 14 August 2012
The Olympic Legacy
And so following a very successful Olympics, which despite my usual disinterest I actually rather enjoyed, the political conversation has now shifted towards a nebulous concept – the Olympic legacy. Needless to say, politicians of all shades will be promoting this with the full knowledge that they are unlikely to be held to account for its delivery. This is all about perceptions, not substance and so words are cheap and will no doubt be plentiful on this topic. Nonetheless, the Olympics are likely to have a real impact on the political scene and so it will be worth speculating as to what this actual impact will be. As for it influencing how Scottish voters will vote in the referendum in 2013, or how the UK votes in the election presumably in 2015 there is only one appropriate response – It is the economy stupid!
The first thing of course has to be the ‘feel good’ factor. As mentioned in a previous post, all politicians of all shades try to jump onto major sporting events to try to get the electorate to feel better about them and the world in general. No doubt Cameron’s promise to maintain the existing level of sports funding for Olympic sport is doing exactly that. Milliband’s call for an all-party consensus is another example. However, it does appear that the coalition (and Labour) has very much appeared to have been left out with the media giving lots of print and air time to Boris Johnson. Politically, it very much appears that Johnson has benefitted, with negligible benefits for anyone else in politics although there is a possibility the whole class war thing may benefit some fringe political commentators. From a political perspective, this implies that the power and momentum behind the London Olympics has very much stayed within the London power base, national politics has been very much marginalised. Is this a possible indication of future political power shifts from national to local level? Or is London , as always, unique and so this cannot be seen to be representative of the nation as a whole?
One definitely positive message that came out of the Olympics was the sense of ‘civic spirit’ particularly surrounding the volunteers. Maybe Cameron can take some satisfaction that the Olympics has demonstrated better than anything else, what his concept of Big Society is all about. It will be very obvious that the Olympics was a success that involved minimal government intervention (the call up of the military and the huge amounts of cash pumped in notwithstanding!). However, Cameron will have to be very careful before he makes this claim. GB managed to pull in a record number of medals. But then everyone knows that this is in part because there has been a real push to properly fund Olympic success. While the volunteers and the athletics may have made the whole event really uplifting, it is clear that this spirit can only flourish where properly supported. Big Society as a concept has failed to prove that it is about harnessing and supporting this sort of spirit rather than being more about trying to make cuts and shift the burden onto volunteers or charities. The old adage, “you get what you put in” has very much run true of this Olympics and the Conservatives are going to struggle to get this message across. Simply put, the Conservative brand has not been detoxified and the Olympics may well make the electorate further associate cuts as causing long term damage. The whole argument around the sell-off of playing fields is a very poignant part of this narrative.
On a less positive note, the Olympics has seemed to have encouraged the media to give lots of print to a sort of ‘class war’ and focussing on the number of medals won by people from private schools. This debate is highly divisive and I fear leaving a sour after-note. The reasons for so many medals being won by privately educated people are relatively clear and easy to understand, any solutions for correcting this imbalance are not. As with anything in politics, whenever someone is peddling black and white ‘truths’ the reality is that they are expressing biases and opinions. Nothing is simple to solve even if the problem is easy to understand. It would be a pity for the Olympic legacy to descend into a destructive narrative about the ‘toffs’ winning the medals rather than the focus being on how to improve sports and sporting achievement in the UK in a way that is accessible to everyone. While the coalition may be rightly castigated for having a cabinet widely seen as elitist, this does not mean the Olympic medal holders should be seen within the context of this debate.
If people do not want to see the Eton and Oxbridge brigade dominating the top of government, rather than whinging about it and trying to arbitrarily restrict entry, focus the narrative on improving access from the bottom so than anyone of ability who works hard has a chance. This is true of education, of the Olympics and pretty much any other area of life. If you really want to damage or properly criticise the ‘millionaire’s cabinet’, nothing is more damaging than a credible discussion about their lack of competence. The USA and China ruthlessly focus on supporting competence and success rather than class in their politically polar opposite quest for Olympic glory. The legacy that the British nation has to take away from the Olympics is that it needs to do the same in its own British way. It does not need to be massively state controlled ( China ) or fully capitalist ( USA ) as the GB athletes and volunteers quite vividly demonstrated.
