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!
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.
Tuesday, 15 January 2013
How to make yourself very unpopular, written by the coalition!
Today's news is that the Home Office has decided to cut police pay, particularly for new recruits. Earlier this week, it was revealed that the police is suffering a huge decline in the young intake and thus the police forces are becoming older. In short, it looks like police recruitment is in for a rough time and there is no way that the current members of the police can see this scenario as anything other than they are getting screwed. A more Machiavellian outlook would be that this is a deliberate change that so happens to benefit companies such as G4s who just so happen to be significant contributors to the Conservative party coffers...
I will declare that I am not a police officer nor do I have any particular interests to defend on this issue, but I cannot help but imagine that the police feel pretty hard done by. Having covered for the Olympics thus not had much holiday, suffered pay freezes and pension cuts and worried about being on the front line at the next set of riots, I don't expect they feel particularly benevolent to the government right now. Traditionally, the Conservatives used to be able to count on a decent proportion of the police to vote for them. I doubt very much that is true any more.
In fact, I am pretty confident that the coalition has rather significantly lost of the vote of most of the civil service too. They feel pretty screwed over too. And with recent news that business leaders are worried about the anti-EU rhetoric, as is the US, and it looks like the coalition are fast running out of support from most quarters, including areas that would traditionally have been counted upon for some support. Like the Republican party in the US, they are in danger of running out of 'angry white men', or Euro-sceptics as they are otherwise known in the UK!
When they were in power Labour were terrible for making policies and promises specifically geared towards shoring up their political support rather than promoting good government. There are countless examples of this and the result were a lot of promises that were not funded. The coalition seems to have gone completely the other way and while this can be argued as possibly a good thing, if a bit politically suicidal, I would find it hard to argue that they are making good policies and winning support either. Without the support, they have almost no chance of implementing their policies, good or bad.
This behaviour from a politician is pretty hard to explain, after all, most shallow politicians are willing to sell their soul to win at politics right? Labour certainly did and it successfully kept them going for 13 years. So when one examines the behaviour of the coalition government and their apparent suicidal approach to gaining votes a rather disturbing pattern emerges. All those polices (cutting police pay, reforming the NHS, selling off national forests, privatising defence procurement, etc) all by amazing coincidence benefit significant contributors to the Conservative party. A coincidence? It is just too widespread to be written off as a conspiracy theory. If you take the view that privately the coalition knows it was left with an impossibly unpopular mess to fix, it can be easily imagined that those at the top have lost their motivation to win more votes. Thus we should ask what motivates them to shape government policy and endure the gruelling hours and criticism that results? A rather wealthy life after the general election in 2015 perhaps?
Before David Cameron became Prime Minister, he said that lobbying will be the next political scandal. That has yet to properly happen and so that particular cow will be milked for all it is worth before the game is up. Recent news coverage also states that MPs think they are not paid enough. I actually agree and I think these two issues are linked. Politicians should get a pretty generous pay from the state on the condition that they do not have second incomes or outside interests. If they are not prepared to accept this, then maybe they should accept, and the electorate should insist, that a career as an MP is not for them at that time. My sincere belief is that British politics would be in a better place when this happens. Sadly it cannot happen fast enough.
I will declare that I am not a police officer nor do I have any particular interests to defend on this issue, but I cannot help but imagine that the police feel pretty hard done by. Having covered for the Olympics thus not had much holiday, suffered pay freezes and pension cuts and worried about being on the front line at the next set of riots, I don't expect they feel particularly benevolent to the government right now. Traditionally, the Conservatives used to be able to count on a decent proportion of the police to vote for them. I doubt very much that is true any more.
In fact, I am pretty confident that the coalition has rather significantly lost of the vote of most of the civil service too. They feel pretty screwed over too. And with recent news that business leaders are worried about the anti-EU rhetoric, as is the US, and it looks like the coalition are fast running out of support from most quarters, including areas that would traditionally have been counted upon for some support. Like the Republican party in the US, they are in danger of running out of 'angry white men', or Euro-sceptics as they are otherwise known in the UK!
When they were in power Labour were terrible for making policies and promises specifically geared towards shoring up their political support rather than promoting good government. There are countless examples of this and the result were a lot of promises that were not funded. The coalition seems to have gone completely the other way and while this can be argued as possibly a good thing, if a bit politically suicidal, I would find it hard to argue that they are making good policies and winning support either. Without the support, they have almost no chance of implementing their policies, good or bad.
This behaviour from a politician is pretty hard to explain, after all, most shallow politicians are willing to sell their soul to win at politics right? Labour certainly did and it successfully kept them going for 13 years. So when one examines the behaviour of the coalition government and their apparent suicidal approach to gaining votes a rather disturbing pattern emerges. All those polices (cutting police pay, reforming the NHS, selling off national forests, privatising defence procurement, etc) all by amazing coincidence benefit significant contributors to the Conservative party. A coincidence? It is just too widespread to be written off as a conspiracy theory. If you take the view that privately the coalition knows it was left with an impossibly unpopular mess to fix, it can be easily imagined that those at the top have lost their motivation to win more votes. Thus we should ask what motivates them to shape government policy and endure the gruelling hours and criticism that results? A rather wealthy life after the general election in 2015 perhaps?
Before David Cameron became Prime Minister, he said that lobbying will be the next political scandal. That has yet to properly happen and so that particular cow will be milked for all it is worth before the game is up. Recent news coverage also states that MPs think they are not paid enough. I actually agree and I think these two issues are linked. Politicians should get a pretty generous pay from the state on the condition that they do not have second incomes or outside interests. If they are not prepared to accept this, then maybe they should accept, and the electorate should insist, that a career as an MP is not for them at that time. My sincere belief is that British politics would be in a better place when this happens. Sadly it cannot happen fast enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)