The Rethink Alberta campaign is clearly having an impact in the media and is helping organizations raise funds to continue their campaigning against the oil sands and in favour of a specific social and political agenda for the twenty first century. While there is no real impact likely on tourism – a similar campaign to boycott the Maritimes on the basis of seal-hunting actually had so little impact that tourism numbers in the Maritimes have grown significantly – they do bring out the environmentalist in large numbers.
The campaigning is very smart. It uses images and messaging which are emotional and controversial – oil coated ducks. Facts are presented as “truths”, even though they are incomplete and not subject to a systematic review by peers. While some are extracted from peer reviewed materials, they do not reflect a comprehensive review of the total situation – for example, in-situ extraction of bitumen does not use water from the Athabasca River and does not produce tailings ponds, only certain processes do. Pictures of reclaimed tailings ponds, such as those from the Syncrude operation, are not shown.
But this campaign cannot be countered by facts or “better” public relations. The Government of Alberta’s budget of $25-$30 million for public relations to improve the understanding of the oil sands world-wide may change a few minds, but is unlikely to counter the powerful images of oil coated ducks or pelicans or open cast mines. The Government of Alberta cannot win a public relations battle with the funds available to it – the environmental lobby has deeper pockets for this kind of work.
The only response – and this was the strategy adopted by other sectors facing environmental challenges – is action. Alberta oil companies and the Government of Alberta needs to make explicit commitments to changing how the industry operates over the next twenty five years so as to change the debate from its current winner or looser game to a win-win for all concerned.
What does this require? Three things, all of which are already happening. The first is the close cooperation of the leading oil sands companies with the intention of resolving these environmental challenges over time in effective and powerful ways. Some time ago five of the leading companies working in the oil sands created a cooperative network known as the Oil Sands Leadership Initiative (OSLI). They are working together to reduce the environmental footprint of the combined oil sands operations, reduce water use, reduce CO2 emissions and ensure air quality. This group also has teams working to reclaim the tailings ponds. While it is early days, OSLI can already point to some success.
The second action that is needed is for the relationship between government and the oil sands companies to become focused on balancing the economic value of the oil sands with the responsibility the government has, as managers of the resource on our behalf, for environmental stewardship. The Land Use Framework, now in place thanks to the work of the former Minister of Sustainable Resource Development, Ted Morton, has kick started the systematic approach to regional land use and will make explicit the strategy for remediation and reclamation for the oil sands regions. We already can see that this plan will set aside land which can only be used for recreation – some twenty per cent of the land in the Fort McMurray region.
The third action is to accelerate investments in environmental technologies which reduce water use, speed up reclamation and remediation (including of the tailings ponds) and, over time, green the oil so that it can meet the standards set by legislation in the US for well-to-wheel emissions and environmental impacts. Significant investments by Alberta Innovates Energy and Environment, Climate Change and Emissions Management Corporation of Alberta, Natural Resources Canada and other organizations are already having an impact.
Related actions are also needed. A new relationships with First Nations Communities based on shared and agreed information and an agreed vision for the future would help. Ready access to reliable, independent information about what is actually happening through the Oil Sands Research and Information Network would help journalists and citizens have access to verified information. Full disclosure of sources of funding for environmental groups campaigning against the oil sands may also create greater transparency.
The best way to counter Rethink Alberta is to demonstrate by deeds that this is exactly what is happening. We are rethinking Alberta – its just that many are unaware that we are doing so, or that they are more interested in campaigning than actually making a difference.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
What a Difference a Year Makes - Environmentalism in 2010
What a difference a year makes. This time last year the environmental movement was gearing up for a major breakthrough at the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit. With a combination of “doom and gloom” soothsayers – Ban ki Moon, Al Gore, Prince Charles, James Hansen, David Suzuki – and optimistic negotiators, it was clear that Copenhagen was being positioned as “the last chance” we had to save the planet but there was optimism that we might just do it. We know what happened. Polluters couldn’t agree with the small islands and the developing world and the negotiations fell apart, with a compromise “lets look as if we might save the planet” deal being signed off by a few countries at the end of a tough ten days of negotiation.
Since then the environmental movement appears to have gone through a period of loss – grieving the loss of an ideal, finding a new reality in the prospect of additional talks in 2010 culminating in a new global climate change negotiation in Brazil in December, and then realizing that the game is up. There will not be a meaningful commitment to climate change mitigation which involves all of the leading polluters, especially the US, China, India and Canada. What is more, the general public in Canada, the US and Britain are all signalling that climate change is less of a priority for them now as it was five years ago.
Just as the language has gone through significant change – from “global warming” through “climate change” and “climate catastrophe” to the “climate challenge” – so now the environmental movement is going through a change. According to The Guardian (UK), “the economic case for global action to stop the destruction of the natural world is even more powerful than the argument for tackling climate change, a major report for the United Nations will declare this summer” – a fact reinforced by the psychological, social and economic impacts of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
One reason for this shift is money. Groups such as Conservation International (CI) and the Nature Conservancy (TNC) are among the most trusted environmental "brands" in the world, pledged to protect and defend nature. Yet many of the green organisations meant to be leading the fight are busy securing funds from those who are also destroying the environmental through mining and exploration. Sierra Club – the biggest green group in the US – was approached in 2008 by the makers of Clorox bleach, who said that if the club endorsed their new range of "green" household cleaners, they would give it a percentage of the sales. The club's Corporate Accountability Committee said the deal created a blatant conflict of interest – but took it anyway. Money talks. Right now the money is saying that biodiversity and environmental impacts of pollution, deforestation, land use changes and other matters are more important than climate change.
A second reason is public opinion. The public are disaffected by all the talk about the need for a response to climate change and both the lack of action and the costs of the actions that need to be taken. In the UK, where energy rationing over the next decade is a real possibility due to the now defeated governments dithering on environmental policy, many are now balking at the rising costs of energy and the ugliness of the countryside blighted by wind turbines. In the US, public support for action on climate change is down from 46% of the population to 36% in just one year. Environmental groups no longer enjoy the wide support of the people when they focus on climate change.
A third reason is political reality. Climate change as a policy strategy in the US and Canada is stuck and likely to be so for some time. The US Senate has the Kerry-Lieberman bill to debate, but it is unlikely to pass. Canada has indicated it will follow the US lead to create a single north American strategy, so Canada is also unlikely to do anything until the US passes appropriate legislation. However, major changes are taking place with respect to conservation, water, land use and air quality on both side of the US-Canada divide and serious attention to conservation and clean-up can be expected on both sides of the border following the BP spill. Environmental groups are already gearing up to lobby on these issues, dusting off old policies and approaches from the early 1990’s. Both the US and Canada are more likely to enact legislation on these issues than on transformative changes required to “stop” climate change.
The final reason that the environmental groups are shifting ground is that the science of climate change remains problematic. While some would argue that the core science demonstrating that the climate is changing and that this is due largely to the actions of people remains unchanged, the sceptics have gained sufficient ground over the last year to plant large trees of doubt. Worse, data from real world observations (as opposed to data from climate change models) provide opportunities for varying interpretations of the current state of the planet. The science is becoming a tough sell.
For all these reasons, the environmentalist will now focus more and more on environmental degradation and clean-up than on climate change – deforestation, water and land use will be the new focus for their work. Not a bad thing either.
Since then the environmental movement appears to have gone through a period of loss – grieving the loss of an ideal, finding a new reality in the prospect of additional talks in 2010 culminating in a new global climate change negotiation in Brazil in December, and then realizing that the game is up. There will not be a meaningful commitment to climate change mitigation which involves all of the leading polluters, especially the US, China, India and Canada. What is more, the general public in Canada, the US and Britain are all signalling that climate change is less of a priority for them now as it was five years ago.
Just as the language has gone through significant change – from “global warming” through “climate change” and “climate catastrophe” to the “climate challenge” – so now the environmental movement is going through a change. According to The Guardian (UK), “the economic case for global action to stop the destruction of the natural world is even more powerful than the argument for tackling climate change, a major report for the United Nations will declare this summer” – a fact reinforced by the psychological, social and economic impacts of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
One reason for this shift is money. Groups such as Conservation International (CI) and the Nature Conservancy (TNC) are among the most trusted environmental "brands" in the world, pledged to protect and defend nature. Yet many of the green organisations meant to be leading the fight are busy securing funds from those who are also destroying the environmental through mining and exploration. Sierra Club – the biggest green group in the US – was approached in 2008 by the makers of Clorox bleach, who said that if the club endorsed their new range of "green" household cleaners, they would give it a percentage of the sales. The club's Corporate Accountability Committee said the deal created a blatant conflict of interest – but took it anyway. Money talks. Right now the money is saying that biodiversity and environmental impacts of pollution, deforestation, land use changes and other matters are more important than climate change.
A second reason is public opinion. The public are disaffected by all the talk about the need for a response to climate change and both the lack of action and the costs of the actions that need to be taken. In the UK, where energy rationing over the next decade is a real possibility due to the now defeated governments dithering on environmental policy, many are now balking at the rising costs of energy and the ugliness of the countryside blighted by wind turbines. In the US, public support for action on climate change is down from 46% of the population to 36% in just one year. Environmental groups no longer enjoy the wide support of the people when they focus on climate change.
A third reason is political reality. Climate change as a policy strategy in the US and Canada is stuck and likely to be so for some time. The US Senate has the Kerry-Lieberman bill to debate, but it is unlikely to pass. Canada has indicated it will follow the US lead to create a single north American strategy, so Canada is also unlikely to do anything until the US passes appropriate legislation. However, major changes are taking place with respect to conservation, water, land use and air quality on both side of the US-Canada divide and serious attention to conservation and clean-up can be expected on both sides of the border following the BP spill. Environmental groups are already gearing up to lobby on these issues, dusting off old policies and approaches from the early 1990’s. Both the US and Canada are more likely to enact legislation on these issues than on transformative changes required to “stop” climate change.
The final reason that the environmental groups are shifting ground is that the science of climate change remains problematic. While some would argue that the core science demonstrating that the climate is changing and that this is due largely to the actions of people remains unchanged, the sceptics have gained sufficient ground over the last year to plant large trees of doubt. Worse, data from real world observations (as opposed to data from climate change models) provide opportunities for varying interpretations of the current state of the planet. The science is becoming a tough sell.
For all these reasons, the environmentalist will now focus more and more on environmental degradation and clean-up than on climate change – deforestation, water and land use will be the new focus for their work. Not a bad thing either.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Making Green Oil Happen
Alberta’s oil sands are the world’s largest energy project, with $200 billion in funds committed from the world’s leading oil producers, including BP, ExxonMobil and Shell. The lifetime value of the oil locked in the bitumen around Fort McMurray is $17.5 trillion. The companies currently produce 1.3 million barrels a day and their strategic intent is to triple this production over the next decade.
A recent report, written by Ceres - a coalition of investors, environmental groups and public interest groups working with companies to address sustainability challenges such as climate change – and widely publicized around the world, suggests that the oil sands risk assessment is such that the potential profitable of the oil extracted from the oil sands will decline over time unless the environmental issues associated with its extraction are addressed. These issues include increasing C02 emissions, water use, tailings ponds, land reclamation, biodiversity, the state of the Athabasca river and its watershed and biodiversity impacts.
One key issue, dramatized by the death of over 1,500 ducks, is the tailing ponds – already so large that they cover an area equivalent to Washington DC (US) and require the world’s second largest damn to prevent leakage into the water system. The Government of Alberta, which issued Directive 74, is now requiring the oil companies to speed up their restoration of the tailings ponds and solve this problem once and for all. A related problem is water. It takes approximately twelve barrels of water to extract one barrel of oil, but eight of these barrels of water can be recycled in the process, leaving four to be “lost” to production or become part of the tailings ponds. If the current use continues to grow at the current rate, then the oil sands companies could be at the limit of their water quota’s by 2014, causing production to be delayed, slowed or postponed. These represent real financial risks to the industry, but also call upon the managers of the resource (the Government of Alberta) to act on behalf of the owners of the resource (the people of Alberta) to engage in effective stewardship.
But what should be done? What does a greening of the oil sands and a mitigation of these real industry risks look like?
The first step is to put a realistic price on CO2 emissions and provide for a trading scheme which will permit emitters to buy time while they find appropriate technological solutions to the emissions challenge. When the industry came together two years ago to look at the value chain for oil from the oil sands, it was clear that this price needs to be set at around $40 - $70 a tonne of CO2, which will be enough of a penalty to drive innovation. If CO2 is allowed simply to float on the market like any other commodity, it could sell for below the current Alberta penalty price of $15 a tonne (it has been as low as $13 on the European CTS market).
The second step is to invest heavily in research and development on oil sands technologies which will green the oil sands. The Government of Alberta might want to look at recreating AOSTRA – a public private R&D partnership which had access to significant public:private funds so that key challenges in the sector could be overcome. Its time for the industry and government to enter into a real partnership to leapfrog past the current “tit for tat” politics of green energy and get to grips with the problem in a serious way. A $1 billion fund for R&D against a clear plan of action would send a powerful signal to firms, investors and the public that we are serious about green oil.
As part of this R&D work, the Government of Alberta should create an X Prize (called the Alberta Challenge) to see if somewhere in the world there is a method for extracting oil from bitumen in a way that halves water use. The X Prize is a method of setting a real issue in front of the world, creating specifications for the solution and standing back waiting for solutions to emerge. A prize of $25 million would be a small price to pay for a new approach to extraction and this approach has produced results in the past.
The third step is to use the power of regulation to stimulate development. Shell has asked for this and many other companies are making the point that they require tough Government regulations so that they can legitimately expend investors capital on meeting these regulatory requirements. Directive 74, the land use framework, Water for Life strategy and other measures are all steps in the right direction, but much more needs to be done to demonstrate that the Government is on top of its stewardship responsibilities.
The final step involves transparency – publishing performance data on an independent website, such as that being developed by the Oil Sands Research and Information Network (OSRIN) at the University of Alberta. Seeing what each mining site is doing to reduce CO2 emissions, water use, improving air quality, land restoration, tailings and biodiversity would be an important part of any strategy to green the oil sands.
Until we demonstrate to the world that Alberta is leapfrogging past the current issues and challenges and creating a new industry – how to make dirty oil green – then we will continue to be challenged in the courts, legislatures, investor community and shareholder groups around the world. The “green” issue will not go away – in fact, it is a massive opportunity to diversify the Alberta economy and we should be really pushing the managers of our resource to make green oil happen now.
A recent report, written by Ceres - a coalition of investors, environmental groups and public interest groups working with companies to address sustainability challenges such as climate change – and widely publicized around the world, suggests that the oil sands risk assessment is such that the potential profitable of the oil extracted from the oil sands will decline over time unless the environmental issues associated with its extraction are addressed. These issues include increasing C02 emissions, water use, tailings ponds, land reclamation, biodiversity, the state of the Athabasca river and its watershed and biodiversity impacts.
One key issue, dramatized by the death of over 1,500 ducks, is the tailing ponds – already so large that they cover an area equivalent to Washington DC (US) and require the world’s second largest damn to prevent leakage into the water system. The Government of Alberta, which issued Directive 74, is now requiring the oil companies to speed up their restoration of the tailings ponds and solve this problem once and for all. A related problem is water. It takes approximately twelve barrels of water to extract one barrel of oil, but eight of these barrels of water can be recycled in the process, leaving four to be “lost” to production or become part of the tailings ponds. If the current use continues to grow at the current rate, then the oil sands companies could be at the limit of their water quota’s by 2014, causing production to be delayed, slowed or postponed. These represent real financial risks to the industry, but also call upon the managers of the resource (the Government of Alberta) to act on behalf of the owners of the resource (the people of Alberta) to engage in effective stewardship.
But what should be done? What does a greening of the oil sands and a mitigation of these real industry risks look like?
The first step is to put a realistic price on CO2 emissions and provide for a trading scheme which will permit emitters to buy time while they find appropriate technological solutions to the emissions challenge. When the industry came together two years ago to look at the value chain for oil from the oil sands, it was clear that this price needs to be set at around $40 - $70 a tonne of CO2, which will be enough of a penalty to drive innovation. If CO2 is allowed simply to float on the market like any other commodity, it could sell for below the current Alberta penalty price of $15 a tonne (it has been as low as $13 on the European CTS market).
The second step is to invest heavily in research and development on oil sands technologies which will green the oil sands. The Government of Alberta might want to look at recreating AOSTRA – a public private R&D partnership which had access to significant public:private funds so that key challenges in the sector could be overcome. Its time for the industry and government to enter into a real partnership to leapfrog past the current “tit for tat” politics of green energy and get to grips with the problem in a serious way. A $1 billion fund for R&D against a clear plan of action would send a powerful signal to firms, investors and the public that we are serious about green oil.
As part of this R&D work, the Government of Alberta should create an X Prize (called the Alberta Challenge) to see if somewhere in the world there is a method for extracting oil from bitumen in a way that halves water use. The X Prize is a method of setting a real issue in front of the world, creating specifications for the solution and standing back waiting for solutions to emerge. A prize of $25 million would be a small price to pay for a new approach to extraction and this approach has produced results in the past.