Thursday, 2 August 2012
A bloody awful idea
Worried about politicians not being able to implement their policies properly? Need government departments to improve their performance? Well the latest idea seems to be to routinely sack those at the top of their profession and replace them with people who know even less! Today’s story in the Independent is what caught my eye:
I am fully willing to concede that numerous top civil servants have done a poor job in many respects. However, some of them are brilliant and the ones you don’t hear about are the ones making government work despite all the handicaps thrown their way. Part of the problem is that the top of the civil service has become increasingly politicised. So making them even more political seems like a rather counter-productive move. More worrying still, this gives Ministers even more power at the top of their department, but does little to ensure that they receive good service and excellent advice. In short, it is more power with decreasing accountability.
I think the myth that the civil servants block ministers from implementing policy is exactly that, a myth. I feel an important quote coming on so here goes:
Simply put, government as a whole is failing to implement its policies because departments are not being run properly, policies are not being scrutinised or tweaked effectively and implementation is inadequately monitored. Bringing in another layer of political management is not going to solve the problem. More apolitical and competent technocrats is what is really needed plus reform of the system so that political ideology and corruption do not override common sense. It short, it is the politicians’ (of the last three decades) bloody fault because they are the ones who have created the structural and cultural weaknesses which has resulted in a poor civil service trying to implement bad policies, in an unfavourable environment with inadequate resources or skill sets.
The Independent article stated that Ministers were looking to the US , New Zealand and Australia as good examples. Not good choices. As anyone with the knowledge of the US can tell you, the bureaucracy is huge and every time there is an election or political crisis, government effectively shuts down. My limited knowledge of the Australian and New Zealand system indicate they have similar problems. Political decisions are too frequently made in these countries on a short term basis and with a very partisan bias. That is not how the UK wanted to do things which is why this model was never imported previously. At least the US Congress and Senate scrutinises these political appointments and they can get a very bumpy ride when things go wrong. The UK does not have this separation of powers and so such appointees are barely politically accountable. Until Parliament has more clout and independence from Downing Street , this transfer of unaccountable power would be simply frightening and likely to lead to horrendous problems.
More politicisation of the civil service is not an answer to our current problems. Neither is anything proposed by Francis Maude!
Wednesday, 1 August 2012
Thinking the unthinkable, going GOCO
Cast your mind back to the 80s or 90s or even early 2000 (if you are old enough to remember that far which sadly I am). Now imagine that a politician said the following thing, “Let’s privatise defence.” Granted, there was a cold war on a while back, but can you imagine the hostile reception that such an idea would have got? Handing over weapons and national security to greedy, profit hungry arms dealers, never!
Fast forward to today and defence companies are very much part of the scenery in defence. This is true for many countries and there are many logical reasons for this. Yet, the UK is willing to go one step further than anyone else and seems willing to contemplate the idea of privatising defence procurement itself. The buzzword is Government Owned, Contractor Operated. Here is what RUSI has to say about this:
What caught my eye (apart from the bloody good questions asked in the briefing paper) was the list of people contributing to this discussion. Not only is the former head of defence procurement and other ex-MOD people there, so are significant captains of defence industry. Quite remarkably, there is a not very subtle message being put out here from a group of people that shouldn’t necessarily agree on this issue, “Are you crazy?!” This is very much a shot across the bows for Bernard Gray, a political appointee who was made head of Defence Equipment and Support by David Cameron. He has always openly stated that defence procurement is a mess, it needs fixing and he sees the private sector as the means by which this can happen.
In the best traditions of Yes Minister I am going to say that he is both right… and wrong!
