Bleak Britain

Britain’s economic challenge is almost as severe as the challenge of its leadership. Economic decline in Britain is now the worst in fifty years, with GDP shrinking by 2.4% in the first quarter of 2009. Figures released today by the UK Treasury paint a bleak picture of the economy, with all sectors showing a decline and no evidence of the “green shoots” of growth, which Prime Minister Gordon Brown continually refers to. The decline is steep and creates a real set of challenges for the government. It’s the worst economic performance since 1958.

The OECD annual economic analysis of the country, also published this week, suggests that government spending needs to be curtailed so as to bring it back into the zone of reason. It said that Britain's deficit would climb to 90% of economic output – significantly higher than the 80% level the Treasury projected in its April Budget. In order to keep the UK economy in good health, it added, the Government should target "more ambitious" budget cut-backs once the recession is over.

Gordon Brown’s response to the OECD and others demanding austerity planning for the post-recession economy is a firm “no” followed by “maybe”. On Monday he announced a set of proposals for the remaining year of his term before he has to hold a general election. It shows he is committed to recycling – almost everything he announced has been announced before, in most cases just three months ago. The plan involves new commitments to social housing, new commitments to personal tutors for school students falling behind, preventive health checks, docking benefits, Lords reform. Nothing new. But cuts are already being made to the speed of growth of many government budgets and, after the election, the Labour Party indicates that it will make annual reductions in spending. Brown’s mantra is that “you cannot cut your way out a recession”. So he spends more than the country can afford.

David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, makes clear that there is both a need to rethink government and to reduce spending. Interestingly, polls released this week show that the British people are confident that Cameron would be a better manager of the economy and would deliver on his promise to reduce spending. No one appears to be listening any more to Gordon Brown. The challenge Cameron has is that the more explicit he is about what he would cut and how he intends to reinvent government, the more Brown and the Labour Party are able to promote the politics of fear.

Britain is in the pre-election season and the two party leaders are laying down the lines of attack. Brown will promote his record and fear, Cameron will document Brown’s record and counter the fear with an agenda of “real change”. The timing of the election, which has to be before early June 2010, will be just as the recession shows signs of ending, but before the end of the recession occurs. Unless something remarkable happens, the Labour Party will likely lose as the electorate is tired after twelve years of the same promises.

Some progress has been made in key social issues over the last twelve years, especially in terms of primary education and some aspects of health care, but Britain is in trouble. From transport to housing, from secondary schools to elder care, from policing to social services, problems abound. What the electorate appear to be looking for, according to in depth polling, is inspiration coupled with a sense of capability.

Brown no longer inspires and there are strong questions about his capabilities, especially following several botched attempts to respond to the MP expense scandal and the total failure to meet targets he himself set with respect to the climate change agenda. He is seen to dither, wobble and pander.

Cameron is a much more effective communicator, but is not inspirational. Many see him as a Blair like figure – effective with words, but duplicitous. He is untested with respect to competence and capability, though he has secured the benefit of the doubt from a portion of the electorate. He will find, when the election is called, that he has challenges convincing people that his deeds will match his words.

Cameron also has another problem. His front bench team have a habit of offering comments that run contrary to those made by the leader. Discipline is lacking, yet will be crucial. Every slip will be punced on and used as part of the “you can’t trust the Tories” fear tactic Labour will pursue.

It will be a nasty election – bitter arguments, partial truths masquerading as evidence and reality, new lows of debate. The victim will be the economy and the sense of the integrity of politics – already shaken to the core by expense scandals and the new concerns over the second jobs many MP’s have. It is a bleak time. It is likely to get worse before it gets better.

Environmental Protection Agency Supresses Risk Analysis

A review of the scientific evidence supporting the claims concerning anthropomorphic global warming has been undertaken by two senior policy members of the Environmental Protection Agency in the US, both concerned that the agency faces negligence charges for the willful refusal to look critically at the science. Despite their review, completed as part of the risk assessment for the agency, their work has been suppressed.