The third step is to use the power of regulation to stimulate development. Shell has asked for this and many other companies are making the point that they require tough Government regulations so that they can legitimately expend investors capital on meeting these regulatory requirements. Directive 74, the land use framework, Water for Life strategy and other measures are all steps in the right direction, but much more needs to be done to demonstrate that the Government is on top of its stewardship responsibilities.
The final step involves transparency – publishing performance data on an independent website, such as that being developed by the Oil Sands Research and Information Network (OSRIN) at the University of Alberta. Seeing what each mining site is doing to reduce CO2 emissions, water use, improving air quality, land restoration, tailings and biodiversity would be an important part of any strategy to green the oil sands.
Until we demonstrate to the world that Alberta is leapfrogging past the current issues and challenges and creating a new industry – how to make dirty oil green – then we will continue to be challenged in the courts, legislatures, investor community and shareholder groups around the world. The “green” issue will not go away – in fact, it is a massive opportunity to diversify the Alberta economy and we should be really pushing the managers of our resource to make green oil happen now.
A Green Future for Canada?
Britain’s continuing challenge to supply energy to its people over the coming twenty five years provides an interesting backcloth to the debates about the environment, energy and climate change.
Here is the challenge: energy demand in Britain will soon outstrip energy supply. There are several reasons for this, but one is that several coal fired power plants cannot meet CO2 emissions target and remain profitable, so they will close. Another is that, for ideological reasons, the Government of Britain has not invested in nuclear energy but instead placed most of its bets on wind power and hydro power, neither of which can come on stream fast enough with sufficient capacity to meet demand. In 2008, the British Government policy was to ensure that renewable energy accounted for 38% of energy supplies by 2020. At the current rates of construction and development, this target cannot be achieved. Going green and carbon free will lead to energy supply challenges in the near future. If the new British government does as it says it will do, that is place a floor price on CO2 emissions trading certificates of £35, then the energy consumers of Britain will pay considerably more for an unreliable energy supply than they do now and this too will reduce energy supply as more coal fired power stations will become unprofitable.
This takes us then to the strategy being proposed in the Kerry-Lieberman climate change bill, which combines “cap and trade” with “pork barrel spending”, at least according to Investors Business Daily – an investor trade magazine. The bill now before the Senate proposed a $7 billion CO2 tax to improve transport infrastructure and efficiency and $2 billion a year in public spending on carbon capture and storage and a systematic approach to carbon trading with the aim of reducing emissions by 85% on 2005 levels by 2050 (the US is already 10% below the 2005 level due to the recession and other measures). The program’s cap starts in 2013 for the electricity and transportation sectors, which together constitute an estimated 66 percent of total domestic emissions. The industrial sector joins in 2016, bringing the total up to almost 85 percent. The remaining 15 percent of U.S. emissions are treated separately from the cap-and-trade program with a range of targeted policies and regulations.
The global temperature “savings” of the Kerry-Lieberman bill is astoundingly small—0.043°C (0.077°F) by 2050 and 0.111°C (0.200°F) by 2100. In other words, by century’s end, reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 83% will only result in global temperatures being one-fifth of one degree Fahrenheit less than they would otherwise be. That is a scientifically meaningless reduction.
The costs of this will be higher energy and transport costs and challenges to meet growing demand. However, the US is confident that its energy supplies – partly driven by the low cost of shale gas and the ability to secure low cost oil from offshore and Canada – will meet its energy needs to 2025.
The Kerry-Lieberman bill is not likely to pass the Senate anytime soon. Many see it as already dead in the water, since it does not have the support of the Republicans in the Senate. More importantly, its provisions for offshore drilling (including environmental conditions and responsibilities) are now in doubt, given the offshore oil challenges now being faced by BP off the coast of Louisiana.
In Canada, the commitment is to match the US provisions whenever these emerge. The principle here is that there should be a single set of standards and policies for the whole of North America, rather than a patchwork quilt of local provisions (State by State, Province by Province, country by country) – a kind of NAFTA Energy and Environment policy. While many criticize this, the argument is economic – why create competitive disadvantage for Canada with the US?
Environmental policies cannot be separated from policies for economic and community development. In Canada, there is a need to strengthen environmental stewardship in anticipation of eventual US actions – regulations governing tailings ponds, land use and restoration, air quality and water quality as well as sustaining biodiversity could all be introduced pending the joint Canada-US strategy on emissions.
As these conversations take place, some scientists are now suggesting that we prepare for global cooling. Professor Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University has suggested that three scenarios are emerging, based on known patterns of climate and current temperature data for North America. These are: (1) global cooling similar to the global cooling of 1945 to 1977, (2) global cooling similar to the cool period from 1880 to 1915, and (3) global cooling similar to the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1820. He is placing his bets on the second of these scenarios, but suggests that all of these options present a worse case than any of the implications of the global warming view of the climate.
Whether he is right or not, it is clear that action on climate change is not likely to be quickly forthcoming. The UN process is stalled and the actions in the US and Canada are awaiting the right political climate for a Senate decision. The science is still being challenged and the arguments about appropriate actions are taking second place to recession and austerity issues faced by many European countries and other jurisdictions around the world.
Alberta could chose to lead by focusing on greening the oil sands and ensuring that it shifts its reputation from being a producer of “dirty oil” to being a leader in “green oil”. It would be a challenge, but it would position Alberta as a leading jurisdiction with a new view of stewardship for its future.
Here is the challenge: energy demand in Britain will soon outstrip energy supply. There are several reasons for this, but one is that several coal fired power plants cannot meet CO2 emissions target and remain profitable, so they will close. Another is that, for ideological reasons, the Government of Britain has not invested in nuclear energy but instead placed most of its bets on wind power and hydro power, neither of which can come on stream fast enough with sufficient capacity to meet demand. In 2008, the British Government policy was to ensure that renewable energy accounted for 38% of energy supplies by 2020. At the current rates of construction and development, this target cannot be achieved. Going green and carbon free will lead to energy supply challenges in the near future. If the new British government does as it says it will do, that is place a floor price on CO2 emissions trading certificates of £35, then the energy consumers of Britain will pay considerably more for an unreliable energy supply than they do now and this too will reduce energy supply as more coal fired power stations will become unprofitable.
This takes us then to the strategy being proposed in the Kerry-Lieberman climate change bill, which combines “cap and trade” with “pork barrel spending”, at least according to Investors Business Daily – an investor trade magazine. The bill now before the Senate proposed a $7 billion CO2 tax to improve transport infrastructure and efficiency and $2 billion a year in public spending on carbon capture and storage and a systematic approach to carbon trading with the aim of reducing emissions by 85% on 2005 levels by 2050 (the US is already 10% below the 2005 level due to the recession and other measures). The program’s cap starts in 2013 for the electricity and transportation sectors, which together constitute an estimated 66 percent of total domestic emissions. The industrial sector joins in 2016, bringing the total up to almost 85 percent. The remaining 15 percent of U.S. emissions are treated separately from the cap-and-trade program with a range of targeted policies and regulations.
The global temperature “savings” of the Kerry-Lieberman bill is astoundingly small—0.043°C (0.077°F) by 2050 and 0.111°C (0.200°F) by 2100. In other words, by century’s end, reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 83% will only result in global temperatures being one-fifth of one degree Fahrenheit less than they would otherwise be. That is a scientifically meaningless reduction.
The costs of this will be higher energy and transport costs and challenges to meet growing demand. However, the US is confident that its energy supplies – partly driven by the low cost of shale gas and the ability to secure low cost oil from offshore and Canada – will meet its energy needs to 2025.
The Kerry-Lieberman bill is not likely to pass the Senate anytime soon. Many see it as already dead in the water, since it does not have the support of the Republicans in the Senate. More importantly, its provisions for offshore drilling (including environmental conditions and responsibilities) are now in doubt, given the offshore oil challenges now being faced by BP off the coast of Louisiana.
In Canada, the commitment is to match the US provisions whenever these emerge. The principle here is that there should be a single set of standards and policies for the whole of North America, rather than a patchwork quilt of local provisions (State by State, Province by Province, country by country) – a kind of NAFTA Energy and Environment policy. While many criticize this, the argument is economic – why create competitive disadvantage for Canada with the US?
Environmental policies cannot be separated from policies for economic and community development. In Canada, there is a need to strengthen environmental stewardship in anticipation of eventual US actions – regulations governing tailings ponds, land use and restoration, air quality and water quality as well as sustaining biodiversity could all be introduced pending the joint Canada-US strategy on emissions.
As these conversations take place, some scientists are now suggesting that we prepare for global cooling. Professor Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University has suggested that three scenarios are emerging, based on known patterns of climate and current temperature data for North America. These are: (1) global cooling similar to the global cooling of 1945 to 1977, (2) global cooling similar to the cool period from 1880 to 1915, and (3) global cooling similar to the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1820. He is placing his bets on the second of these scenarios, but suggests that all of these options present a worse case than any of the implications of the global warming view of the climate.
Whether he is right or not, it is clear that action on climate change is not likely to be quickly forthcoming. The UN process is stalled and the actions in the US and Canada are awaiting the right political climate for a Senate decision. The science is still being challenged and the arguments about appropriate actions are taking second place to recession and austerity issues faced by many European countries and other jurisdictions around the world.
Alberta could chose to lead by focusing on greening the oil sands and ensuring that it shifts its reputation from being a producer of “dirty oil” to being a leader in “green oil”. It would be a challenge, but it would position Alberta as a leading jurisdiction with a new view of stewardship for its future.
The End of New Labour
When the monarch dies, the cry goes up “The King is Dead, Long Live the King!”. At Labour Party headquarters in Britain the new cry appears to be “New Labour is Dead, Long Live the Labour Party!”.
With Gordon Brown’s resignation, the race is on to succeed him as Leader of the Labour Party and the first two into the race – Ed and David Milliband – have made it clear that they wish to return to the heart and soul of the party and have done with the idea of “new” Labour. Ed Balls, who is likely to announce his candidacy shortly has also said that this will be a battle about returning to the true roots of the party and to fight the next election from a progressive position, not as “red Tories” (the name given to left of centre conservatives). John Cruddas, who famously resigned from the Brown cabinet in the hope of triggering a rebellion in 2009, has also indicated that the challenge will be to bring Labour back to square one and rebuild the party as a party of the progressive left, though he has ruled himself out of the race.
The fact that some key figures – Harriet Harman, Alan Johnson, Jack Straw – who have been associated for a considerable time with the “new” Labour “brand” have made clear that they will not be candidates, also indicates that the “new” Labour motif is to be sidestepped in favour of a more progressive, left of centre stance.
There are two major reasons for this shift of thinking within the Labour party. The first and most obvious is arithmetic: Labour was roundly rejected in the recent general election by the people. Though it did better than some expected, it was Labour’s worse showing in terms of popular vote for eighty years. The party was not humiliated, but roundly defeated and will now spend at least five years if not a decade in opposition.
Second, there is clear evidence that throwing money at problems and setting centrally determined targets for health, education and social programs – state centralism – does not work. The history of new Labour will be written sometime in the future. It will focus on how Blair and Brown sought to “control” the levers of the State through money, targets, quango’s and inspection and how this failed to create any major improvements in health, education and other fields. What this did do was turn Britain from a nation of shopkeepers and entrepreneurs into a nation of bookkeepers and idea inhibitors who work for the public sector. Wages in the public sector are 7-9% higher than in the private sector and Britain is primarily a public sector economy with some entrepreneurial activity.
The next Labour leader needs to explain how Labour will transform communities and public organizations in such a way that they are once again effective means of securing fairness, meritocracy and empowerment. They will need to show how their thinking differs from that of the progressive arm of the Conservative party who appear to be pursuing policies closer to “old” Labour than Labour itself. They also have to explain how Labour will return pride, dignity and respect to communities, schools, health care and other public sector services. It is a tall order.
What we will witness in the Labour Party’s leadership struggle between now and the start of the party conference in September is a struggle for the ideological grounding of the party. The Milliband brothers are likely to provide the conversations, debates and writing that will articulate this ideology and lead to significant policy shifts – John Cruddas could also provide ballast to thinking, even though he will not be a candidate. Ed Balls, in contrast, is a lightweight thinker with heavyweight credentials – an enforcer and proclaimer rather than a thinker and imaginer. It will be an interesting time, but not the best of times for Labour.
With Gordon Brown’s resignation, the race is on to succeed him as Leader of the Labour Party and the first two into the race – Ed and David Milliband – have made it clear that they wish to return to the heart and soul of the party and have done with the idea of “new” Labour. Ed Balls, who is likely to announce his candidacy shortly has also said that this will be a battle about returning to the true roots of the party and to fight the next election from a progressive position, not as “red Tories” (the name given to left of centre conservatives). John Cruddas, who famously resigned from the Brown cabinet in the hope of triggering a rebellion in 2009, has also indicated that the challenge will be to bring Labour back to square one and rebuild the party as a party of the progressive left, though he has ruled himself out of the race.
The fact that some key figures – Harriet Harman, Alan Johnson, Jack Straw – who have been associated for a considerable time with the “new” Labour “brand” have made clear that they will not be candidates, also indicates that the “new” Labour motif is to be sidestepped in favour of a more progressive, left of centre stance.
There are two major reasons for this shift of thinking within the Labour party. The first and most obvious is arithmetic: Labour was roundly rejected in the recent general election by the people. Though it did better than some expected, it was Labour’s worse showing in terms of popular vote for eighty years. The party was not humiliated, but roundly defeated and will now spend at least five years if not a decade in opposition.
Second, there is clear evidence that throwing money at problems and setting centrally determined targets for health, education and social programs – state centralism – does not work. The history of new Labour will be written sometime in the future. It will focus on how Blair and Brown sought to “control” the levers of the State through money, targets, quango’s and inspection and how this failed to create any major improvements in health, education and other fields. What this did do was turn Britain from a nation of shopkeepers and entrepreneurs into a nation of bookkeepers and idea inhibitors who work for the public sector. Wages in the public sector are 7-9% higher than in the private sector and Britain is primarily a public sector economy with some entrepreneurial activity.
The next Labour leader needs to explain how Labour will transform communities and public organizations in such a way that they are once again effective means of securing fairness, meritocracy and empowerment. They will need to show how their thinking differs from that of the progressive arm of the Conservative party who appear to be pursuing policies closer to “old” Labour than Labour itself. They also have to explain how Labour will return pride, dignity and respect to communities, schools, health care and other public sector services. It is a tall order.
What we will witness in the Labour Party’s leadership struggle between now and the start of the party conference in September is a struggle for the ideological grounding of the party. The Milliband brothers are likely to provide the conversations, debates and writing that will articulate this ideology and lead to significant policy shifts – John Cruddas could also provide ballast to thinking, even though he will not be a candidate. Ed Balls, in contrast, is a lightweight thinker with heavyweight credentials – an enforcer and proclaimer rather than a thinker and imaginer. It will be an interesting time, but not the best of times for Labour.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Coalition Challenges
Stories are beginning to emerge of profligate spending decisions made in the dying days of the British Labour Government. A committee of inquiry, a sub committee of cabinet, will look at spending decisions made in the final twelve months of the Labour party regime and examine their rationale. It is part of the new Lib-Con Government’s systematic attempt to reduce spending. It is the kind of thing one expects to hear from any new Government. They will also start halting decisions in progress – issuing identity cards for UK citizens, building a third runway at Heathrow, spending significant amounts of unproven technology.
So far so good. The new coalition has survived its first week with only one major rebellion. It relates to the decision, made by Cameron and embodied in the Lib-Con pact, for a fixed term parliament. A significant number of MP’s are concerned that a weak Government could survive repeated votes of no-confidence until such time as the Commons could muster a 55% majority for dissolution. The tradition has been that a vote of non-confidence on a finance related bill or a bill said by Government to be a critical bill for its agenda would lead to an election. Cameron is likely to ensure that the legislation for a fixed term enables this tradition to continue.
But the coalition has just found out where the washrooms are and are discovering for the first time what their colleagues are really thinking – the real work has yet to begin.
Three big issues confront the new Government. The first is the issue of deficits and debt. The British government is spending much more than it brings in tax and other revenues. The deficit sits at £163 billion and is likely to rise, once the final figures are in at the end of the year, to £178 billion – 12.4% of GDP. The target is to have no more than 3% of government spending funded by borrowing. Total UK government debt in the UK is 68.6% of GDP – higher than the debts of Ireland and Spain, but much lower than those of Greece (113%) and Italy (115%). Britain’s inflation rate, targeted to be no more than 2% in any year, is currently running at an annual rate of 3.4% - Britain is in serious economic peril.