Let’s first give Mr Gray his due. Defence procurement is a political nightmare. Despite what the media says, this is not because the civil servants in defence procurement cannot do their jobs properly, but rather because the whole system prevents them from doing a good job. It is too easy for politics to derail even a well run defence project many of which face significant technical challenges simply due to the nature of the business. There are countless stories to demonstrate this. Mr Gray has done a good job of diagnosing the problems. His medicine, however, has not been subjected to trials of any kind by anyone else and if it goes wrong the resulting mess would be horrendous. I will not go into all the issues that can arise because the RUSI briefing paper raises these critical questions.
What I will say though is that Mr Gray has failed to answer the critical question of how do you take the politics out of defence procurement? The answer may well be that you cannot, but expecting a private company to be able to manage or even to stand up to political forces seems naïve. How would a failing company even be properly punished? The government will never be able to properly transfer the risks associated with defence or national security. Any risk transfer can only be temporary. The whole G4s security issue with the Olympics and my recent post about PFIs repeatedly emphasise this point. Like the past failures to manage NHS finances through the private sector or safely privatise the rail network, the results of such experiments are that people will die. Network Rail was dragged into court and fined, will the same happen to the GOCO when soldiers are killed due to faulty equipment? The banks are too big to fail, well so is defence.
This really is a risky experiment and Mr Gray is quite willing to say that we must run some risks if we are to gain the benefits. My question is whether the risks associated with going GOCO are worth the anticipated benefits? It may well be that some of the benefits can be delivered by a less riskier option. Sometimes being sure that you will get a ‘good enough’ solution is a much better strategy that striving for a brilliant solution that you have no certainty if it will work, especially when people’s lives are on the line. This philosophy is what often separates the public sector from the private. Some things are just too important to fail, while a proper market is all about success and failure in order to thrive. Mixing the two is always risky, a lesson the civil service has learnt, but one that politicians all too often forget or ignore.
This may sound like a boring way to approach problem, but I tend to find that good government is exactly that, boring.
Tuesday, 24 July 2012
Deception and taxes
Let's start with a fun quote from Machiavelli:
Of mankind we may say in general they are fickle, hypocritical, and greedy of gain.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Do you agree with this statement? So when the Treasury Minister David Gauke states that it is morally wrong to pay cash in hand is he perhaps stating the obvious and that many people are willing to deprive the Government of those precious tax revenues? Perhaps even the attitude from many people likely to be a resounding "sod off you hypocrite!"
I don't think this really is much of an issue on the Govermment's radar at all. It is not a new issue and it has been something that has been known about and managed as best as possible over decades. It is claimed that this low level tax avoidance is costing the Government £2 billion a year. Considering that the major tax avoidance wheezes are being done by corporations and rich individuals and this is costing the Government trillions. That is where the attention should be going.
So why is this non-story suddenly newsworthy? Time for another quote from Machiavelli:
One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.
Niccolo Machiavelli
This cash in hand story is only to deflect attention from the whole issue of corporation tax avoidance. Can we really blame rich people and corporations from seeking ways to reduce their tax bill? It is a simple fact that no one likes paying taxes. They do so because they have to and hopefully because they believe it is the right thing to do because they directly and indirectly benefit from it. Yet what if they feel that they do not benefit and that governments of all political colours squanders it and is too corrupt to manage it properly? How resentful must those people feel to pay those at the top who enrich themselves and their friends/political donors at public expense?
The whole issue of tax avoidance is squarely the Government's fault. It happens because it allows tax avoidance of all shades to happen through poor or slack legislation and enforcement. Furthermore, people don't trust politicians and they definitely don't trust them to spend the money wisely. Thus a political atmosphere of resentment is being created and the only way people can fight back is to withhold their taxes through covert means. Protest against the government is meaningless and worse still risks people losing their jobs, violence is an extreme method of protest and withholding your taxes overtly gets you put in jail.
I do not claim tax avoidance is directly linked to political protest, but I do claim that a subconsious culture is being created where those who can avoid tax do and don't feel guilty about it because they don't feel the Government deserves their money. It should definitely be an issue of concern to the Government and I fear obviously hypocritical comments by Treasury Ministers is not going to improve the situation. Everyone knows who the real tax avoiders are and it is not those builders/plumbers/decorators.