Here are their key conclusions:

• The earth has been cooling since 1997-8, with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation going negative in September 2007 and the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation in January 2009. This despite continued CO2 emissions.
• Atlantic hurricane behaviour is not seen, according to the current consensus view of hurricane specialists, to be linked to CO2 emissions but rather to patterns of hurricane behaviour seen over long periods of time and independent of increases in CO2 emissions – cyclones will be little different from the patterns seen in the past.
• The idea that the ice in Greenland will rapidly shed its ice has now been largely dismissed by scientists who study this particular ice shield.
• The recession, which has significantly reduced a range of economic activities and subsequently led to a reduction in the rate of growth of CO2 emissions, has not been factored into the analysis of climate change.
• A study which compares the proposal emanating from climate change models and actual data which focuses on the IPCC claim of a strongly positive feedback role for water vapour in the atmosphere is not supported by the actual data, which actually shows that the feedback role of water vapour is negative.
• The IPCC, according to several studies (but one meta-analysis in particular), uses faulty and incomplete solar data which in turn leads the IPCC to underestimate the impact of solar variability on global temperatures. The new research suggests that solar variability could account for more than 65% of the increases in the earth’s temperature prior to the current cooling period.

Their conclusions are twofold. The first is that there are no compelling reasons for the EPA to “rush” to regulate CO2 emissions. The second is that if the EPA does regulate emissions, as they now plan to do, the resultant legal challenges will open up the science and create risk for the organization which has insufficiently reviewed the science and has too readily accepted the IPCC AR4 report as “gospel” – even though it is already three years out of date. As specialists in risk assessment, they urge caution.

Palin for President?

The sad and sordid business of the Governor of South Carolina and his Argentinean mistress has done wonders for Sarah Palin’s complexion. She’s smiling and many republicans are miserable. Governor Mark Sanford, who resigned as Chair of the Republican Governors, was a real contender for the republican presidential nomination for 2012. Now he is out, leaving Palin in a stronger position.

As the conservative commentator David Frum observes, the republican party has a long history of turning to the person who finished second in the republican primaries during the previous season. They did so for McCain, Dole and GHW Bush and could well do so again for Mitt Romney. But Romney never achieved the profile, followership and sense of passion that Palin had when she ran as McCain’s Vice Presidential running mate. He’s smarter, but not as popular.

Palin is not exactly the great communicator in terms of comprehension, eloquence and clarity. But she speaks with passion and humour, seems to connect with a section of the working class and the republican party and speaks with a clear conservative voice. She is not well read or entrepreneurial in the same league as Romney, but she is a populist.

Palin also knows too little about too many things to win at this point – she has nothing to say about the financial regulatory regime needed to ensure that the financial meltdown does not repeat itself, she has no real foreign policy understanding and he views about many issues are just naïve. But the primaries are two years away and the election itself closer to three. There is time for her to develop a stanace of these issues and to learn her lines.

Palin against Obama would be a real test of liberal socialist thinking and right wing conservatism – a test that will change political rhetoric in American for some time. It will be fiery, abrasive and divisive.

Palin will have a lot to go after. By the time of the election, US debt will be close to fourteen trillion dollars and it will be clear that the Obama administration will not have a firm enough plan to tackle it. The government will be intruding in more and more aspects of people’s lives as a result of a raft of liberal legislation Obama, Pelosi and the democratic party have in mind. Climate change legislation will be having a negative impact on the economy as well as a significant impact on the energy bills of families. There will be no solution to the Middle East crisis and the US will still be in Afghanistan and involved in Iraq. While some changes to health care will have been made, they will fall short of the expectations Obama has allowed to build for this reform. Rather than “yes we can”, the republican’s will be chanting “was that it?”.

On the other side, Obama will have Palin the fumbler, Palin the public service reducer and Palin the wild-card on foreign policy. He will beat here on communication, but she will challenge him on his connection to real people and the real issues he cares about.

It will all come down to the two political machines and the extent to which they can leverage their candidates strength to get the vote out. Many democrats may think there is no real contest and may think the voting is all over before the voting starts – they would be mistaken. The machines have to work like a charm to get the vote committed and out.

What should worry Americans is both this choice and the question “who is behind Palin?”. If she does become the candidate – and we are two years away from knowing – she will need a strong running mate and an exceptionally smart backroom team. It will be this backroom team the US elects if she wins the Presidential election.
The worst thing the Obama team can do is wish Palin as the candidate and then take a victory for granted. She may be a loose cannon and nowhere near as strong an orator as Obama, but she has passion and build fierce loyalty. Many voters may well be disillusioned with Obama by 2012 – she will look so completely different from him that it may give a real option for voting.