To achieve the EU target of no more than 3% of GDP deficits, massive cuts in social and other programs are needed – in the order of £20 billion a year of new cuts for each of the next ten years. Targets include major capital projects (especially health care and defence), social benefits, pension allowances and public sector pay. Public sector pay is running ahead of private sector pay in a significant way – the average hourly wage paid to public sector workers is 7% higher than that in the private sector and bonuses are paid against criteria which are so soft that almost all eligible for performance bonuses get them. Pay cuts, pay freezes and pay restraints of other kinds are clearly on the cards.
The Government has ruled out, at least for now, significant tax rises. Most commentators agree, however, that a rise in sales tax (known in Canada as GST and in the UK as VAT) from its current 17% to 20% or higher (some suggest as high as 25%) is certain at some point in the near future. Other tax changes are also likely, including taxes on inheritance. The banks are also likely to be taxed on profits.
The second challenge facing the Government is a simple one. Britain does not have a sufficiently robust power supply to fuel its future. With both nuclear and coal fire power stations being decommissioned due to age, it is possible that Britain will face rolling energy black outs within the next ten to fifteen years unless significant new capacity is added. The Labour Government invested heavily in wind power and hydro power as a response to this challenge and avoided the tough decisions it needed to make on nuclear. It will fall to this coalition government to make the commitment to nuclear – the only way in which Britain’s real energy demands can be met. The coalition has made clear it will not directly subsidize the nuclear sector. It will, however, do so indirectly. The Government indicated last week that it intends to set a “floor” price for CO2 certificates needed for carbon trading – the cost of which is borne by consumers. The suggested floor price is £35 – some £23 higher than the lowest price carbon trades have reached in the last twelve months. Since nuclear developers do not have to buy carbon credits – nuclear is CO2 free – it will create a cost advantage for nuclear which should encourage and enable investors. One challenge – the new Energy and Climate Change Minister is a long time opponent of nuclear power.
The third challenge is to change the statist culture of Britain. Since Labour came to power in 1997, the role of the private sector in the British economy has declined as the role of the public sector has expanded. Over 50% of the UK’s GDP is derived from public sector activity, up from 39% in 2001 and 29% when Labour took office. Parts of the UK have become so dependent on public spending that it can crowd out private enterprise in these regions and countries. It is partly a chicken and egg situation - public spending in these regions is high because they are doing less well economically, but on the other hand a high public spending share can make a revival of the private sector difficult to achieve. And the latest data suggests that this problem is getting worse. What this has done is create a culture of dependency and a centralist, statist and bureaucratic nation. A key challenge for the coalition government is to rekindle entrepreneurship, stimulate local accountability and reduce the power of the state. It’s a tough challenge.
These three challenges alone, never mind challenges over foreign policy – Britain’s place in Europe, the military role in a modern world and defence spending – and political reform, will test the coalition to the full.
The coalition is full of young people, mainly male, with no experience of government. Some old hands – Ken Clark (Conservative – Justice Secretary), William Hague (Conservative – Foreign Secretary) and Vince Cable (Liberal – Business Secretary) – will be called upon to provide sage counsel when things get tough. A lot will depend on the relationship between David Cameron and Nick Clegg and their ability to see past the interests of party and look at the interests of the country. Right now they appear convinced that they can work their way through the challenges ahead. We will see.
This is all new to most of the electorate of Britain, many of whom have no real recollection of earlier coalition or supply and support arrangements of the past. There is a strong level of naiveté about what the Government is facing and even less of an understanding of just how tough the next decade in Britain will be. The word “austerity” is starting to be used, but this hardly conveys the level of severity associated with what this Government will have to do. The coalition will need to declare war on debts and deficits.
It is far too soon to tell if this coalition will last for five years, but it will certainly last until next year. The Throne Speech on 25th May and the first coalition budget in June will pass comfortably, but it’s the spending review and subsequent budget that will challenge the temperaments of all concerned. Tensions will be continuous, but the deep cuts and energy policy will likely be the source of fractious policy issues between the coalition partners. An election in 2011 is still a high probability.
So far so good. The new coalition has survived its first week with only one major rebellion. It relates to the decision, made by Cameron and embodied in the Lib-Con pact, for a fixed term parliament. A significant number of MP’s are concerned that a weak Government could survive repeated votes of no-confidence until such time as the Commons could muster a 55% majority for dissolution. The tradition has been that a vote of non-confidence on a finance related bill or a bill said by Government to be a critical bill for its agenda would lead to an election. Cameron is likely to ensure that the legislation for a fixed term enables this tradition to continue.
But the coalition has just found out where the washrooms are and are discovering for the first time what their colleagues are really thinking – the real work has yet to begin.
Three big issues confront the new Government. The first is the issue of deficits and debt. The British government is spending much more than it brings in tax and other revenues. The deficit sits at £163 billion and is likely to rise, once the final figures are in at the end of the year, to £178 billion – 12.4% of GDP. The target is to have no more than 3% of government spending funded by borrowing. Total UK government debt in the UK is 68.6% of GDP – higher than the debts of Ireland and Spain, but much lower than those of Greece (113%) and Italy (115%). Britain’s inflation rate, targeted to be no more than 2% in any year, is currently running at an annual rate of 3.4% - Britain is in serious economic peril.
To achieve the EU target of no more than 3% of GDP deficits, massive cuts in social and other programs are needed – in the order of £20 billion a year of new cuts for each of the next ten years. Targets include major capital projects (especially health care and defence), social benefits, pension allowances and public sector pay. Public sector pay is running ahead of private sector pay in a significant way – the average hourly wage paid to public sector workers is 7% higher than that in the private sector and bonuses are paid against criteria which are so soft that almost all eligible for performance bonuses get them. Pay cuts, pay freezes and pay restraints of other kinds are clearly on the cards.
The Government has ruled out, at least for now, significant tax rises. Most commentators agree, however, that a rise in sales tax (known in Canada as GST and in the UK as VAT) from its current 17% to 20% or higher (some suggest as high as 25%) is certain at some point in the near future. Other tax changes are also likely, including taxes on inheritance. The banks are also likely to be taxed on profits.
The second challenge facing the Government is a simple one. Britain does not have a sufficiently robust power supply to fuel its future. With both nuclear and coal fire power stations being decommissioned due to age, it is possible that Britain will face rolling energy black outs within the next ten to fifteen years unless significant new capacity is added. The Labour Government invested heavily in wind power and hydro power as a response to this challenge and avoided the tough decisions it needed to make on nuclear. It will fall to this coalition government to make the commitment to nuclear – the only way in which Britain’s real energy demands can be met. The coalition has made clear it will not directly subsidize the nuclear sector. It will, however, do so indirectly. The Government indicated last week that it intends to set a “floor” price for CO2 certificates needed for carbon trading – the cost of which is borne by consumers. The suggested floor price is £35 – some £23 higher than the lowest price carbon trades have reached in the last twelve months. Since nuclear developers do not have to buy carbon credits – nuclear is CO2 free – it will create a cost advantage for nuclear which should encourage and enable investors. One challenge – the new Energy and Climate Change Minister is a long time opponent of nuclear power.
The third challenge is to change the statist culture of Britain. Since Labour came to power in 1997, the role of the private sector in the British economy has declined as the role of the public sector has expanded. Over 50% of the UK’s GDP is derived from public sector activity, up from 39% in 2001 and 29% when Labour took office. Parts of the UK have become so dependent on public spending that it can crowd out private enterprise in these regions and countries. It is partly a chicken and egg situation - public spending in these regions is high because they are doing less well economically, but on the other hand a high public spending share can make a revival of the private sector difficult to achieve. And the latest data suggests that this problem is getting worse. What this has done is create a culture of dependency and a centralist, statist and bureaucratic nation. A key challenge for the coalition government is to rekindle entrepreneurship, stimulate local accountability and reduce the power of the state. It’s a tough challenge.
These three challenges alone, never mind challenges over foreign policy – Britain’s place in Europe, the military role in a modern world and defence spending – and political reform, will test the coalition to the full.
The coalition is full of young people, mainly male, with no experience of government. Some old hands – Ken Clark (Conservative – Justice Secretary), William Hague (Conservative – Foreign Secretary) and Vince Cable (Liberal – Business Secretary) – will be called upon to provide sage counsel when things get tough. A lot will depend on the relationship between David Cameron and Nick Clegg and their ability to see past the interests of party and look at the interests of the country. Right now they appear convinced that they can work their way through the challenges ahead. We will see.
This is all new to most of the electorate of Britain, many of whom have no real recollection of earlier coalition or supply and support arrangements of the past. There is a strong level of naiveté about what the Government is facing and even less of an understanding of just how tough the next decade in Britain will be. The word “austerity” is starting to be used, but this hardly conveys the level of severity associated with what this Government will have to do. The coalition will need to declare war on debts and deficits.
It is far too soon to tell if this coalition will last for five years, but it will certainly last until next year. The Throne Speech on 25th May and the first coalition budget in June will pass comfortably, but it’s the spending review and subsequent budget that will challenge the temperaments of all concerned. Tensions will be continuous, but the deep cuts and energy policy will likely be the source of fractious policy issues between the coalition partners. An election in 2011 is still a high probability.
Friday, May 14, 2010
All Aboard the Coalition Express
(Written on 11th May)
In a dramatic evening, Gordon Brown resigned as British Prime Minister and, with immediate effect, as Leader of the Labour Party. He is returning to private life after a lifetime of service to the Labour Party. Harriet Harman will succeed him as Acting Leader of the Labour Party.
David Cameron became the youngest Prime Minister since Lord Liverpool in 1812. He is to lead a full coalition Government with the Liberal Democrats whose leader, Nick Clegg, becomes Deputy Prime Minister. The two parties have agreed to a set of policy initiatives and to a five year term. Four other cabinet positions will also go to the Liberal Democrats. George Osborne (Conservative) becomes Chancellor – he will introduce an emergency budget within one month. William Hague (Conservative) becomes Foreign Secretary and Vince Cable (Liberal) becomes Business Secretary, replacing Lord Mandelson.
The transfer of power took less than an hour and a half, including the time taken for Gordon Brown and David Cameron to visit with the Queen and kiss hands.
These are radical developments for Britain, which has not had a coalition government of substance since the second world war. Both Cameron and Clegg are positioning this as a new form of government, part of the change they wish to see in British politics. Reform of the voting system may make such arrangements more permanent.
The new Government has a lot to do. Britain has a structural deficit of £119 billion and an actual deficit of £163 billion – 11% of GDP. The famous Brown formulae targeted deficits at no more than 4% of GDP. The agreed policy program sees no significant tax changes or increases, but substantial cuts in public service. It also sees tougher bank regulation, with more power to the Bank of England, and a bank windfall charge.
We will see how long this coalition actually lasts. On paper, there is an agreement to deal with immediate issues and core policy issues, but five years is a long time. All appear committed to making this work, but there is no experience or history of peacetime coalitions between opposing parties working in Britain. The two leaders, who have very similar backgrounds, may get on well together, but the draconian policies they will have to pursue to rebalance Britain’s economy and roll back the nanny state are so substantial that tensions within and between the parties will emerge quickly. It will be a real test of leadership to hold the coalition together and sustain the support of the political parties who have enjoined.
Last Thursday the people spoke and the politicians have now answered. Let us hope the answer is the response the people expected.
In a dramatic evening, Gordon Brown resigned as British Prime Minister and, with immediate effect, as Leader of the Labour Party. He is returning to private life after a lifetime of service to the Labour Party. Harriet Harman will succeed him as Acting Leader of the Labour Party.
David Cameron became the youngest Prime Minister since Lord Liverpool in 1812. He is to lead a full coalition Government with the Liberal Democrats whose leader, Nick Clegg, becomes Deputy Prime Minister. The two parties have agreed to a set of policy initiatives and to a five year term. Four other cabinet positions will also go to the Liberal Democrats. George Osborne (Conservative) becomes Chancellor – he will introduce an emergency budget within one month. William Hague (Conservative) becomes Foreign Secretary and Vince Cable (Liberal) becomes Business Secretary, replacing Lord Mandelson.
The transfer of power took less than an hour and a half, including the time taken for Gordon Brown and David Cameron to visit with the Queen and kiss hands.
These are radical developments for Britain, which has not had a coalition government of substance since the second world war. Both Cameron and Clegg are positioning this as a new form of government, part of the change they wish to see in British politics. Reform of the voting system may make such arrangements more permanent.
The new Government has a lot to do. Britain has a structural deficit of £119 billion and an actual deficit of £163 billion – 11% of GDP. The famous Brown formulae targeted deficits at no more than 4% of GDP. The agreed policy program sees no significant tax changes or increases, but substantial cuts in public service. It also sees tougher bank regulation, with more power to the Bank of England, and a bank windfall charge.
We will see how long this coalition actually lasts. On paper, there is an agreement to deal with immediate issues and core policy issues, but five years is a long time. All appear committed to making this work, but there is no experience or history of peacetime coalitions between opposing parties working in Britain. The two leaders, who have very similar backgrounds, may get on well together, but the draconian policies they will have to pursue to rebalance Britain’s economy and roll back the nanny state are so substantial that tensions within and between the parties will emerge quickly. It will be a real test of leadership to hold the coalition together and sustain the support of the political parties who have enjoined.
Last Thursday the people spoke and the politicians have now answered. Let us hope the answer is the response the people expected.
Deal or No Deal
(Written on 11th May - Two Hours Before the Change of Government)
It is now a five full days since the British election and no new British Government has emerged. While it is looking possible that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats could secure agreement at a senior level between their two parties, it is not at all certain that the political parties themselves will agree to the coalition that emerges. Meetings later today with the respective parties may raise new roadblocks to the emerging deal and show just how far out in front of their parties their leaders are.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has also been in meetings with Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, countering the offers being made by the Conservatives and suggesting that, if the process breaks down, then Labour would be willing to enter into discussions with the Liberal Democrats. In particular, Brown has been stressing his willingness to quickly introduce legislation for a referendum on proportional representation – a key issue for the Liberals. He has also resigned as leader of the Labour Party effective after the Party Conference in September so as to remove himself as an obstacle to any workable agreement. (Importantly, he has not resigned as Prime Minister).
The problem with a Lib-Lab pact is arithmetic. Between the two they do not have an overall majority and need the support of some independents and others to enable a stable government to take place. The Scottish Nationalists and the SDLP of Northern Ireland both see this as an opportunity to secure both transfers of powers and new cash investments in exchange for their offers of support. The Scottish Nationalists will only act in the interest of Scotland and for them its about further aspects of independence.
The problems with a Con-Lib pact are more complex. First, David Cameron has been adverse to major electoral reform. His initial offer was for an all party process to define the options – hardly exciting to the Liberals, who have been party to such conversations since 1922. It is now clear that Cameron is offering a referendum, but has indicated his party would oppose any change in the electoral system. Second, there are real identity issues for the Liberals. The Conservatives are seeking to make large and immediate cuts in public spending as means of lowering deficits and debts. Such moves are popular, until their full impact begins to be felt. The Liberals, as coalition partners, will be blamed for not moderating (or worse, fully supporting) the cuts and will suffer electorally. Finally, engineering the Liberal and Conservative parties to constantly vote with an agreed agenda will be a constant challenge for both leaders – it may, in fact, become their preoccupation. Rather than a clear majority (the coalition would, in theory, have over 370 votes when the threshold required for a successful vote is 326), each vote would see defectors on both sides.
Clegg is playing both sides and did so, for a time at least, secretly thus giving the lie to his insistence that transparency is a key value in politics. Also, his behavior raises questions about whether his motives are as direct as they once appeared. Is he seeking the best for the Liberals in terms of political reform – which all of his acolytes stress is the key issue – when Rome is in fact burning. As Conservative acolytes are continuously saying, very few of the British people see electoral reform and reform of the Lords and other aspects of the constitution as being critical when the economy is so fragile.
The elephant is the room in these discussions is the economy. The key difference between the Conservatives on the one hand and the Lib-Labs on the other is the speed at which they think the deficit should be tackled. The very able finance critic for the Liberals, Vince Cable, sees the real immediate challenge to be continuing to support the green shoots of recovery from recession – acting too quickly to cut the deficit and tackle Britains very serious excessive public borrowing and spending may harm this recovery. He wants to wait at least a year before getting serious about cuts. Gordon Brown and his Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling share this view and most of the left of the Labour Party still think it possible to recovery from recession and save a lot of the public services currently slated for cuts – after all, most of them were put in place by Labour since 1997.
The Conservatives take a very different view. They want serious and deep cuts now so as to return confidence to the markets, secure new investment and create a reenergized economy which will spur growth. Reducing government and increasing the focus on the private sector is what they see as essential in returning Britain to being a country which lives off its wits and skills rather than off the teat of taxes and public sector borrowing. Over half of the UK’s GDP is derived from Government activity (its 65% in Wales and 62% in Scotland).
It is these very different philosophies, coupled with the fracas over electoral reform, which is the heart of the Liberal dilemma. Who should they get in bed with?