Of mankind we may say in general they are fickle, hypocritical, and greedy of gain.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Do you agree with this statement? So when the Treasury Minister David Gauke states that it is morally wrong to pay cash in hand is he perhaps stating the obvious and that many people are willing to deprive the Government of those precious tax revenues? Perhaps even the attitude from many people likely to be a resounding "sod off you hypocrite!"
I don't think this really is much of an issue on the Govermment's radar at all. It is not a new issue and it has been something that has been known about and managed as best as possible over decades. It is claimed that this low level tax avoidance is costing the Government £2 billion a year. Considering that the major tax avoidance wheezes are being done by corporations and rich individuals and this is costing the Government trillions. That is where the attention should be going.
So why is this non-story suddenly newsworthy? Time for another quote from Machiavelli:
One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.
Niccolo Machiavelli
This cash in hand story is only to deflect attention from the whole issue of corporation tax avoidance. Can we really blame rich people and corporations from seeking ways to reduce their tax bill? It is a simple fact that no one likes paying taxes. They do so because they have to and hopefully because they believe it is the right thing to do because they directly and indirectly benefit from it. Yet what if they feel that they do not benefit and that governments of all political colours squanders it and is too corrupt to manage it properly? How resentful must those people feel to pay those at the top who enrich themselves and their friends/political donors at public expense?
The whole issue of tax avoidance is squarely the Government's fault. It happens because it allows tax avoidance of all shades to happen through poor or slack legislation and enforcement. Furthermore, people don't trust politicians and they definitely don't trust them to spend the money wisely. Thus a political atmosphere of resentment is being created and the only way people can fight back is to withhold their taxes through covert means. Protest against the government is meaningless and worse still risks people losing their jobs, violence is an extreme method of protest and withholding your taxes overtly gets you put in jail.
I do not claim tax avoidance is directly linked to political protest, but I do claim that a subconsious culture is being created where those who can avoid tax do and don't feel guilty about it because they don't feel the Government deserves their money. It should definitely be an issue of concern to the Government and I fear obviously hypocritical comments by Treasury Ministers is not going to improve the situation. Everyone knows who the real tax avoiders are and it is not those builders/plumbers/decorators.
Bread and circuses
Many will be familiar with the old trick of the Roman emperors to dispense free bread and to hold circuses to maintain their hold on power. To a lesser extent a similar idea remains in use today through the use of big sporting events. It is well documented that politicians try to use major sporting achievements such as winning world cups to boost the ‘feel good feeling’ in voters. So it must be rather depressing for the coalition as they really do not seem to be having much luck on that front this year.
The only hero they have at this stage is Bradley Wiggins. The England football team did not do anything spectacular, Murray didn’t win Wimbledon and now the whole Olympics thing is becoming a political mess. And the Queen’s diamond jubilee did so well at getting things warmed up, what a waste! Brits are perhaps a particularly cynical lot and hard to please, but it cannot escape political notice that far from ‘distracting the masses’ the Olympics are displaying in all its ugly glory the nasty side of corporate sponsorship and the perils of outsourcing. All at a time when MP expenses scandals remain fresh, with Levenson constantly chipping away at the political foundations in the background and with the Libor scandal in full flow. No wonder the economy is not growing, the British voter does not have much to be confident about right now.