All Palin needs now is for Romney to admit that he has a conservative conscience and a liberal sex life and she’d be home and dry as the nominee.

Getting Down to the Wire for Cap and Trade in the US

The US Climate Change bill, known as the Clean Energy and Security Act, will be voted on this week in Congress. It still looks doubtful that the democrats can secure the 218 votes necessary votes to pass the Bill, with some estimates that there are just 190 votes currently favouring the legislation. The legislation would require a 17 percent emissions reduction from 2005 levels by 2020, mandate electric utilities to meet 20% of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources by 2020, provide $90 billion for new investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, along with $60 billion for carbon capture and sequestration. Another key provision, termed "cap-and-trade," would require industries and manufacturers to cut carbon emissions by setting up a system where they could buy and sell pollution credits.

Republicans are concerned that cap and trade will be a regressive taxation that will negatively impact the economic recovery, lead to higher energy costs and increase the number experiencing energy poverty. Warren Buffet, who now advises President Obama on economic matters, agrees.

It also contains a set of measures which should be of significant concern to Canada in general and Alberta in particular. Buried within the Bill are provisions for a levy on goods imported into the US which come from a country which is not seeking to limit CO2 emissions, as judged by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The idea behind this is simple: once the US regulates greenhouse gases produced by US companies, those companies won't be struggling to compete with foreign companies that have no such restrictions imposed on them.

The target of this provision within the legislation is China and India and it can be seen as part of the US bargaining position for the Copenhagen climate change negotiations to be held in December. China is already suggesting that this is an opening protectionist move which will trigger a trade war. It is also in breech, in China’s view, of the World Trade Organizations regulations.

Canada could be affected if our CO2 emissions regulations, which focus on intensity targets rather than absolute emissions, are deemed by the US to be inadequate when compared to their own measures. The target here would be oil from Alberta’s oil sands – so-called “dirty oil”.

As the US debates this Bill, there are interesting developments in Australia. They are, according to one report, proceeding at a Koala’s pace. The Australian Senate looks likely to reject its own version of cap and trade. This follows the Prime Minister Rudd’s announcement that, even if the cap and trade scheme passes the Senate, its introduction will be delayed by a year. On June 4, this delayed emission trading scheme passed the House of Representatives despite a solid vote against it by the opposition. But it now faces certain defeat in the Australian Senate. Whereas the Labor government controls 32 votes in the Senate, the opposition Liberal-National coalition controls 37 and is committed to vote against it if the Rudd government will not grant more time to consider the outcome of the Copenhagen climate conference in December and US Senate deliberations. Many of the coalition parliamentarians now want to vote unconditionally against an ETS in any form.

A key factor in the Australian context is the widespread public skepticism about the science of climate change. A new book, written by the experienced climatologist Ian Plimer, is having a major impact. Heaven and Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science has caused several former cap and trade supporters to shift their views and has lead some leading journalist to recant their hitherto strong support of carbon sequestration and cap and trade. The book simply points to the absence of convincing scientific data, based on observations and measurements, that manmade CO2 is a primary contributing factor to climate change. It also offers a compelling critique of computer climate simulations – the basis of most of the global warming “science” that now informs policy. The book is in its fifth printing after just a month of publication. It is pushing others to “come out of the closet” and make their voice heard, which in turn is influencing the politicians faced with a crucial vote.
The developments in the US and Australia are all preludes to the Copenhagen conference to be held in December. Aimed at developing a new global agreement on climate change to replace the Kyoto accord, governments are positioning and maneuvering. It is not a pretty sight. What is becoming clear is that the campaigners seeking strong, tough measures to “save the planet” are losing ground to economic realists and to those who simply do not accept the simplistic “manmade” view of climate change.

The US vote this week, if it fails, will derail the Copenhagen talks. If it passes, it will make clear that the climate change agenda is as much about economic protectionism as about the climate. Either way, it will make agreement in Copenhagen more difficult to achieve – something evident from the several meetings that have taken place already in preparation for the December meetings. We are in for a stormy political summer.

All Day Kindergarten Not Necessarily a Good Thing...