There are another set of considerations, linked to a particular view of democracy. The British people gave the Conservative party the largest share of the vote and the largest number of seats. If the Lib:Lab pact emerges and the Labour party is kept in power then it looks like the party that had the lowest share of the votes, colluding with parties that hardly anyone could vote for, will be seen to be keeping in power the party that seventy two per cent of the people did not want to Govern – Labour. It will be a gift for the Conservatives. They will use the Lib:Lab pact as a vehicle for demonstrating that, while on the one hand Nick Clegg seems most concerned about democracy, in reality all he is interested in is raw power.
The second set of considerations for Clegg is that he will be doing a deal with a party without a known leader. Gordon Brown, throwing the dice one last time, has resigned as party leader after one of the worst showings for the Labour Party in eighty years. While there are several candidates to replace him – Alan Johnson, Ed Balls, Ed Milliband, David Milliband, Jack Straw to name just a few – the Prime Minister has considerable personal power, whatever deal with the Liberals say. One power he has, unless this is changed by the deal itself, is when to call an election. Another is to make key appointments. Would you enter a long term political relationship with Mr X?
We should known the outcome of all of this very soon – possibly as this “goes to the web”. What is obvious to those of us with memories is that, whatever the deal says in writing, there will be another election in Britain sooner rather than later. Some pundits are suggesting November, but the more common assumption is that it will be this time next year when the coalition or agreement falls apart. What will be critical in that election is the judgment of the people on the Liberals and their current behavior as well as the state of the economy. Its back to the economy and trust.
It is now a five full days since the British election and no new British Government has emerged. While it is looking possible that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats could secure agreement at a senior level between their two parties, it is not at all certain that the political parties themselves will agree to the coalition that emerges. Meetings later today with the respective parties may raise new roadblocks to the emerging deal and show just how far out in front of their parties their leaders are.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has also been in meetings with Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, countering the offers being made by the Conservatives and suggesting that, if the process breaks down, then Labour would be willing to enter into discussions with the Liberal Democrats. In particular, Brown has been stressing his willingness to quickly introduce legislation for a referendum on proportional representation – a key issue for the Liberals. He has also resigned as leader of the Labour Party effective after the Party Conference in September so as to remove himself as an obstacle to any workable agreement. (Importantly, he has not resigned as Prime Minister).
The problem with a Lib-Lab pact is arithmetic. Between the two they do not have an overall majority and need the support of some independents and others to enable a stable government to take place. The Scottish Nationalists and the SDLP of Northern Ireland both see this as an opportunity to secure both transfers of powers and new cash investments in exchange for their offers of support. The Scottish Nationalists will only act in the interest of Scotland and for them its about further aspects of independence.
The problems with a Con-Lib pact are more complex. First, David Cameron has been adverse to major electoral reform. His initial offer was for an all party process to define the options – hardly exciting to the Liberals, who have been party to such conversations since 1922. It is now clear that Cameron is offering a referendum, but has indicated his party would oppose any change in the electoral system. Second, there are real identity issues for the Liberals. The Conservatives are seeking to make large and immediate cuts in public spending as means of lowering deficits and debts. Such moves are popular, until their full impact begins to be felt. The Liberals, as coalition partners, will be blamed for not moderating (or worse, fully supporting) the cuts and will suffer electorally. Finally, engineering the Liberal and Conservative parties to constantly vote with an agreed agenda will be a constant challenge for both leaders – it may, in fact, become their preoccupation. Rather than a clear majority (the coalition would, in theory, have over 370 votes when the threshold required for a successful vote is 326), each vote would see defectors on both sides.
Clegg is playing both sides and did so, for a time at least, secretly thus giving the lie to his insistence that transparency is a key value in politics. Also, his behavior raises questions about whether his motives are as direct as they once appeared. Is he seeking the best for the Liberals in terms of political reform – which all of his acolytes stress is the key issue – when Rome is in fact burning. As Conservative acolytes are continuously saying, very few of the British people see electoral reform and reform of the Lords and other aspects of the constitution as being critical when the economy is so fragile.
The elephant is the room in these discussions is the economy. The key difference between the Conservatives on the one hand and the Lib-Labs on the other is the speed at which they think the deficit should be tackled. The very able finance critic for the Liberals, Vince Cable, sees the real immediate challenge to be continuing to support the green shoots of recovery from recession – acting too quickly to cut the deficit and tackle Britains very serious excessive public borrowing and spending may harm this recovery. He wants to wait at least a year before getting serious about cuts. Gordon Brown and his Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling share this view and most of the left of the Labour Party still think it possible to recovery from recession and save a lot of the public services currently slated for cuts – after all, most of them were put in place by Labour since 1997.
The Conservatives take a very different view. They want serious and deep cuts now so as to return confidence to the markets, secure new investment and create a reenergized economy which will spur growth. Reducing government and increasing the focus on the private sector is what they see as essential in returning Britain to being a country which lives off its wits and skills rather than off the teat of taxes and public sector borrowing. Over half of the UK’s GDP is derived from Government activity (its 65% in Wales and 62% in Scotland).
It is these very different philosophies, coupled with the fracas over electoral reform, which is the heart of the Liberal dilemma. Who should they get in bed with?
There are another set of considerations, linked to a particular view of democracy. The British people gave the Conservative party the largest share of the vote and the largest number of seats. If the Lib:Lab pact emerges and the Labour party is kept in power then it looks like the party that had the lowest share of the votes, colluding with parties that hardly anyone could vote for, will be seen to be keeping in power the party that seventy two per cent of the people did not want to Govern – Labour. It will be a gift for the Conservatives. They will use the Lib:Lab pact as a vehicle for demonstrating that, while on the one hand Nick Clegg seems most concerned about democracy, in reality all he is interested in is raw power.
The second set of considerations for Clegg is that he will be doing a deal with a party without a known leader. Gordon Brown, throwing the dice one last time, has resigned as party leader after one of the worst showings for the Labour Party in eighty years. While there are several candidates to replace him – Alan Johnson, Ed Balls, Ed Milliband, David Milliband, Jack Straw to name just a few – the Prime Minister has considerable personal power, whatever deal with the Liberals say. One power he has, unless this is changed by the deal itself, is when to call an election. Another is to make key appointments. Would you enter a long term political relationship with Mr X?
We should known the outcome of all of this very soon – possibly as this “goes to the web”. What is obvious to those of us with memories is that, whatever the deal says in writing, there will be another election in Britain sooner rather than later. Some pundits are suggesting November, but the more common assumption is that it will be this time next year when the coalition or agreement falls apart. What will be critical in that election is the judgment of the people on the Liberals and their current behavior as well as the state of the economy. Its back to the economy and trust.
Hung Parliament
(written on 7th May)
The British have voted in what some are now calling the Mick Jagger election – no one| can get satisfaction. No single party has secured a sufficient number of seats to govern with a majority. It is now clear, with all but one constituency still to declare (delayed due to the death of a candidate), that it will be a hung parliament, with the Conservatives having the largest number of seats (estimated to be 307 when all results are declared), with the Labour Party coming second and the Liberals a disappointing third. The Conservatives clearly won more of the popular vote and both Liberals and Labour lost a considerable number of seats – indeed it is a real defeat for Labour, the worst collapse in over eighty years.
The results contain a number of surprises. Several former cabinet members have lost their seats. The Liberals failed to secure the momentum which many thought would lead them to be either the second largest party or a breakthrough in terms of the total number of seats – they are actually worse off than before the election in terms of representation. In fact, the Liberals are down and some well known Liberal figures are no longer sitting members of parliament.
What happens now will be this. After a period of reflection during Friday, caused by the pending thirty or so seats due to be declared during the day, Gordon Brown as sitting Prime Minister will wait to see how negotiations between Nick Clegg and David Cameron go, since Cameron has offered a wide ranging alliance with the Liberals for a national government. Horse trading at the level of policy, position and program is already underway between Clegg and Cameron, with Cameron making the running. Brown is playing a wait and see game, but is likely to leave office by Tuesday at the latest.
There will be a concern to have a clear decision before the markets open on Monday. The last thing any Government needs is a run on sterling. However, this requires some real clarity on the part of all leaders and a sense of dignity coupled with foresight to ensure a smooth transition.
The talk, at least amongst the political chattering classes, is of coalition, with some key liberals occupying cabinet positions. The more likely decision, according to Conservative insiders, is for Cameron to govern as a minority, using Stephen Harper’s Canadian government as a model. While this will be his initial instinct, it means that a large part of his strategy would be sacrificed due to his inability to secure the support of the other parties for drastic cuts to public service and significant changes to the education and health systems. The art of the possible will replace the science of the necessary. Cameron will be working hard to craft an agenda which will keep him in power for at least two years if not longer – he will need the support of a cross section of the House to make this possible.
What will be different is that the Conservatives and Liberals will agree a program that they will both support for the medium to long term – scrapping identity cards, school reform, action of the economy, changes in the House of Lords and electoral system, some changes in the tax structure and a commitment to working towards a carbon free economy. There are many areas of policy where the two parties agree, but differences are substantial – especially over Europe, the need for a replacement for Trident missiles and the speed at which they need to act on the economy.
Until Cameron can secure an arrangement with Clegg, Brown remains Prime Minister and the cabinet is intact. Brown has made an offer to Clegg that, if talks with Cameron collapse, he will be willing to seek to make arrangements with the Liberal Democratic leader. Lord Mandelson, formerly known as the Prince of Darkness and now presented as the sage of the Labour Party, suggested this morning that the electorate had voted for change. Change in how Britain is governed and a change in who governs. We will see. What is clear is that the situation is unclear until such time as Cameron is called to the Palace. It will be a busy week-end for all concerned.
At the time of writing, with all but one result declared, the Conservatives have secured 306 seats (gaining 97), Labour 258 (down 91), Liberals 55 (down 5). The Conservatives secured 36% of the popular vote, Labour 29% and Liberals 23% - the Liberals being the biggest looser in this election, since they expected to beat Labour in the popular vote. An overall majority would require 326 seats.
The British have voted in what some are now calling the Mick Jagger election – no one| can get satisfaction. No single party has secured a sufficient number of seats to govern with a majority. It is now clear, with all but one constituency still to declare (delayed due to the death of a candidate), that it will be a hung parliament, with the Conservatives having the largest number of seats (estimated to be 307 when all results are declared), with the Labour Party coming second and the Liberals a disappointing third. The Conservatives clearly won more of the popular vote and both Liberals and Labour lost a considerable number of seats – indeed it is a real defeat for Labour, the worst collapse in over eighty years.
The results contain a number of surprises. Several former cabinet members have lost their seats. The Liberals failed to secure the momentum which many thought would lead them to be either the second largest party or a breakthrough in terms of the total number of seats – they are actually worse off than before the election in terms of representation. In fact, the Liberals are down and some well known Liberal figures are no longer sitting members of parliament.
What happens now will be this. After a period of reflection during Friday, caused by the pending thirty or so seats due to be declared during the day, Gordon Brown as sitting Prime Minister will wait to see how negotiations between Nick Clegg and David Cameron go, since Cameron has offered a wide ranging alliance with the Liberals for a national government. Horse trading at the level of policy, position and program is already underway between Clegg and Cameron, with Cameron making the running. Brown is playing a wait and see game, but is likely to leave office by Tuesday at the latest.
There will be a concern to have a clear decision before the markets open on Monday. The last thing any Government needs is a run on sterling. However, this requires some real clarity on the part of all leaders and a sense of dignity coupled with foresight to ensure a smooth transition.
The talk, at least amongst the political chattering classes, is of coalition, with some key liberals occupying cabinet positions. The more likely decision, according to Conservative insiders, is for Cameron to govern as a minority, using Stephen Harper’s Canadian government as a model. While this will be his initial instinct, it means that a large part of his strategy would be sacrificed due to his inability to secure the support of the other parties for drastic cuts to public service and significant changes to the education and health systems. The art of the possible will replace the science of the necessary. Cameron will be working hard to craft an agenda which will keep him in power for at least two years if not longer – he will need the support of a cross section of the House to make this possible.
What will be different is that the Conservatives and Liberals will agree a program that they will both support for the medium to long term – scrapping identity cards, school reform, action of the economy, changes in the House of Lords and electoral system, some changes in the tax structure and a commitment to working towards a carbon free economy. There are many areas of policy where the two parties agree, but differences are substantial – especially over Europe, the need for a replacement for Trident missiles and the speed at which they need to act on the economy.
Until Cameron can secure an arrangement with Clegg, Brown remains Prime Minister and the cabinet is intact. Brown has made an offer to Clegg that, if talks with Cameron collapse, he will be willing to seek to make arrangements with the Liberal Democratic leader. Lord Mandelson, formerly known as the Prince of Darkness and now presented as the sage of the Labour Party, suggested this morning that the electorate had voted for change. Change in how Britain is governed and a change in who governs. We will see. What is clear is that the situation is unclear until such time as Cameron is called to the Palace. It will be a busy week-end for all concerned.
At the time of writing, with all but one result declared, the Conservatives have secured 306 seats (gaining 97), Labour 258 (down 91), Liberals 55 (down 5). The Conservatives secured 36% of the popular vote, Labour 29% and Liberals 23% - the Liberals being the biggest looser in this election, since they expected to beat Labour in the popular vote. An overall majority would require 326 seats.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
A Conservative Minority in the UK
With just two days of campaigning left in the British election, David Cameron has what is known as “momentum”. Polling at 35% against 28% for Labour and Liberals, the Conservative leader is increasingly looking like a winner. However, this lead is insufficient to give him an overall majority of the parties in the election. He needs 326 seats and at 35% he would secure less than 315.
More importantly, the polls are suggesting that almost half of those polled may yet change their minds at the ballot box, switching their vote at the last minute. It is a cliff hanger.
Gordon Brown is fighting back. In a powerful and emotional speech yesterday, he vowed to spend his life fighting inequality and injustice. Triggered by an emotional story from a teenager at a conference of social activists he found his passion and spoke from the heart. Nick Clegg, the Liberal leader, continues to have appeal as a person, but now that many have started to look at the Liberal policy platform, he seems stuck – they like him, but not what he plans to do.
Cameron has laid out what the Conservatives would do in the first six months in office. Repealing a large number of Labour’s more recent legislation, introducing a new budget with significant cuts to public service, starting to close down a number of quasi government agencies and cutting the pay of cabinet Ministers are all part of the package. Early on they will also begin their major reform of the education system, focusing on reducing bureaucracy, enabling cooperatives to run schools within the public school system (Charter schools run by parents, teachers and others) and changing the role of government. While some have criticized Cameron for making clear his plan – Clegg called it measuring the curtains for Downing Street – the clarity of the plan is attracting support.
It is unlikely that the result of the election will be known on Friday morning, as has been the case for the last several elections. In fact, it could take some time for the dust to settle and the outcome to come clear. If the vote is not decisive, then horse trading between the parties will begin. Gordon Brown will be asked by the Queen if he is able to form a Government and will likely try and fail, unless he also steps down as Prime Minister to enable a deal with the Liberals. If he does fail, then the Queen will call on David Cameron to see what he is able to do.
What is worrying some is the impact this uncertainty will have on the markets and on the value of the pound. Some traders suggest that the money markets have already discounted the impact of a hung parliament on sterling. Business leaders are not so sure. In New Zealand, which has had minority governments since it introduced proportional representation, this kind of uncertainty always slows investment and slows entrepreneurial development. Britain cannot afford a prolonged period of uncertainty, given its slow and fragile recovery from the recession.
By Friday mid-day the shape of the negotiations will become clear. The Queen will be advised to act quickly so that she is not seen as delaying the process of arbitrage which will preoccupy the political class and the news media for several days. It may take several days for the dust to settle and a new Government to emerge.
Whatever happens, it looks like the final days for Gordon Brown. The press are already reporting behind the scenes maneuvering for leadership amongst potential candidates. Brown himself vows to lead the party into the future, but then what else can he say. It will take a remarkable shift of public opinion over a forty eight hour period for Brown to be able to withstand the pressure for him to go after the likely defeat he is about to experience.
As an observer, this is the most interesting election since the election of 1974. Too close to call and full of raw energy, the politicians have at least managed to engage the people in the election itself. Whatever the outcome, this in itself is quite the achievement. Let’s hope they will not be underwhelmed by the outcome.
More importantly, the polls are suggesting that almost half of those polled may yet change their minds at the ballot box, switching their vote at the last minute. It is a cliff hanger.
Gordon Brown is fighting back. In a powerful and emotional speech yesterday, he vowed to spend his life fighting inequality and injustice. Triggered by an emotional story from a teenager at a conference of social activists he found his passion and spoke from the heart. Nick Clegg, the Liberal leader, continues to have appeal as a person, but now that many have started to look at the Liberal policy platform, he seems stuck – they like him, but not what he plans to do.
Cameron has laid out what the Conservatives would do in the first six months in office. Repealing a large number of Labour’s more recent legislation, introducing a new budget with significant cuts to public service, starting to close down a number of quasi government agencies and cutting the pay of cabinet Ministers are all part of the package. Early on they will also begin their major reform of the education system, focusing on reducing bureaucracy, enabling cooperatives to run schools within the public school system (Charter schools run by parents, teachers and others) and changing the role of government. While some have criticized Cameron for making clear his plan – Clegg called it measuring the curtains for Downing Street – the clarity of the plan is attracting support.