The secret to economic growth these days is not really anything to do with actually making things, investing in the future or through the use of money making the world a better place. No, it is all about confidence. People need to feel sort of good about their lot, willing to spend money in the knowledge they will get more of it and feel a desire to buy things with that money. Any basic economics course will teach its students that confidence, a very intangible thing, is the most important concept in any economy. Money has value because people believe it does. A company can make huge profits yet go to the wall if people lose confidence in it. The same is true for governments and any currency such as the Euro or US Dollar. Thus even though the Olympics being in London is thanks to Labour not the coalition or Boris, Cameron can be seen desperately talking it up with outlandish claims of how much better off Britain will be thanks to the Games. You only need to look over towards Greece and the well documented failure how hosting their Olympics failed to improve their economy, to know that Cameron must be getting pretty desperate to make those sorts of claims! Yet the reality remains that the British political leadership, along with European leaders, are failing to show leadership, improve confidence and thus inspire their voters to generate economic growth. Cameron needs the circus to distract the mob, slip into the shadow of sporting heros and get people feeling good about things again. Will it work?
I suppose Cameron could always stand up and imitate Blair for the party faithful with a rallying cry of, “confidence, confidence and confidence!” Such an intangible concept, with no firm rules on how to obtain it and yet so important and its effects easily seen. Even if the Olympics are a success, I suspect it will be very much perceived that politics played little in achieving this and all the other negative issues will overwhelm any political benefit to be gained.
Looks like bread and circuses on their own are not quite enough. But of course, the Roman emperors had the Praetorian Guard to intimidate the population, thank goodness the army won’t be doing the same for the Olympics…
Monday, 9 July 2012
The electoral reform that never was
Students of politics should do a case study into the formulation of the coalition agreement of 2010. The insights about how this unique (to the UK ) document came about and the results that we have seen from it make for fascinating study. For this post, I am going to focus on the failed referendum for electoral reform because I find it interesting and because the whole tale greatly amuses me.
Rewind back to the heady days of March 2010 with the election results in, Gordon Brown having agreed to step down and the Liberal Democrats living the dream of being the ‘king maker’. (Oh how things have changed since then, but I digress) Top of the Lib Dem agenda was the issue of electoral reform, something they have wanted for so long. Opposite them was the Conservative Party, conservative by name, conservative by nature, entrenched by self-interest and thus not in favour of political reform. Personally I think our current First Past the Post System is a mess (mainly due to the control of the two big political parties and the way UK voters are wedded to voting in a tribal way) and so I was looking forward to the Lib Dems bringing in some much needed reform.
And then there was the huge mistake upon which the Lib Dems have had plenty of time to regret and which I, with years of experience at conducting political negotiations, instantly recognised as a mistake at the time. They sacrificed their strong position for a compromised position. The Lib Dems agreed to a referendum to a named alternative electoral system, the Alternative Vote. Why oh why were they so naïve as to have agreed to this? I can only admire the cleverness of the Conservative negotiation, they bluffed and took a gamble and it paid off. Generally speaking compromising during a negotiation can be a good thing, but you should never do so at the expense of your core objectives or ‘red line issues’ as we call it in the office.
What the Lib Dems should have done was to insist that the referendum question would be agnostic about which system to reform to, but would merely establish whether the UK population wanted electoral reform with the specific system to be decided at a later date, probably through a second referendum. They had the trump card, “agree to this or we shall go and speak to Labour about forming a coalition.” They could have said this and I am sure the Conservatives would have had no choice but to accept it. Instead, they handed the Conservatives the ability to criticise a political system that no one really wanted, it was just too easy! It stifled the debate and shut down the opportunity for proponents of the other potential systems to make their (much stronger) case. I can only imagine that these thoughts were going through Vince Cable’s mind when he described the Conservatives as “ruthless, calculating and tribal”. He knew they had blown it and he knew Lib Dem naivety several months back was the cause.
It was a much needed jolt in the arm for the Lib Dems, exposing one of their many political flaws. It also very pointedly represents the cause of their current problems, they look weak on the red line issues that matter to Lib Dem voters. The obvious lesson from this incident is not to agree to something you know that neither you nor your opposite number actually want. Unfortunately in learning this lesson, the Lib Dem blew the chance at the electoral reform that they had always dreamed of and thus along with it a genuine chance at cleaning up the current political mess that Westminster is in. Politics is a dirty and nasty game and people don’t often get second chances. For those who really wish things would be better, you will have to dream a little longer I am afraid…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)