Dalton McGuinty, Ontario's Premier, is so convinced that early childhood education and “sure start” is critical to the fight against illiteracy, poverty and a failing economy, that he has pledged substantial amounts of money to the expansion of kindergarten to every four- and five-year-old in the province. Ultimately, the idea is to create a “seamless” merger of child care and early childhood education, with elementary schools acting as year-round hubs for children from birth to age 12.

On the face of it, this may appear sound. After all, there would appear to be compelling evidence that children can be taught basic reading and writing and math skills early and that their lifelong social and intellectual development is shaped by learning that occurs before the age of five.

But the so-called compelling evidence is in fact more complex. Early childhood education appears to be of marginal value, in educational and social development terms, to middle and upper class children. Their home environment, parental support and level of education and the presence of books and nutrition in the home all aid their effective intellectual and social development, even when both parents work.

Where early intervention is most needed is amongst the poor, especially aboriginal children whose parents are unable to support their social and intellectual development in the same way as their middle class counterparts and where nutrition and health are also problematic. Basic and standardized interventions, like all day kindergarten, have little sustaining value. What appears to be needed are customized interventions over a considerable period of time on a per family basis. While such interventions may include all day kindergarten, this in itself is not likely to produce the results which McGuinty and his advisors anticipate.

The evidence of Head Start in the US, which is only a partial comparison to what McGuinty is proposing, is that the benefits of early childhood educational interventions dissipate over time – the effects don’t last long. SureStart, a scheme being adopted in the UK, begins a randomized control trial this month in Derbyshire and it will be interesting to review a longitudinal study of these children over the next fifteen years. But right now, the evidence appears thin that this kind of intervention can make a significant difference to a generation of children.

At the same time, McGuinty is committed to a substantial poverty elimination strategy, to hiring 8,000 nurses to new positions and spending a significant stimulus fund to boost the Ontario economy and provide support to a failing manufacturing sector. Ontario – a “have not Province” receiving transfer payments from the Federal government – is big on ideas. Now they have to find the cash to pay for this, which means both higher taxes and cuts in other services.

So the all day kindergarten becomes a question of trade off’s. Is this more important than, say, the 8,000 nurses or the continued investment in university research? Will it produce such strong social benefits – lower crime rates, higher levels of literacy, more employable individuals in 2030 than in 2010? – to justify the costs? These economic and social benefit assumptions have not been made available for review, but it doubtful that they will show a compelling case for action. Also not available is a full and detailed life-time costing of the all day kindergarten scheme in its entirety, nor is there a risk assessment of the impact of such a scheme on other services, such as health and social services.

We Need a Strong Public Service

Public servants are challenged. Over the last twenty years, especially in Alberta, there has been a shift from a public service which is focused on the public good, giving independent advice to government and using evidence to support their thinking to a more politicized public service which sees the work of the government as the public good and focus their advice on delivering to Ministerial expectations. Its not good.

The shift is evident in the anxiety and fear that many young public servants feel. If they give advice which is evidence based and thorough and in the public good, but is contrary to the initial desires and expectations of Ministers, rather than being thanked, they are made to feel inadequate and unhelpful. This leads to a degree of fear about their future and anxiety about promotion and career development. It also leads to advice and evidence being developed which they know meets the initial thinking of Ministers and excludes other, often “better” options. Of course, at some stage in the to and fro between Ministers and the public service, the service has to deliver the advice and support the decision of the Minister requires, but only after a dialogue about options.

This shift, which is a constant topic of conversation amongst public servants, results from four developments. The first is the disdain some politicians have for professional public servants. Ralph Klein, for example, was dismissive of many of those at a senior level who advised him or his Ministers and said so. After he had cut 2,500 public service jobs he once quipped “no one will notice that they have gone”.

Second, bonus schemes provide many public servants up to thirty per cent of their salaries. Bonus schemes at this level require a high degree of “fit” and “compliance” with the dominant ideology of a branch or division. Where this is “do what you’re told” and “please the Minister” then this is what occurs. While not all schemes across Canada have this character, the public servants see “play ball, get the cash” as a growing incentive to tow the line.

Third, there has been a lack of investment in the training and development of public servants and in the information support services they need to mine information to provide quality evidence based decisions. Significant decisions on, for example, how best to invest research and innovation funds at the Federal and Provincial level are generally based on scant information. Health care investment decisions are also based on some, but limited evidence.