It is unlikely that the result of the election will be known on Friday morning, as has been the case for the last several elections. In fact, it could take some time for the dust to settle and the outcome to come clear. If the vote is not decisive, then horse trading between the parties will begin. Gordon Brown will be asked by the Queen if he is able to form a Government and will likely try and fail, unless he also steps down as Prime Minister to enable a deal with the Liberals. If he does fail, then the Queen will call on David Cameron to see what he is able to do.
What is worrying some is the impact this uncertainty will have on the markets and on the value of the pound. Some traders suggest that the money markets have already discounted the impact of a hung parliament on sterling. Business leaders are not so sure. In New Zealand, which has had minority governments since it introduced proportional representation, this kind of uncertainty always slows investment and slows entrepreneurial development. Britain cannot afford a prolonged period of uncertainty, given its slow and fragile recovery from the recession.
By Friday mid-day the shape of the negotiations will become clear. The Queen will be advised to act quickly so that she is not seen as delaying the process of arbitrage which will preoccupy the political class and the news media for several days. It may take several days for the dust to settle and a new Government to emerge.
Whatever happens, it looks like the final days for Gordon Brown. The press are already reporting behind the scenes maneuvering for leadership amongst potential candidates. Brown himself vows to lead the party into the future, but then what else can he say. It will take a remarkable shift of public opinion over a forty eight hour period for Brown to be able to withstand the pressure for him to go after the likely defeat he is about to experience.
As an observer, this is the most interesting election since the election of 1974. Too close to call and full of raw energy, the politicians have at least managed to engage the people in the election itself. Whatever the outcome, this in itself is quite the achievement. Let’s hope they will not be underwhelmed by the outcome.
Saturday, May 01, 2010
Voting Begins in Britain
Postal voters are now casting their votes in the British election and election officers are gearing up for what they expect to be a larger than usual turnout in Thursdays general election in Britain. In the last two elections, turnout has been down – 61.4% in 2005 and 59.4% in 2001 – but the interest generated by the three televised leaders debates and the disgust the electorate feel over the political class is expected to lead to the higher figures which characterized the period between 1955 and 1970 – some 75% of electors voting or higher.
A You-Gov published today place the Conservatives in the lead with 34% of the poll, while Labour and the Liberal Democrats are neck and neck at 28%. When we take account the margin of error, the election is still too close to call.
David Cameron is on the streets, television and radio making the case for a strong conservative vote to avoid the quagmire of a hung parliament and another general election before the end of the year. Nick Clegg is arguing that the race is now between him and Cameron, with Labour clearly in third place – and he has the support of The Guardian newspaper, who recommend tactical voting to ensure a Liberal-Labour coalition of the centre-left. Brown is apologizing for being Gordon Brown, but defending his record on the management of the economy.
The key to the election will be undecided voters and the protest votes. A great many undecided voters are normally “decided”, but don’t want to declare themselves. On this occasions, they are genuinely undecided – unable to make a choice. Many of these undecided voters are former Labour voters who are now so disillusioned with Brown and disgusted at the expense scandal that they feel stranded in the middle of a raging river with debt, deficit, challenging issues in education, health and misery over the Iraq war raging past them. The Liberal Democrats are natural allies, but are not likely to form a Government. The Conservatives, who have adopted a manifesto that would have been a classic Labour manifesto under Harold Wilson, have an unpalatable past for a wavering Labour supporter, are a real choice, if they feel that they can trust Cameron to honour his contract with the people. It will be a difficult decision.
Some will make a protest statement. In the North, the British National Party (BNP), a neo Nazi coalition of odd balls and right wing fanatics, will likely retain their current two seats and possibly pick up another. The Green party may attract more voters, as will some of the independents. With over one hundred and fifty incumbents having retired – the largest number to leave Westminster since the 1920’s – voters cannot take comfort in many places by returning their sitting MP.
Having run a constituency at the time of a general election, this coming Monday and Tuesday are tough days. One mistake, one off the cuff remark, as Gordon Brown can attest, can lose the election for a party. More significantly, party organizers will be rallying their workers to get the vote out – praying for good weather and trying to firm up their base of support. Every vote will really count this time and the “agents”, as the managers are called, will be working overtime on logistics and intelligence – finding out who will vote for their party and making sure they get them out to vote. The weather forecast is for patchy rain and chilly – not a good omen.
Speaking with voters in Wales and others here in Lancashire, one has the impression that the leaders of the three parties have increased the level of resentment towards the political class rather than lowered it. All three are seen as “talkers, not doers” and all three are seen as avoiding the elephant in the room – real and substantial budget cuts and tax adjustments that are needed to get Britain back in the black. One business owner who runs a Wine Bar in Llangollen observed that not one of them has spoken clearly and specifically about what they will cut and when, but instead have talked in generalities. Another retired public sector worker wonders when the three parties will wake up to the bloated size of the public service – the public sector in Wales accounts for 64% of the GDP of the nations and almost all of the jobs created since Labour came to power are in the public sector or owe their existence to subsidy.
Five days to go – one hundred hours of campaign time. Pubs are filling up with political talk over beer, wine and coolers. The outcome is anyone’s guess, but polls have been wrong before. In 1992 the pollsters did get it wrong, and most of them didn’t cover themselves in glory in 1997. New methods and new companies may make polling more efficient and potentially more accurate, but the electorate have a habit of surprising people. In 1992, the opinion polls, which had normally predicted election results fairly accurately, were not just wrong but spectacularly so. The five main UK polls published on the morning of the general election predicted a Labour lead of 0.8 %, which would have ensured a hung parliament with Labour as the largest party. The BBC and ITV exit polls suggested a Conservative lead of 4%, which would have resulted in a hung parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party. In fact, the Conservatives were 7.5 % ahead and John Major was able to form a Conservative government with an overall majority of 21 seats. Cameron is hoping that the same story repeats itself on Thursday. We will soon know.
A You-Gov published today place the Conservatives in the lead with 34% of the poll, while Labour and the Liberal Democrats are neck and neck at 28%. When we take account the margin of error, the election is still too close to call.
David Cameron is on the streets, television and radio making the case for a strong conservative vote to avoid the quagmire of a hung parliament and another general election before the end of the year. Nick Clegg is arguing that the race is now between him and Cameron, with Labour clearly in third place – and he has the support of The Guardian newspaper, who recommend tactical voting to ensure a Liberal-Labour coalition of the centre-left. Brown is apologizing for being Gordon Brown, but defending his record on the management of the economy.
The key to the election will be undecided voters and the protest votes. A great many undecided voters are normally “decided”, but don’t want to declare themselves. On this occasions, they are genuinely undecided – unable to make a choice. Many of these undecided voters are former Labour voters who are now so disillusioned with Brown and disgusted at the expense scandal that they feel stranded in the middle of a raging river with debt, deficit, challenging issues in education, health and misery over the Iraq war raging past them. The Liberal Democrats are natural allies, but are not likely to form a Government. The Conservatives, who have adopted a manifesto that would have been a classic Labour manifesto under Harold Wilson, have an unpalatable past for a wavering Labour supporter, are a real choice, if they feel that they can trust Cameron to honour his contract with the people. It will be a difficult decision.
Some will make a protest statement. In the North, the British National Party (BNP), a neo Nazi coalition of odd balls and right wing fanatics, will likely retain their current two seats and possibly pick up another. The Green party may attract more voters, as will some of the independents. With over one hundred and fifty incumbents having retired – the largest number to leave Westminster since the 1920’s – voters cannot take comfort in many places by returning their sitting MP.
Having run a constituency at the time of a general election, this coming Monday and Tuesday are tough days. One mistake, one off the cuff remark, as Gordon Brown can attest, can lose the election for a party. More significantly, party organizers will be rallying their workers to get the vote out – praying for good weather and trying to firm up their base of support. Every vote will really count this time and the “agents”, as the managers are called, will be working overtime on logistics and intelligence – finding out who will vote for their party and making sure they get them out to vote. The weather forecast is for patchy rain and chilly – not a good omen.
Speaking with voters in Wales and others here in Lancashire, one has the impression that the leaders of the three parties have increased the level of resentment towards the political class rather than lowered it. All three are seen as “talkers, not doers” and all three are seen as avoiding the elephant in the room – real and substantial budget cuts and tax adjustments that are needed to get Britain back in the black. One business owner who runs a Wine Bar in Llangollen observed that not one of them has spoken clearly and specifically about what they will cut and when, but instead have talked in generalities. Another retired public sector worker wonders when the three parties will wake up to the bloated size of the public service – the public sector in Wales accounts for 64% of the GDP of the nations and almost all of the jobs created since Labour came to power are in the public sector or owe their existence to subsidy.
Five days to go – one hundred hours of campaign time. Pubs are filling up with political talk over beer, wine and coolers. The outcome is anyone’s guess, but polls have been wrong before. In 1992 the pollsters did get it wrong, and most of them didn’t cover themselves in glory in 1997. New methods and new companies may make polling more efficient and potentially more accurate, but the electorate have a habit of surprising people. In 1992, the opinion polls, which had normally predicted election results fairly accurately, were not just wrong but spectacularly so. The five main UK polls published on the morning of the general election predicted a Labour lead of 0.8 %, which would have ensured a hung parliament with Labour as the largest party. The BBC and ITV exit polls suggested a Conservative lead of 4%, which would have resulted in a hung parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party. In fact, the Conservatives were 7.5 % ahead and John Major was able to form a Conservative government with an overall majority of 21 seats. Cameron is hoping that the same story repeats itself on Thursday. We will soon know.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Liverpool and Brown both Lost Last Night
The British electorate faced a difficult choice last night. Should they watch the final Prime Ministerial debate, which focused on the number one issue – the economy – or should they watch Liverpool play Athetico Madrid in a semi final game of the Europa League? Most watched the soccer and they were wise to do so.
The debate, despite a few interesting moments, was as dull as ditchwater. Labour’s Gordon Brown hurled numbers and data at the viewer with no concern for their anger, despair or serious concerns about their jobs, inflation and rising prices of gasoline, housing and food. Nick Clegg, the liberal leader, was clearly out of his depth and struggled for coherence. David Cameron, increasingly looking like a future Prime Minister, scored goal after goal, yet never seemed to emerge as an insightful, caring and smart Conservative leader that the right wing press tell us that he is. The debate was tedious, uninspiring and contained only one new insight.
That insight is what the media picked up today – not one of the three leaders talked seriously about either taxation or spending cuts, both of which need to change if the next Government is to fight the growing problem of deficit, debt and out of control spending by the Government of Britain. And this matters. As the European Union is discovering, not tackling debt and not clawing back profligate spending has consequences – both Greece and Spain’s sovereign bonds are now officially “junk” and there is a growing concern that, even with both the IMF and the EU propping up Greece, there may be sovereign debt defaults in the Eurozone. Portugal and Italy are also in serious difficulties. Ireland and Britain are close behind. A failure to tackle this issue head-on and quickly will be disastrous for Britain. Everyone knows this and is ready for it, yet the leaders rarely talk about it.
One third of the British available for work population either works for Government or is paid in some measure by the Government. This is a large chunk of the electorate. The leaders fear that if they tell the truth about spending cuts, voters will desert them. Gordon Brown, for example, did not deny that some £20 billion will be cut from the National Health Service, but made the ridiculous claim that none of these cuts would have any impact on front line services – how naïve does he think the British electorate is. Cameron has also vowed not to cut health, yet it is a massively expensive and very inefficient service. Clegg’s position on cuts is also vague – he talks of efficiency and removing duplication.
Clegg’s most serious error is to insist that the banks should be forced to lend to those seeking to build small businesses or buy their first house. This is exactly what Governments should not be doing – creating a lend at any cost market for borrowers who cannot afford to pay back the loans. This is how the trouble began in the US and why lending has to be the target of tough regulation. Bank taxes and bonuses are not the issue – profligate risky lending is.
On taxation, all three are talking of taxing banks, outlawing bankers bonuses and making the financial system tougher. The Conservatives are talking about scaling back some payroll taxes, but they are not talking about increasing sales taxes and taxing inheritance – both of which they plan to do.
At the end of yesterday, polling still showed, all three parties are still so close that the election outcome still looks like a hung parliament. The Labour party is polling third, but the difference between the Conservatives and Labour are within the margin of error of the polls. The debate will have made no difference to the poll results. What will is the fact that Brown is increasingly looking and behaving like a loser.
On the day before the debate, Brown was confronted by a long time Labour supporter who asked him what he was going to do about jobs, adding that she thought the presence of so many Eastern Europeans was making it difficult for British workers to get jobs. He answered her question, not very coherently, but was heard to call her a “bigot” when he was getting in his car to be driven away. His comment was captured on tape and broadcast. He had to apologize and then work to recover his image, already that of a bully and an angry man. His recovery made, the people will not forget.
Cameron is increasingly looking like the main beneficiary of the peoples anger at Labour in general and Brown in particular, but not sufficiently statesman like to command the lead. In a hung parliament, he will need a large group of independent MP’s and the Liberals to form a coalition that can govern.
Clegg’s naiveté will be a problem for Cameron. Clegg is insisting of electoral reform as a precondition to collaboration and is also suggesting that the Liberals should get some cabinet seats. This is not at all what Cameron has in mind, so we can expect a prolonged struggle over the shape of the Government. Meanwhile, Brown’s acolytes have been exploring options with their Liberal counterparts. Given Brown’s thirst for power, it is thought by some that he is more likely to cut a deal with the Liberals than Cameron. As sitting Prime Minister, Brown will have first run at cabinet making – in a hung parliament, the Queen is likely to call on Brown to see if he can form a Government, even if the Conservatives have gained significantly more seats than they had at dissolution. Clegg signaled last week that, if Brown came third, he can hardly lay claim to being Prime Minister, suggesting that any deal with Labour would need to be with a different leader – also unlikely. So it will be a messy few days or weeks before the Government becomes clear.
Anthony Howard, the seasoned political observer, appearing on television, reminded viewers that there is a big difference between opinion polls and elections and also a good few days to go. He still thinks there could be a swing to the Conservatives sufficient to give them a very narrow victory, though concedes the possibility of a hung parliament. The way seats are distributed requires a significant swing – 12% or more – to the Conservatives for outright victory in 326 seats or more. Voters are so disgusted with the political class as a whole that such a large swing is unlikely.
The vote is on Thursday May 6th. There is long week-end holiday just before this, which will give some respite from the bickering of the leaders and the relentless television coverage. No one is wasting time talking about real austerity policies or real change – it is all now about trust. No one seems to have sufficient trust in the political class to give them a right to rule, which is the real lesson of this election to date.
Liverpool lost, by the way.
The debate, despite a few interesting moments, was as dull as ditchwater. Labour’s Gordon Brown hurled numbers and data at the viewer with no concern for their anger, despair or serious concerns about their jobs, inflation and rising prices of gasoline, housing and food. Nick Clegg, the liberal leader, was clearly out of his depth and struggled for coherence. David Cameron, increasingly looking like a future Prime Minister, scored goal after goal, yet never seemed to emerge as an insightful, caring and smart Conservative leader that the right wing press tell us that he is. The debate was tedious, uninspiring and contained only one new insight.
That insight is what the media picked up today – not one of the three leaders talked seriously about either taxation or spending cuts, both of which need to change if the next Government is to fight the growing problem of deficit, debt and out of control spending by the Government of Britain. And this matters. As the European Union is discovering, not tackling debt and not clawing back profligate spending has consequences – both Greece and Spain’s sovereign bonds are now officially “junk” and there is a growing concern that, even with both the IMF and the EU propping up Greece, there may be sovereign debt defaults in the Eurozone. Portugal and Italy are also in serious difficulties. Ireland and Britain are close behind. A failure to tackle this issue head-on and quickly will be disastrous for Britain. Everyone knows this and is ready for it, yet the leaders rarely talk about it.
One third of the British available for work population either works for Government or is paid in some measure by the Government. This is a large chunk of the electorate. The leaders fear that if they tell the truth about spending cuts, voters will desert them. Gordon Brown, for example, did not deny that some £20 billion will be cut from the National Health Service, but made the ridiculous claim that none of these cuts would have any impact on front line services – how naïve does he think the British electorate is. Cameron has also vowed not to cut health, yet it is a massively expensive and very inefficient service. Clegg’s position on cuts is also vague – he talks of efficiency and removing duplication.
Clegg’s most serious error is to insist that the banks should be forced to lend to those seeking to build small businesses or buy their first house. This is exactly what Governments should not be doing – creating a lend at any cost market for borrowers who cannot afford to pay back the loans. This is how the trouble began in the US and why lending has to be the target of tough regulation. Bank taxes and bonuses are not the issue – profligate risky lending is.