Finally, governments have persuaded themselves that there is no substantial difference between the governments’ interests and public interest. In Alberta, for example, where one form or other of a conservative government has been in power for so long that many can’t remember what an alternative might look like, this is an especial problem. It shows itself most powerfully in health care where the governments’ interest in reform does not appear to be aligned with the public interest in understanding health care sustainability from a service, not a cost, perspective.

Senior public servants are, relatively, well paid when all aspects of their compensation are taken into account. More junior public servants, especially entry level staff, are not. Attracting and retaining talented people and nourishing them to be independent thinkers, developing their analytic and process skills and equipping them with the self-confidence to stand up to politicians and make their case, before then making the decisions made by the politicians work is getting more difficult. This at a time when many government departments will be losing baby boomers to retirement and seeking to rethink how they do their work.

We are also entering an era of significant cuts to public services. Paying down the debts incurred as a result of “stimulus” and fiscal easing and managing our way out of deficit budgeting will require a refocusing of public services, staff reductions and budget reductions. Tough times all round. This is a time for bold thinking and we should look to the public service to offer that thinking. But they will be focused on job protection and will be even more fearful now about their future than they were just a year ago. We can anticipate early retirement schemes, wholesale job cuts and many smart people leaving the public service for richer pastures.

It is time for a renewal of the “public” side of public service, a strong focus on evidence based decisions, more transparency in government and clearer demarcation of the advice leading to a decision from the task of implementing a decision once made. It is time for the public service to be encouraged to strengthen their commitment to independent advice and evidence based decisions and for politicians to show the respect the professional public service deserves.

Cuts - Get Used to It

The next set of political challenges will be simple: which political party can reduce public expenditure and reduce the role of government while doing the least damage to education, health and services to the elderly.

The reason is simple: all national governments in the developed world are now burdened with debt as a result of their “stimulus” spending and years of expenditure growth. Canada’s deficit, for example, is currently estimated at between $50billion and $100billion. Britain’s debt, by 2011, will be 100% of GDP. The US debt is so large as to threaten the stability of the world’s financial system - its around $10 trillion and growing by billions a day. There is a danger that the agencies which rate the financial stability of nations – the bond rating agencies – may start to downgrade several countries, including Britain and the US.

In Britain, the “cuts” debate has already started. The embattled Gordon Brown, giving a new lease on power due to a spineless Labour party, is talking about his strategy of spending more and contrasting this with the Conservative party’s strategy of cutting public spending. Yet his own 2009 budget promises cuts of substance, including almost immediate cuts in real terms to health care, starting in 2011. Independent financial analysis suggests that the cuts will be in the order of 5% each year for six to eight years.

Obama, while campaigning for increased public spending on health care, is also talking about increasing efficiency and eliminating waste (terms that are a code for cuts) so as to halve the deficit by the end of his first term.

The real challenge here is only partly about finances. More importantly, it is about the place of government in twenty first century society. The key question, in each area of life, is do we need to be doing this work at all? If we do need to do it, then we should ask can it be done as well (or better) by someone other than government at a similar or lower cost? If the answer is yes, then change is needed. If the answer is no, the next question is how can government do this outstandingly well at the least lifetime cost of service?

If we are not careful, the debate about cuts will get in the way of the debate about the appropriate role of government. In Canada, we see this most in the debate about healthcare. The “friends of medicare”, for example, do not accept that the current Canadian system is unsustainable and unaffordable, despite strong evidence to the contrary. They want governments to spend more, not less and they see no role of substance for the private sector. For them, this is not a matter for debate.
Climate change campaigners also see regulation and government enforcement, including significant and substantial subsidies and increased public presence in many areas of our lives, as absolute pre-requisites for the shift to a low carbon economy which, they insist (despite scientific evidence to the contrary), will “combat climate change”. More spending. Anyone who does not support this view is a “denier” who puts the planet in peril.

Education is another area which is seen by many as “hallowed” ground, despite evidence that spending more makes little difference to pupil performance and has no impact on productivity.

What is needed are informed options which are independent of political parties and based on best practice analysis from around the world. Put the options on the table, cost them and provide a basis for evaluating them and then let us begin the debate. How political parties chose to mix and max the options will tell us a lot about their beliefs, values and strategy.

We should also not believe any politician who suggests that government spending will not be cut, even for health or education. Look at real spending, not forecast figures, and watch them stabilize and shrink in real terms. Its going to get tough. Get used to it.

The End of Consensus Science

On June 4^th, the US House of Representatives received a petition signed by 31,478 scientists. It asks congress to reject the current orthodoxy with respect to global warming, the greenhouse effect and climate change. Here is the text:

``We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.''

Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality. So much for the IPCC’s so called “scientific consensus”.

Climate Change Talks in Trouble

The purpose of the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in December is to agree on a multi-national deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which has no targets for emissions reductions beyond 2012. Climate change activists are looking to Copenhagen, encouraged by the newly minted US strategy, to begin a process of rapid de-carbonization of the global economy. It is not likely to happen.

First, as recent talks in Bonn make clear, some key rich countries – especially Canada and Japan – are unwilling to commit to specific legally binding targets. They want to see what the developing countries will do before making their commitments.

Second, the developing countries are asking for substantial commitments both of emissions reductions and financial support from more developed countries. The rich countries balk at the financial transfer sums involved and the poorer countries are demanding tougher targets than the rich countries are willing to offer.

Third, the US position is very soft. The greatly watered down “cap and trade” scheme for carbon reduction will not lead to significant emissions reductions but will lead to heavily subsidized green industries and increased energy costs. Economic pain with no carbon gain is likely to cause political fallout from both green campaigners worried that the US will not honour its commitments and from business who think that the costs of the Copenhagen compromise will be too high.

Fourth, to achieve a commitment of holding climate change to an increase of no more than 2 degrees Celsius will be very aggressive carbon emission reduction targets – far more aggressive than any country has yet committed to. With the US offering little – just 4-7% below 1990 levels by 2020 and Japan, Canada, China and India being reluctant to set targets, the earths climate will continue to experience the greenhouse effect.

Fifth, apart from the political issues, the logistics of lowering carbon emissions aggressively by some 4-5% per cent per annum for a considerable number of years and the economic fall-out of industry disruption such change will cause, there is the difficult problem of the data. The observed climate data, as opposed to the data produced by the twenty three climate change models tracked by the UN, is showing no evidence of warming and in fact the earth looks to be cooling, following a prolonged period of low sunspot activity and changes in cloud formation, wind patterns and ocean currents. Those who look at the evidence believe that a twenty five to thirty year cooling period is likely. The evidence for this is mounting, just at the time when the warming argument is important for policy makers – they now rely on models rather than evidence for their rationale for changing how the world’s economy functions.

Finally, as Kyoto has shown, talk is cheap. Action is more difficult. Few of the countries who signed up to Kyoto have or will achieve the targets set by that legally binding agreement. Even fewer know how to reach the substantial targets they have set for 2020, which is just over a decade away. Countries like Britain, France, Ireland and Germany which have strong targets are also suffering from severe economic challenges, some of which will persist for a considerable number of years. Changing how business is done over a period of economic recovery is likely to slow that recovery.

Independent observers watching the negotiations leading up to Copenhagen are not optimistic of a breakthrough deal being reached in Copenhagen. Compromise, back-sliding and double-speak – the kind of thing seen at the April G20 summit – will be the hallmark of the December meeting. For those who believe that the planet is imperiled, they will be deeply disappointed. Their warnings and arguments will be shrill, stark and largely emotional. For those who do not accept the basic premise of this meeting – that wise words and limited actions can change the patterns of nature – they will be relieved that the more radical emissions reduction targets and strategies are unlikely to form a part of the conversation. No one will be happy.

We can expect some of the scientists, especially those for whom the line between social action and science has become blurred, to become more and more aggressive in their “use” of evidence to support a case for radical change. We should be cautious about climate change scientific assertions in the lead up to Copenhagen. We should also be cautious about the pious declarations of politicians – deeds speak louder than words.

King Cnut tried to command the tide of the river in Britain to prove to his courtiers that they were fools to think that he could command the waves. His point was that nature commands the oceans and climate. He is purported to have said "Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws."