On taxation, all three are talking of taxing banks, outlawing bankers bonuses and making the financial system tougher. The Conservatives are talking about scaling back some payroll taxes, but they are not talking about increasing sales taxes and taxing inheritance – both of which they plan to do.
At the end of yesterday, polling still showed, all three parties are still so close that the election outcome still looks like a hung parliament. The Labour party is polling third, but the difference between the Conservatives and Labour are within the margin of error of the polls. The debate will have made no difference to the poll results. What will is the fact that Brown is increasingly looking and behaving like a loser.
On the day before the debate, Brown was confronted by a long time Labour supporter who asked him what he was going to do about jobs, adding that she thought the presence of so many Eastern Europeans was making it difficult for British workers to get jobs. He answered her question, not very coherently, but was heard to call her a “bigot” when he was getting in his car to be driven away. His comment was captured on tape and broadcast. He had to apologize and then work to recover his image, already that of a bully and an angry man. His recovery made, the people will not forget.
Cameron is increasingly looking like the main beneficiary of the peoples anger at Labour in general and Brown in particular, but not sufficiently statesman like to command the lead. In a hung parliament, he will need a large group of independent MP’s and the Liberals to form a coalition that can govern.
Clegg’s naiveté will be a problem for Cameron. Clegg is insisting of electoral reform as a precondition to collaboration and is also suggesting that the Liberals should get some cabinet seats. This is not at all what Cameron has in mind, so we can expect a prolonged struggle over the shape of the Government. Meanwhile, Brown’s acolytes have been exploring options with their Liberal counterparts. Given Brown’s thirst for power, it is thought by some that he is more likely to cut a deal with the Liberals than Cameron. As sitting Prime Minister, Brown will have first run at cabinet making – in a hung parliament, the Queen is likely to call on Brown to see if he can form a Government, even if the Conservatives have gained significantly more seats than they had at dissolution. Clegg signaled last week that, if Brown came third, he can hardly lay claim to being Prime Minister, suggesting that any deal with Labour would need to be with a different leader – also unlikely. So it will be a messy few days or weeks before the Government becomes clear.
Anthony Howard, the seasoned political observer, appearing on television, reminded viewers that there is a big difference between opinion polls and elections and also a good few days to go. He still thinks there could be a swing to the Conservatives sufficient to give them a very narrow victory, though concedes the possibility of a hung parliament. The way seats are distributed requires a significant swing – 12% or more – to the Conservatives for outright victory in 326 seats or more. Voters are so disgusted with the political class as a whole that such a large swing is unlikely.
The vote is on Thursday May 6th. There is long week-end holiday just before this, which will give some respite from the bickering of the leaders and the relentless television coverage. No one is wasting time talking about real austerity policies or real change – it is all now about trust. No one seems to have sufficient trust in the political class to give them a right to rule, which is the real lesson of this election to date.
Liverpool lost, by the way.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Ten Days to Go and All Up For Grabs
Just ten days to go before the British general election and uncertainty about the outcome is on everyone’s mind. The latest opinion poll, taken after the TV debate on Thursday, shows the Conservatives in the lead with 35% and the Liberals and Labour tied for second place, with Labour just a point behind the Liberals at 27%. With a 3% margin of error in the polling, the election is too close to call, though it is clear that the momentum has returned to the Conservatives.
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, has occupied a great deal of attention during the last week or so following his surprisingly stong performance in both the first and second leaders debate. The third and last of these debates will take place on Thursday and the focus will be on the economy. This is the debate that matters. First, the economy is one of the two key issue on which many voters will make their decision – the other key issue is trust. Second, the parties have sharp differences on what they will do to restore Britain’s economy, now badly damaged after massive spending since 1998 leading to deficits and debt.
The conservatives want to cut programs. So does the Labour Party. Reports are beginning to appear of substantial cuts to the National Health Service, in the order of £20 billion by 2014, now being planned by Labour, despite promises to maintain health care as the top priority. Labour plans to find efficiencies without affecting front-line services – cutting most of the administrative trivia they themselves imposed on health, education, social services, policing and other agencies. They also plan increases in overall public spending while cutting.
The conservative party have pledged not to cut health and foreign aid, but to eliminate "the bulk" of the UK's structural deficit within five years beginning in 2010 with £6bn in cuts. One of the ways they intend to do this is by permitting charities, trusts, voluntary groups and co-operatives to set up new Academy schools, independent of local authority control, and to run other public services – doing for a range of public services what Margaret Thatcher did for housing.
The Liberals, whose policies are now being taken seriously, are also proposing cutting spending. They are identifying £15bn of lower priority spending per year which they will cut so as to protect front-line services while reducing structural deficit at least as fast as Labour plans, beginning in 2011 – basically, the same policy as Labour. They intend to raise the threshold at which people start paying income tax from £6,475 to £10,000, which is a populist move and will simplify the tax system. They will also impose "mansion tax" on the value of properties over £2m and increase capital gains tax to bring it into line with income tax. This “mansion tax” sounds like a lot, but a lot of people who bought houses in parts of the UK in the 1950’s and 60’s now find that they are worth close to or above this sum, so this will alienate some of the middle class. Finally on the economy, the Liberals plan to introduce a banking levy until such time as banks' retail and investment arms can be separated – a proposal also made by Labour.
The real difference is that Labour has demonstrated itself incapable of stimulating the economy, the Conservatives understand the challenge and the Liberals don’t expect to win, but are aligning themselves with Labour in case there is a coalition government.
Clegg is already laying out terms. Last week he made any coalition dependent on the speedy introduction of proportional representation into the British electoral system – it already occurs in Scotland and Wales. This week-end he had made clear that, if Labour comes third, it would be absurd for Gordon Brown to remain as Prime Minister in any coalition – a clear bid for the job in such a Government.
Talk of a hung parliament is making the financial community anxious. The key to recovery, they suggest, is stable government. As we can see from the Canadian experience, minority governments are constantly concerned about their ability to stave off votes of no confidence. Coalition governments, as we can see from many European countries, can be successful usually for a short period of time. At some point, a majority government is needed to govern effectively – the financiers say. Economic growth in the first quarter of 2010 was 0.2% - half of the growth predicted by the analysts. Investors are waiting to see the outcome of the election, and may show signs of jitters the day after if the outcome is unclear.
Meanwhile, the leaders are on the “stomp” pitching their ideas to a bemused public. While millions have tuned into the leaders debates, most remain ignorant of what the parties actually intend to do. Many are also meeting candidates they have never seen before. Some one hundred and fifty MP’s retired, the largest number to leave politics at the same time in over a century. Trusted local MP’s are no longer there, so uncertainty is increased. The poll is on May 6th – there is a lot yet for the candidates to do to get their message out.
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, has occupied a great deal of attention during the last week or so following his surprisingly stong performance in both the first and second leaders debate. The third and last of these debates will take place on Thursday and the focus will be on the economy. This is the debate that matters. First, the economy is one of the two key issue on which many voters will make their decision – the other key issue is trust. Second, the parties have sharp differences on what they will do to restore Britain’s economy, now badly damaged after massive spending since 1998 leading to deficits and debt.
The conservatives want to cut programs. So does the Labour Party. Reports are beginning to appear of substantial cuts to the National Health Service, in the order of £20 billion by 2014, now being planned by Labour, despite promises to maintain health care as the top priority. Labour plans to find efficiencies without affecting front-line services – cutting most of the administrative trivia they themselves imposed on health, education, social services, policing and other agencies. They also plan increases in overall public spending while cutting.
The conservative party have pledged not to cut health and foreign aid, but to eliminate "the bulk" of the UK's structural deficit within five years beginning in 2010 with £6bn in cuts. One of the ways they intend to do this is by permitting charities, trusts, voluntary groups and co-operatives to set up new Academy schools, independent of local authority control, and to run other public services – doing for a range of public services what Margaret Thatcher did for housing.
The Liberals, whose policies are now being taken seriously, are also proposing cutting spending. They are identifying £15bn of lower priority spending per year which they will cut so as to protect front-line services while reducing structural deficit at least as fast as Labour plans, beginning in 2011 – basically, the same policy as Labour. They intend to raise the threshold at which people start paying income tax from £6,475 to £10,000, which is a populist move and will simplify the tax system. They will also impose "mansion tax" on the value of properties over £2m and increase capital gains tax to bring it into line with income tax. This “mansion tax” sounds like a lot, but a lot of people who bought houses in parts of the UK in the 1950’s and 60’s now find that they are worth close to or above this sum, so this will alienate some of the middle class. Finally on the economy, the Liberals plan to introduce a banking levy until such time as banks' retail and investment arms can be separated – a proposal also made by Labour.
The real difference is that Labour has demonstrated itself incapable of stimulating the economy, the Conservatives understand the challenge and the Liberals don’t expect to win, but are aligning themselves with Labour in case there is a coalition government.
Clegg is already laying out terms. Last week he made any coalition dependent on the speedy introduction of proportional representation into the British electoral system – it already occurs in Scotland and Wales. This week-end he had made clear that, if Labour comes third, it would be absurd for Gordon Brown to remain as Prime Minister in any coalition – a clear bid for the job in such a Government.
Talk of a hung parliament is making the financial community anxious. The key to recovery, they suggest, is stable government. As we can see from the Canadian experience, minority governments are constantly concerned about their ability to stave off votes of no confidence. Coalition governments, as we can see from many European countries, can be successful usually for a short period of time. At some point, a majority government is needed to govern effectively – the financiers say. Economic growth in the first quarter of 2010 was 0.2% - half of the growth predicted by the analysts. Investors are waiting to see the outcome of the election, and may show signs of jitters the day after if the outcome is unclear.
Meanwhile, the leaders are on the “stomp” pitching their ideas to a bemused public. While millions have tuned into the leaders debates, most remain ignorant of what the parties actually intend to do. Many are also meeting candidates they have never seen before. Some one hundred and fifty MP’s retired, the largest number to leave politics at the same time in over a century. Trusted local MP’s are no longer there, so uncertainty is increased. The poll is on May 6th – there is a lot yet for the candidates to do to get their message out.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Clegg, Cameron & Brown - Talking Suits
David Cameron began the second televised leaders debate of the British election with a lot to prove. Just two weeks to go and he is not doing as well as he needs if he is to ensure an overall majority on May 6th. For Cameron, the debate was meant to be an opportunity for him to capture some momentum and to put to bed the fantasy that the newly popular Liberal leader, Nick Clegg, could perhaps form the next government.
For Clegg, he could either build on the momentum he secured following last weeks debate or begin to lose ground. Gordon Brown, the hapless Labour leader who has been practicing smiling and learning not to be funny, sought to display his foreign statesman credentials as a way of trying to stall his inevitable demise.
Both Cameron and Brown sought to attack Clegg, Clegg came out the winner in the last debate and the task on this occasion was to bruise, blast and belittle the Liberal leader. He was not helped this week by the disclosure that some significant financial donations to his party were paid directly into his own bank account. He did, however, hold his own and came out well.
Clegg is articulate, insightful, funny and smart. Words that we could also use to describe Cameron. The difference between Cameron and Clegg is that no one expected Clegg to do so well and everyone was looking to Cameron to shine. Cameron was dull when compared to expectations and Clegg shone against the lack of expectation.
Nothing happened on this occasion to shift opinion. The debate was, if anything, solid and dull. The opinion polls will not be radically impacted by the debate this time round. There is one more debate next week, just seven days before polling which could be more important.
The big winner is television. Despite the fear of voter apathy and alienation, viewers have tuned-in in very large numbers to watch at least some of these debates. The fact that the first made history – both for the very fact of it occurring and for the impact Nick Clegg had – reinforced the importance of television.
The election outcome is still too close to call. What Clegg also did this week was to up-the ante on any post-election horse trading if there is a hung parliament – he is demanding immediate action on proportional representation as a condition of his support for either of the other parties. He is also making clear his expectation that support involves more of a coalition that, as with Canada, tacit support through parliamentary voting agreements. The real election result may not be known for some days after voting on May 6th.
For Clegg, he could either build on the momentum he secured following last weeks debate or begin to lose ground. Gordon Brown, the hapless Labour leader who has been practicing smiling and learning not to be funny, sought to display his foreign statesman credentials as a way of trying to stall his inevitable demise.
Both Cameron and Brown sought to attack Clegg, Clegg came out the winner in the last debate and the task on this occasion was to bruise, blast and belittle the Liberal leader. He was not helped this week by the disclosure that some significant financial donations to his party were paid directly into his own bank account. He did, however, hold his own and came out well.
Clegg is articulate, insightful, funny and smart. Words that we could also use to describe Cameron. The difference between Cameron and Clegg is that no one expected Clegg to do so well and everyone was looking to Cameron to shine. Cameron was dull when compared to expectations and Clegg shone against the lack of expectation.
Nothing happened on this occasion to shift opinion. The debate was, if anything, solid and dull. The opinion polls will not be radically impacted by the debate this time round. There is one more debate next week, just seven days before polling which could be more important.
The big winner is television. Despite the fear of voter apathy and alienation, viewers have tuned-in in very large numbers to watch at least some of these debates. The fact that the first made history – both for the very fact of it occurring and for the impact Nick Clegg had – reinforced the importance of television.
The election outcome is still too close to call. What Clegg also did this week was to up-the ante on any post-election horse trading if there is a hung parliament – he is demanding immediate action on proportional representation as a condition of his support for either of the other parties. He is also making clear his expectation that support involves more of a coalition that, as with Canada, tacit support through parliamentary voting agreements. The real election result may not be known for some days after voting on May 6th.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Election TV
Fifty years after the US began Presidential TV debates, the British viewing public were treated to the experience of a debate amongst the three front runners in the British general election – Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg. In an otherwise average piece of television, Nick Clegg came out of the debate ahead of his rivals. Gordon Brown disappointed even his own champions. Cameron was acceptable.
There were no knock-out blows or disastrous gaffes, no jokes that were memorable and no new policies. This did not prevent fierce clashes over issues such as economy, MPs’ expenses and immigration, over which the parties disagree. On the economy, Brown wants more investment from government and Cameron austerity. On the MP’s expenses no one can agree what needs to be done now. On immigration, the parties take a different stance on the link between jobs and immigration – Cameron wanting to ensure that more jobs go to British born workers and Brown and Clegg preferring to remain vague. All three agree that immigration is too high and needs to be curtailed.
Clegg was polished, assured and articulate. He positioned his liberal party as a rational, mature alternative to the bickering of the traditional two parties of power. He outlined ideas and policies which, on the surface, sound rational and he won the popularity poll hands down. In snap surveys taken immediately after the debate, he secured between 43 and 51% of the poll, depending on which pollster you want to listen to. There are two more debates before election day on May 6th – the next one on foreign affairs and the final one on the economy. All three leaders will be working to improve their performance.
The themes of the election came out clearly. Cameron reiterated, every time Brown appeared to have a new idea, that the Government had been in power for thirteen years and is now seeking another five to do what they should have done all along. Brown speaks of his experience and being a steady hand on the tiller of the ship, which many see to be sinking. Clegg suggests that the more the Labour and Conservative parties argue the more they sound the same – it’s time for a change.
Close to ten million voters (9.9 million in fact) were watching peak time politics – a kind of job interview in front of a nation. This means that some twenty five to thirty million will be talking about this over a coffee or beer and a cigarette for the next few days. A novelty in itself. But they did not watch a great game changer or are unlikely to now see the parties in a different way and may well return to East Enders or Coronation Street rather than watch the next two debates. Though history was made by the fact of the debates themselves, what was said was not new.
Clegg will try and use the momentum from the debate to argue that this will be the breakthrough election for the Liberals. He will suggest that he has the momentum to form a Government. The Liberals have suggested this in every election since the second world war and have never come even close. This time, however, it will cement his position as the potential king maker if there is a hung parliament. Clegg did himself no harm. His challenge is to repeat this performance on two more occasions – all eyes will now be on him.
Brown is not good at television. His basic grumpy intellectual side seems to shine through the camera like a laser, even when he is trying to be funny. His humour is also, well, not funny. His big joke, wait for it, was to thank David Cameron for showing him as a smiling man in the posters which adorn the billboards across Britain. See what I mean. Cameron is a polished performer and that is his problem. He comes across as what the Brits call “smarmy” – a kind of performing spin doctor whose words sound good until you read them in the cold light of day. He is Blair again. This was very obvious in last nights debate. Clegg won because he seemed the only one who was both comfortable and genuine, but then he can afford to be – he has no real chance of winning.
The polls published today show the Conservatives with a seven point lead over Labour who, in turn, have a ten point lead over the Liberals. The election is still too close to call, though the Conservatives appear to have some momentum. It will be a few days before we can see what impact, if any, the TV debate had on core voter opinion. The race will begin to settle only in the final week of the race – the first week of May.