Our impact on the climate is, if anything, modest. It is possible that a very modest outcome from Copenhagen summit in December will meet the political need to be seen to act and the economic need to act slightly. While some will claim that the sky is falling, many will breathe a sigh of relief that compromise and back-sliding may actually lead to common sense.

More People Now Believe Elvis is Alive Than Support Labour

Gordon Brown has had a terrible week-end. Apart from giving a good, solid speech at the D-Day ceremony in Normandy, where he was overshadowed by a powerful and evocative peroration by Barrack Obama, the plot to oust him continues, with the plotters emboldened by terrible election results for Brown’s governing Labour party.

In the municipal elections, the Labour Party lost some 284 seats and lost control of four municipal councils it had held prior to the election. Any map of the local election results shows strong conservative gains – they won 241 seats in total and gained control of ten councils, taking the number under their control to 30 with the Liberal Democrats gaining control of the City of Bristol.

In the European elections, Labour came third behind the Conservatives and the UK Independent Party (UKIP)– with Labour’s share of the poll down by 9% on the last European election results. Of the 69 seats available in the European Parliament for Britain (excluding Northern Ireland), Labour has won 13. Worse, the racist neo-fascist party, the British Nationalist Party (BNP), has won two seats despite an active campaign by all established political parties and Church leaders – a win that relied on disaffected Labour voters shifting to the far right. The BNP seats are in the traditional Labour area of Manchester, Yorkshire and Humberside. Even in Wales, a Labour heartland, the Conservative topped the polls. Less than 6% of eligible voters voted Labour – more people believe that Elvis is still alive. None of this is good for Labour and all of it is bad for Gordon Brown.

On Friday, Brown reshuffled his cabinet and left in place his expense scarred Chancellor and brought back into government Peter Hain, who left his position as Secretary of State over a sleight of hand in his election expenses. Adding four Ministers from outside parliament who will go to the House of Lords and serve from there, the reshuffle has failed to calm the anxieties within the Labour Party. Now the reshuffle of junior Ministers – those outside cabinet begins – and already there are resignations. The plotters continue to work to oust Brown as quickly as possible.

The plotters have found a new ally – Lord Falconer, a former Blair cabinet Minister, who has suggested that a leadership review would be appropriate. He said, during a television interview, speaking about the Labour party, that “we need unity above all. Can we get unity under the current leadership? I don't think so. The only way it can be achieved is a change of leader.” While he has a certain cache amongst the intellectual members of the Labour Party, he is not sufficiently placed to do to Brown what Geoffrey Howe did to Thatcher – he will not be the one to bring Brown down.

Former Brown cabinet Ministers, especially Hazel Blears and Caroline Flint, are planning a major assault on Brown’s leadership, focusing on both policy issues and also his inability to manage and work with others. Caroline Flint has already made clear that Brown finds it especially difficult to work with women. Leaked emails from Lord Mandelson, one of Brown’s newly strengthened cabinet Ministers, make clear that Mandelson sees Brown as both insecure and “angry”. Backbenchers continue to be asked to sign up to a no confidence letter to Brown – some now beginning to demand a leadership review. The discontent is palpable, the disillusionment is growing and the despair over the potential of a landslide Conservative victory when Britain finally has a general election is real.

Brown has played his major card – the reshuffle of his cabinet and changed in non Cabinet Ministerial appointments. What will follow, as he made clear in his press conference on Friday, is a clear and sharp agenda for change and a platform for Labour’s election manifesto. It will not be enough. The electorate is sending clear and unequivocal messages to the party and Brown is refusing to hear them. More of the same, with the face and voice of the message changing only slightly, will not be enough to save Brown from the anger of the people. He is finished, knows it, but refuses to accept it.

It is not, however, a time for David Cameron to gloat. The leader of the Conservative Party has to be very careful. Brown laid out a challenge to him on Friday by repeating his mantra “you cannot cut your way out of a recession”. This despite the fact that his own Government’s budget makes clear that there will be significant and substantial cuts in public spending from 2011 onwards – after the general election. Brown wants to push Cameron into a spend versus cuts campaign, when in fact both parties will have to cut public spending deeply to get Britain back on track.

British politics is frenzied and dangerous right now. Frenzied if you are trying to follow it – so many twist and turns. Dangerous if you are in the midst of it. None of these shenanigans are helping the work of government and it is this that the electorate cares about.