There were no knock-out blows or disastrous gaffes, no jokes that were memorable and no new policies. This did not prevent fierce clashes over issues such as economy, MPs’ expenses and immigration, over which the parties disagree. On the economy, Brown wants more investment from government and Cameron austerity. On the MP’s expenses no one can agree what needs to be done now. On immigration, the parties take a different stance on the link between jobs and immigration – Cameron wanting to ensure that more jobs go to British born workers and Brown and Clegg preferring to remain vague. All three agree that immigration is too high and needs to be curtailed.
Clegg was polished, assured and articulate. He positioned his liberal party as a rational, mature alternative to the bickering of the traditional two parties of power. He outlined ideas and policies which, on the surface, sound rational and he won the popularity poll hands down. In snap surveys taken immediately after the debate, he secured between 43 and 51% of the poll, depending on which pollster you want to listen to. There are two more debates before election day on May 6th – the next one on foreign affairs and the final one on the economy. All three leaders will be working to improve their performance.
The themes of the election came out clearly. Cameron reiterated, every time Brown appeared to have a new idea, that the Government had been in power for thirteen years and is now seeking another five to do what they should have done all along. Brown speaks of his experience and being a steady hand on the tiller of the ship, which many see to be sinking. Clegg suggests that the more the Labour and Conservative parties argue the more they sound the same – it’s time for a change.
Close to ten million voters (9.9 million in fact) were watching peak time politics – a kind of job interview in front of a nation. This means that some twenty five to thirty million will be talking about this over a coffee or beer and a cigarette for the next few days. A novelty in itself. But they did not watch a great game changer or are unlikely to now see the parties in a different way and may well return to East Enders or Coronation Street rather than watch the next two debates. Though history was made by the fact of the debates themselves, what was said was not new.
Clegg will try and use the momentum from the debate to argue that this will be the breakthrough election for the Liberals. He will suggest that he has the momentum to form a Government. The Liberals have suggested this in every election since the second world war and have never come even close. This time, however, it will cement his position as the potential king maker if there is a hung parliament. Clegg did himself no harm. His challenge is to repeat this performance on two more occasions – all eyes will now be on him.
Brown is not good at television. His basic grumpy intellectual side seems to shine through the camera like a laser, even when he is trying to be funny. His humour is also, well, not funny. His big joke, wait for it, was to thank David Cameron for showing him as a smiling man in the posters which adorn the billboards across Britain. See what I mean. Cameron is a polished performer and that is his problem. He comes across as what the Brits call “smarmy” – a kind of performing spin doctor whose words sound good until you read them in the cold light of day. He is Blair again. This was very obvious in last nights debate. Clegg won because he seemed the only one who was both comfortable and genuine, but then he can afford to be – he has no real chance of winning.
The polls published today show the Conservatives with a seven point lead over Labour who, in turn, have a ten point lead over the Liberals. The election is still too close to call, though the Conservatives appear to have some momentum. It will be a few days before we can see what impact, if any, the TV debate had on core voter opinion. The race will begin to settle only in the final week of the race – the first week of May.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Knives and Politics
The three major British political parties have released their manifestos – a kind of blueprint for what they might do until they discover just how bad the situation really is once in office. The situation is serious – all agree – but none are tackling the challenge of debt, disaffection and continued economic uncertainty head on. It is as if the manifestos were written before Britain became a debt loaded country.
The Conservatives are the most radical. They are offering a “power to the people” strategy, in which public services are subject to more local control. Residents would win the right to instigate referendums if 5 per cent of local people backed the move. The Tories also want to see more elected mayors and police commanders. Communities would be allowed to take over pubs and post offices threatened with closure. Public-sector workers would be encouraged to form "co-ops" to run services like nursing teams, schools or other public services. They are focused on changing the way government engages with the economy, reducing some proposed tax increases, changing the way in which government programs are funded. In terms of health, the Tories have promised "real choice" by entitling patients to choose any healthcare provider – including private clinics – within NHS prices, while people would be guaranteed access to a local GP 12 hours a day, seven days a week. Top-down Government targets, such as waiting times for treatment, would be scrapped in a blitz on the "endless layers of bureaucracy and management". Schools would undergo their biggest reform for a generation, with the establishment of state-funded "free schools" run by parents, teachers' charities, trusts and voluntary groups.
The Labour party manifesto is offering more of the kind of government that has been in place since Blair won power in 1997. On education, Labour is offering a new idea: Promise of "a choice of good schools in every area". Where parents are not satisfied, they will have the power to trigger a ballot on bringing in a new school leadership team from a "proven and trusted accredited provider" through a merger or takeover. Up to 1,000 secondary schools would be part of such an accredited schools group by 2015. On the economy, Labour pledge to build a hi-tech economy, supporting business and industry to create one million more skilled jobs and modernising our infrastructure with High Speed Rail, a Green Investment Bank and broadband access for all. Nothing new there.
The Liberals are focused on their usual list of policies: fairer taxes, economic reform, a pupil premium for the poorest children worth some $2.5 billion in all and constitutional change. What is most important about the Liberal manifesto is that it is silent on the idea of coalition or support for a minority government, which is looking more like the outcome of the election. It is not possible to read their manifesto and detect a bias which would favour an alliance with one either the Labour or Conservative parties.
The polls now show a narrowing of the gap, already slim, between the Conservatives and Labour, with one poll having the Tories lead by just 3% - the same as the margin of error. The average is a six point lead – not enough for the Tories to secure a majority government. The British people are having a hard time buying into the idea that David Cameron is a statesman like leader who is right for Britain at this time, but they also dislike Gordon Brown. Trust is the real issue here.
There are three weeks to go. Harold Wilson, former Labour Prime Minister, was fond of reminding his audiences that a week is a long time in politics. A lot can yet happen. Usually at this point, clear patterns of voter interest, concerns and behaviour begin to emerge. Not this time. Most pundits are convinced that there will be a hung parliament and furious efforts are been made behind the scenes to see what alliances and alignments can be made. One insider has indicated that the trade off process from the minor parties has already begun, with Plaid Cymru (the Welsh Nationalists) offering to support Labour under certain conditions.
What is certain is that a large number of the British electorate are yet to show any real interest. The campaign has not got them fired up or engaged. Despite the hype, its business as usual for the majority of Brits. The front pages of the newspapers carry some election news, but are more concerned with gossip and froth than with the future of the country. Front page news today – butchers at one of Britain’s largest supermarket chains have been advised not to use knives, since these are dangerous. It seems that there is more interest in this story than in creating a new golden age of politics.
The Conservatives are the most radical. They are offering a “power to the people” strategy, in which public services are subject to more local control. Residents would win the right to instigate referendums if 5 per cent of local people backed the move. The Tories also want to see more elected mayors and police commanders. Communities would be allowed to take over pubs and post offices threatened with closure. Public-sector workers would be encouraged to form "co-ops" to run services like nursing teams, schools or other public services. They are focused on changing the way government engages with the economy, reducing some proposed tax increases, changing the way in which government programs are funded. In terms of health, the Tories have promised "real choice" by entitling patients to choose any healthcare provider – including private clinics – within NHS prices, while people would be guaranteed access to a local GP 12 hours a day, seven days a week. Top-down Government targets, such as waiting times for treatment, would be scrapped in a blitz on the "endless layers of bureaucracy and management". Schools would undergo their biggest reform for a generation, with the establishment of state-funded "free schools" run by parents, teachers' charities, trusts and voluntary groups.
The Labour party manifesto is offering more of the kind of government that has been in place since Blair won power in 1997. On education, Labour is offering a new idea: Promise of "a choice of good schools in every area". Where parents are not satisfied, they will have the power to trigger a ballot on bringing in a new school leadership team from a "proven and trusted accredited provider" through a merger or takeover. Up to 1,000 secondary schools would be part of such an accredited schools group by 2015. On the economy, Labour pledge to build a hi-tech economy, supporting business and industry to create one million more skilled jobs and modernising our infrastructure with High Speed Rail, a Green Investment Bank and broadband access for all. Nothing new there.
The Liberals are focused on their usual list of policies: fairer taxes, economic reform, a pupil premium for the poorest children worth some $2.5 billion in all and constitutional change. What is most important about the Liberal manifesto is that it is silent on the idea of coalition or support for a minority government, which is looking more like the outcome of the election. It is not possible to read their manifesto and detect a bias which would favour an alliance with one either the Labour or Conservative parties.
The polls now show a narrowing of the gap, already slim, between the Conservatives and Labour, with one poll having the Tories lead by just 3% - the same as the margin of error. The average is a six point lead – not enough for the Tories to secure a majority government. The British people are having a hard time buying into the idea that David Cameron is a statesman like leader who is right for Britain at this time, but they also dislike Gordon Brown. Trust is the real issue here.
There are three weeks to go. Harold Wilson, former Labour Prime Minister, was fond of reminding his audiences that a week is a long time in politics. A lot can yet happen. Usually at this point, clear patterns of voter interest, concerns and behaviour begin to emerge. Not this time. Most pundits are convinced that there will be a hung parliament and furious efforts are been made behind the scenes to see what alliances and alignments can be made. One insider has indicated that the trade off process from the minor parties has already begun, with Plaid Cymru (the Welsh Nationalists) offering to support Labour under certain conditions.
What is certain is that a large number of the British electorate are yet to show any real interest. The campaign has not got them fired up or engaged. Despite the hype, its business as usual for the majority of Brits. The front pages of the newspapers carry some election news, but are more concerned with gossip and froth than with the future of the country. Front page news today – butchers at one of Britain’s largest supermarket chains have been advised not to use knives, since these are dangerous. It seems that there is more interest in this story than in creating a new golden age of politics.
Friday, April 02, 2010
The Canadian Broadcasting Castration
What is a commercial, as in radio commercial? There are several definitions. One is this: “pertaining to commerce and having either monetary or non-monetary gain as motive”. Keep this in mind.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which some wits now call the Canadian Broadcasting Castration, following the cuts made to classical music programming over a year ago, is funded by over $1 billion of public funds. It constantly complains of poverty and constantly irritates the public by its whining and general misery-boys performance when in front of Senate and Commons committees.
But it is now unbelievably frustrating to listen to. One reason, and for me it is serious, is that is constantly runs commercials (see definition above) saying that it is commercial free. This nonsense is repeated three or four times an hour – trailers for other CBC shows or just the annoying repetition that you are listening to CBC Radio 2 which is commercial free.
When I wrote to the CBC, both by snail mail and email, I receive no response. As an owner of this Castration I feel demeaned by this lack of interest in the views of shareholders. As a listener to CBC Radio 2 between 9am and 2.45pm on weekdays (Mountain Standard Time),this is slowly driving me to drastic action. I don’t know what form this will take, but it could well be streaming BBC Radio 3.
Its no wonder that the CBC gets a rough ride in the public mind when it both disregards us and then insults our intelligence.
Rant over.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which some wits now call the Canadian Broadcasting Castration, following the cuts made to classical music programming over a year ago, is funded by over $1 billion of public funds. It constantly complains of poverty and constantly irritates the public by its whining and general misery-boys performance when in front of Senate and Commons committees.
But it is now unbelievably frustrating to listen to. One reason, and for me it is serious, is that is constantly runs commercials (see definition above) saying that it is commercial free. This nonsense is repeated three or four times an hour – trailers for other CBC shows or just the annoying repetition that you are listening to CBC Radio 2 which is commercial free.
When I wrote to the CBC, both by snail mail and email, I receive no response. As an owner of this Castration I feel demeaned by this lack of interest in the views of shareholders. As a listener to CBC Radio 2 between 9am and 2.45pm on weekdays (Mountain Standard Time),this is slowly driving me to drastic action. I don’t know what form this will take, but it could well be streaming BBC Radio 3.
Its no wonder that the CBC gets a rough ride in the public mind when it both disregards us and then insults our intelligence.
Rant over.
REBOOT, RETHINK, REGROUP - The New Reality of Climate Change Science and Policy
A parliamentary committee in Britain has largely exonerated Dr Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and a key figure in Climategate. While they wee very critical of the practice in climatology of not releasing raw data at the same time the analysis of that data is published and of not responding to legitimate and entirely correct requests under the Freedom of Information legislation in the UK to release these data, the committee was in a forgiving mood.
Their review and conclusion do not alter one basic fact. The global temperature data set which came from Dr Jones and his two colleagues is not readily available for public scrutiny. This is important, since the data set is at the heart of the claims made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that there is aggressive warming of the planet taking place. The raw data does exist and can be reconstructed from other records. What does not exist is the systematic adjustments made to these data by Phil Jones and his colleagues to account for urban heat sinks and other anomalies – adjustments which, when made, make all the difference between the raw data and the published data.
Here is why. Measurements of the surface temperature are made by simple instruments which are meant to be located in places which are unaffected by human activity – cars, heat sources, large buildings. Many are inappropriately located and adjustments have to be made to take into account the impact of these factors on the measurement. Thus whenever you see reference to global temperature you are not looking at a reading from an instrument, you are looking at data output from a model of what the instruments would say if only they were located in a different place. How the model is built has a major impact on what the surface temperature will be.
Ross McKitrick at the University of Guelph has analyzed the published data and used it to reconstruct models and then tested these against raw data sets which are available. His conclusion is simple. Most of the warming reported in the literature can be explained by the urban heat sinks and locations of the measuring instruments. Rather than measuring climate, the Phil Jones data is actually measuring industrialization – where industry and man has an impact on measuring instruments. Almost all of the temperature rises reported in the Phil Jones models can be explained by non-climatic factors.
It gets worse. The IPCC claim that the matter is settled – there are no significant effects of industrialization on the measurement model. In fact, the IPCC say in the Summary for Policymakers, that the impact of such effects have a “negligible influence” on the data. They cite no substantial evidence for this claim. It is now clear that the evidence does not support this view and that the IPCC fabricated the evidence to support their claim.
This is a crucial matter. If the basis of the warming claim is problematic, what else is problematic? We know that the IPCC got it wrong on the claim that the ice caps on the Himalayas were melting so fast that they would soon be gone. We know that they got the measurement and claims about sea level rises in the northern hemisphere. We know they are dead wrong in the claims that the warming climate is increasing the number and severity of storms. We know they got claims about the Amazon rainforest wrong. In all, we know that there were sixteen claims that cannot be supported by the available peer reviewed evidence and that many of the claims made by the IPCC were based on what is known as “grey literature” – non peer reviewed materials in newspapers, leaflets, pamphlets and magazines.
Der Spiegel, the German insight newspaper, has published a major eight part series of online articles this week about the “superstorm” affecting climate change science. Written in English, the articles explore the mistaken claims of the IPCC and use simple language to make clear that the science is not settled and that several major claims of the IPCC are demonstrably false. They look to what they call “politically charged science” as an explanation for why the boundary between science and politics has been so blurred and how campaigners become scientists who use their own scientific claims as a basis for their own campaigns.
They look at several examples, but the most telling is the generally accepted political idea that temperature rises must be limited to 20C or the planet is in peril. This idea was central to the conversations at Copenhagen and remains at the heart of policy debate in Governments around the world, most especially in Europe. Climate models involve some of the most demanding computations of any simulations, and only a handful of institutes worldwide have the necessary supercomputers. The computers must run at full capacity for months to work their way through the jungle of data produced by coupled differential equations. All of this is much too complicated for politicians, who aren't terribly interested in the details. They have little use for radiation budgets and ocean-atmosphere circulation models. Instead, they prefer simple targets. For this reason a group of German scientists, yielding to political pressure, invented an easily digestible message in the mid-1990s: the two-degree target. To avoid even greater damage to human beings and nature, the scientists warned, the temperature on Earth could not be more than two degrees Celsius higher than it was before the beginning of industrialization.
Der Spiegel suggests that this is scientific nonsense. "Two degrees is not a magical limit -- it's clearly a political goal," says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). "The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated." Schellnhuber is the “inventor” of the two-degree target. This one idea, which has no basis in science, made him Germany's most influential climatologist. Schellnhuber, a theoretical physicist, became Chancellor Angela Merkel's chief scientific adviser.
Half truths, fabrications and outrageous claims do not make for a science. More specifically, they do not create the conditions under which a science can be “settled” or trusted by the public. Der Spiegel’s eight part series is a major challenge to the scientific community and to those who claim to be using science as a basis for policy. Trying to use fear to secure a radical agenda is not what we expect of either science or government. What needs to happen now is for us to start again with a dispassionate look at the science, pressing the restart button on public policy and stop the use of fear as a basis for action.
We have time. There have been many periods in human history when the planet has been warmer and when CO2 concentrations have been higher. We are adapting. Great work is taking place to reduce CO2 emissions, to increase our use of renewables and to green the planet. We can get science back from the post-modernists and return to a critical, sceptical and transparent form of science which truly engages the scientific community in scientific work stripped of polemics.
Now what we need is for the politicians to catch up and to understand that their religious fervour is out of place with their public and that the parade they thought they had rushed to the front of has dispersed behind them. Its time to rethink public policy.
Their review and conclusion do not alter one basic fact. The global temperature data set which came from Dr Jones and his two colleagues is not readily available for public scrutiny. This is important, since the data set is at the heart of the claims made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that there is aggressive warming of the planet taking place. The raw data does exist and can be reconstructed from other records. What does not exist is the systematic adjustments made to these data by Phil Jones and his colleagues to account for urban heat sinks and other anomalies – adjustments which, when made, make all the difference between the raw data and the published data.
Here is why. Measurements of the surface temperature are made by simple instruments which are meant to be located in places which are unaffected by human activity – cars, heat sources, large buildings. Many are inappropriately located and adjustments have to be made to take into account the impact of these factors on the measurement. Thus whenever you see reference to global temperature you are not looking at a reading from an instrument, you are looking at data output from a model of what the instruments would say if only they were located in a different place. How the model is built has a major impact on what the surface temperature will be.
Ross McKitrick at the University of Guelph has analyzed the published data and used it to reconstruct models and then tested these against raw data sets which are available. His conclusion is simple. Most of the warming reported in the literature can be explained by the urban heat sinks and locations of the measuring instruments. Rather than measuring climate, the Phil Jones data is actually measuring industrialization – where industry and man has an impact on measuring instruments. Almost all of the temperature rises reported in the Phil Jones models can be explained by non-climatic factors.
It gets worse. The IPCC claim that the matter is settled – there are no significant effects of industrialization on the measurement model. In fact, the IPCC say in the Summary for Policymakers, that the impact of such effects have a “negligible influence” on the data. They cite no substantial evidence for this claim. It is now clear that the evidence does not support this view and that the IPCC fabricated the evidence to support their claim.
This is a crucial matter. If the basis of the warming claim is problematic, what else is problematic? We know that the IPCC got it wrong on the claim that the ice caps on the Himalayas were melting so fast that they would soon be gone. We know that they got the measurement and claims about sea level rises in the northern hemisphere. We know they are dead wrong in the claims that the warming climate is increasing the number and severity of storms. We know they got claims about the Amazon rainforest wrong. In all, we know that there were sixteen claims that cannot be supported by the available peer reviewed evidence and that many of the claims made by the IPCC were based on what is known as “grey literature” – non peer reviewed materials in newspapers, leaflets, pamphlets and magazines.
Der Spiegel, the German insight newspaper, has published a major eight part series of online articles this week about the “superstorm” affecting climate change science. Written in English, the articles explore the mistaken claims of the IPCC and use simple language to make clear that the science is not settled and that several major claims of the IPCC are demonstrably false. They look to what they call “politically charged science” as an explanation for why the boundary between science and politics has been so blurred and how campaigners become scientists who use their own scientific claims as a basis for their own campaigns.
They look at several examples, but the most telling is the generally accepted political idea that temperature rises must be limited to 20C or the planet is in peril. This idea was central to the conversations at Copenhagen and remains at the heart of policy debate in Governments around the world, most especially in Europe. Climate models involve some of the most demanding computations of any simulations, and only a handful of institutes worldwide have the necessary supercomputers. The computers must run at full capacity for months to work their way through the jungle of data produced by coupled differential equations. All of this is much too complicated for politicians, who aren't terribly interested in the details. They have little use for radiation budgets and ocean-atmosphere circulation models. Instead, they prefer simple targets. For this reason a group of German scientists, yielding to political pressure, invented an easily digestible message in the mid-1990s: the two-degree target. To avoid even greater damage to human beings and nature, the scientists warned, the temperature on Earth could not be more than two degrees Celsius higher than it was before the beginning of industrialization.
Der Spiegel suggests that this is scientific nonsense. "Two degrees is not a magical limit -- it's clearly a political goal," says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). "The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated." Schellnhuber is the “inventor” of the two-degree target. This one idea, which has no basis in science, made him Germany's most influential climatologist. Schellnhuber, a theoretical physicist, became Chancellor Angela Merkel's chief scientific adviser.
Half truths, fabrications and outrageous claims do not make for a science. More specifically, they do not create the conditions under which a science can be “settled” or trusted by the public. Der Spiegel’s eight part series is a major challenge to the scientific community and to those who claim to be using science as a basis for policy. Trying to use fear to secure a radical agenda is not what we expect of either science or government. What needs to happen now is for us to start again with a dispassionate look at the science, pressing the restart button on public policy and stop the use of fear as a basis for action.
We have time. There have been many periods in human history when the planet has been warmer and when CO2 concentrations have been higher. We are adapting. Great work is taking place to reduce CO2 emissions, to increase our use of renewables and to green the planet. We can get science back from the post-modernists and return to a critical, sceptical and transparent form of science which truly engages the scientific community in scientific work stripped of polemics.
Now what we need is for the politicians to catch up and to understand that their religious fervour is out of place with their public and that the parade they thought they had rushed to the front of has dispersed behind them. Its time to rethink public policy.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
The Phony War
The Prime Minister of Britain gets to decide when an election will take place. Right now, Gordon Brown has not declared his intention. Everyone expects that it will take place on May 6th of this year. The horses are at the starting gate, but the starter gun has yet to go off. It looks like this could be a classically short election – just three to four weeks. Expect the election to be called in the next ten days.
It will be close. As of today, the Conservative lead is just six points – not enough for them to form a Government, but close enough to the Labour party to make for a hard fight. Even after the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, and his opposite numbers in the Liberal and Conservative party did a television debate, following the presentation of Labour’s budget, the parties remain close. None of them could convince the British public that they had a handle on the country’s finances.
Meantime, Gordon Brown is enjoying a renewed sense of energy. Boosted by a strong endorsement by Tony Blair and a weak performance to date by his opponent, David Cameron, Brown is beginning to look statesmanlike. He has weathered accusation of being a bully and a bore, and has started to appear as a strong man with a soft spot for his family. He is changing his appearance and starting to look, well, smart.
Cameron, in contrast, is looking hapless. He just can’t get his mojo to work, as they say. A speech on the family went nowhere and his rhetoric of change, mirroring Obama’s during the US election, just sounds vacuous. His strong stance on the economy, which is attracting strong support from British industry, is weakened by members of his own party undermining his policy.
Labour has focused its big guns on attacking the Conservative finance spokesman, George Osborne. They don’t like his elitist background – wealthy family, public school and a good university. But their major concern with Osborne is that he is proposing policies which challenge the tax and spend strategy Labour is fond of. But Osborne is smart. He has secured support of the leaders of industry for a campaign aimed at lowering a tax on employers and employees which Labour intends to raise. He has connected this to a strategy for job creation and is winning the argument that tax and spend will slow recovery, increase debt and cause more and more to become dependent on the State. He is fast becoming both the lightening rod for attack and the bedrock of a fight back by the Conservatives.
Osborne is also suggesting that there is a lot of waste in Government – something the Government denies. Yet the budget brought down by Alistair Darling just a few days ago also seeks efficiencies and more effective government – around $20 - $25 billion a year. In a nanny state where over a third of the population receive state subsidies, waste and inefficiency is inevitable.
What the general public have yet to realize, but will as soon as the election starter gun goes off, is that this election is about more than the economy and finance. It is also about the nature of Government. Labour believes in big government, central planning and high levels of target setting and accountability measurement. One example of the change that the conservatives envision is in education. The manifesto commits the Conservatives to developing vouchers which will follow the child, reforming the system so that Charter schools can be created to meet student needs and restoring the role of parents, teachers and community in designing education. Modeled on developments in Sweden, the strategy is one of ending the state control of the system and enabling massive privatization.
They have a similar strategy for health. Rather than insisting that services be provided by the National Health Service – the third largest employer in the world – the Conservatives will permit state employees to privatize the services they offer. They will also give real authority to local health providers and reduce the power of central government.
This major ideological difference will become a campaign focus during the election – it will rival the economy as a deciding issue when voters stand in line to vote.
The betting is still on a hung parliament – no one party having a sufficient majority to command the levers of power. In this event, the Prime Minister may be given some considerable time – some suggest up to a month – to form a coalition. Britain is used to a change of power within twenty four hours of the election result are known. Sir Gus O’Donnell, Secretary to the Cabinet and the most senior public servant, recently told a Commons committee that it would be up to the Prime Minister to decide when to resign even if the Conservatives had the majority of the seats in the house. It will be tense and interesting.
Right now it’s the phony war. When Gordon Brown calls “start” we can expect fireworks. It is the most important election since Thatcher stood down.
It will be close. As of today, the Conservative lead is just six points – not enough for them to form a Government, but close enough to the Labour party to make for a hard fight. Even after the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, and his opposite numbers in the Liberal and Conservative party did a television debate, following the presentation of Labour’s budget, the parties remain close. None of them could convince the British public that they had a handle on the country’s finances.
Meantime, Gordon Brown is enjoying a renewed sense of energy. Boosted by a strong endorsement by Tony Blair and a weak performance to date by his opponent, David Cameron, Brown is beginning to look statesmanlike. He has weathered accusation of being a bully and a bore, and has started to appear as a strong man with a soft spot for his family. He is changing his appearance and starting to look, well, smart.
Cameron, in contrast, is looking hapless. He just can’t get his mojo to work, as they say. A speech on the family went nowhere and his rhetoric of change, mirroring Obama’s during the US election, just sounds vacuous. His strong stance on the economy, which is attracting strong support from British industry, is weakened by members of his own party undermining his policy.
Labour has focused its big guns on attacking the Conservative finance spokesman, George Osborne. They don’t like his elitist background – wealthy family, public school and a good university. But their major concern with Osborne is that he is proposing policies which challenge the tax and spend strategy Labour is fond of. But Osborne is smart. He has secured support of the leaders of industry for a campaign aimed at lowering a tax on employers and employees which Labour intends to raise. He has connected this to a strategy for job creation and is winning the argument that tax and spend will slow recovery, increase debt and cause more and more to become dependent on the State. He is fast becoming both the lightening rod for attack and the bedrock of a fight back by the Conservatives.
Osborne is also suggesting that there is a lot of waste in Government – something the Government denies. Yet the budget brought down by Alistair Darling just a few days ago also seeks efficiencies and more effective government – around $20 - $25 billion a year. In a nanny state where over a third of the population receive state subsidies, waste and inefficiency is inevitable.
What the general public have yet to realize, but will as soon as the election starter gun goes off, is that this election is about more than the economy and finance. It is also about the nature of Government. Labour believes in big government, central planning and high levels of target setting and accountability measurement. One example of the change that the conservatives envision is in education. The manifesto commits the Conservatives to developing vouchers which will follow the child, reforming the system so that Charter schools can be created to meet student needs and restoring the role of parents, teachers and community in designing education. Modeled on developments in Sweden, the strategy is one of ending the state control of the system and enabling massive privatization.
They have a similar strategy for health. Rather than insisting that services be provided by the National Health Service – the third largest employer in the world – the Conservatives will permit state employees to privatize the services they offer. They will also give real authority to local health providers and reduce the power of central government.
This major ideological difference will become a campaign focus during the election – it will rival the economy as a deciding issue when voters stand in line to vote.
The betting is still on a hung parliament – no one party having a sufficient majority to command the levers of power. In this event, the Prime Minister may be given some considerable time – some suggest up to a month – to form a coalition. Britain is used to a change of power within twenty four hours of the election result are known. Sir Gus O’Donnell, Secretary to the Cabinet and the most senior public servant, recently told a Commons committee that it would be up to the Prime Minister to decide when to resign even if the Conservatives had the majority of the seats in the house. It will be tense and interesting.
Right now it’s the phony war. When Gordon Brown calls “start” we can expect fireworks. It is the most important election since Thatcher stood down.
Monday, March 22, 2010
After Health Care, Climate Change
With health care almost through the US Congress – just the small hurdle of a simple majority Senate vote to come – the attention is now moving to the climate change legislation that has been stalled in the Senate for some considerable time.
Democrat senator John Kerry has been working for several months with Republican Lindsey Graham and independent senator Joe Lieberman, to develop a compromise version of a bill that they think could secure bipartisan support. This move has received support from the environmental organizations as well, surprisingly, from the American Chamber of Commerce. There appears to be fast moving support for the new bill, due to be released before the end of this week.
The new bill downgrades emission reduction targets as set out in the original and much derided Boxer-Kerry bill, proposing cuts in emissions of 17 per cent by 2020 on 2005 levels as opposed to the original 20 per cent target. The new bill also proposes increased financial support for the nuclear energy, domestic oil and gas, and clean coal industries, and sets out many safeguards designed to support those sectors that would be hit hardest by the introduction of a nationwide emissions cap-and-trade scheme. For example, it raises the prospect of a price ceiling for carbon credits, financial assistance for those sectors that face the threat of "carbon leakage", incentives to help farmers cut emissions, and trade measures to protect US firms from "imports from other countries that do not adhere to emissions-cutting measures". This last provision targets, according to some commentators, bitumen from the Alberta oil sands.
Gone, at least for now, is any suggestion that a new draft bill will include cap and trade arrangements covering all of US industry. Instead, it is likely to focus initially just on energy producers, with provisions for this to be extended later to other manufacturing sectors.
One other provision of the bill will to encourage and enable investment in green technology. This will be done in part by direct government investment, support for feed-in tariffs and other R&D investments, but may also include other measures. Meantime, in Britain, the Government has indicated its intention of creating a state run Green Investment Bank with initial capital of £2 billion ($3 billion) and other jurisdictions are looking at issuing Green Bonds to support technology developments related to climate change mitigation, renewable energy and transport systems.
Opposition to the bill will likely be strong. Senator Inhoffe, the High Priest of climate change skeptics, will oppose any attempt to introduce emissions controls, cap and trade and supports for renewable energy on the ground of it not being needed (the science is corrupted) and being bad for the economy. Others will oppose the bill on the grounds that it doesn’t go far enough. Yet others will suggest that the US cannot afford to do anything while its debts are so high.
Canada will watch these developments with interest. There is a clear commitment that the Canadian cap and trade and climate change policies will be aligned to those adopted by the US. Based on the idea that doing otherwise might create competitive disadvantage for Canada, focusing cap and trade on energy producers and creating incentives for technology based innovation is in line with the current Canadian governments thinking. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc will likely seek to push Canada to do more than the US.
Health care reform is a key moment for the Obama administration – a turning point from being a “no change yet” President to becoming “a yes we can, a little” President. Climate change is likely his next challenge.
Democrat senator John Kerry has been working for several months with Republican Lindsey Graham and independent senator Joe Lieberman, to develop a compromise version of a bill that they think could secure bipartisan support. This move has received support from the environmental organizations as well, surprisingly, from the American Chamber of Commerce. There appears to be fast moving support for the new bill, due to be released before the end of this week.
The new bill downgrades emission reduction targets as set out in the original and much derided Boxer-Kerry bill, proposing cuts in emissions of 17 per cent by 2020 on 2005 levels as opposed to the original 20 per cent target. The new bill also proposes increased financial support for the nuclear energy, domestic oil and gas, and clean coal industries, and sets out many safeguards designed to support those sectors that would be hit hardest by the introduction of a nationwide emissions cap-and-trade scheme. For example, it raises the prospect of a price ceiling for carbon credits, financial assistance for those sectors that face the threat of "carbon leakage", incentives to help farmers cut emissions, and trade measures to protect US firms from "imports from other countries that do not adhere to emissions-cutting measures". This last provision targets, according to some commentators, bitumen from the Alberta oil sands.
Gone, at least for now, is any suggestion that a new draft bill will include cap and trade arrangements covering all of US industry. Instead, it is likely to focus initially just on energy producers, with provisions for this to be extended later to other manufacturing sectors.
One other provision of the bill will to encourage and enable investment in green technology. This will be done in part by direct government investment, support for feed-in tariffs and other R&D investments, but may also include other measures. Meantime, in Britain, the Government has indicated its intention of creating a state run Green Investment Bank with initial capital of £2 billion ($3 billion) and other jurisdictions are looking at issuing Green Bonds to support technology developments related to climate change mitigation, renewable energy and transport systems.
Opposition to the bill will likely be strong. Senator Inhoffe, the High Priest of climate change skeptics, will oppose any attempt to introduce emissions controls, cap and trade and supports for renewable energy on the ground of it not being needed (the science is corrupted) and being bad for the economy. Others will oppose the bill on the grounds that it doesn’t go far enough. Yet others will suggest that the US cannot afford to do anything while its debts are so high.
Canada will watch these developments with interest. There is a clear commitment that the Canadian cap and trade and climate change policies will be aligned to those adopted by the US. Based on the idea that doing otherwise might create competitive disadvantage for Canada, focusing cap and trade on energy producers and creating incentives for technology based innovation is in line with the current Canadian governments thinking. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc will likely seek to push Canada to do more than the US.
Health care reform is a key moment for the Obama administration – a turning point from being a “no change yet” President to becoming “a yes we can, a little” President. Climate change is likely his next challenge.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Clegg - The Kingmaker
With six weeks to go before the British general election, not yet called by the Prime Minister, betting on the outcome is moving quickly. The online betting store paddypower.com is looking at a very close election. David Cameron’s Conservatives had odds of 1-7 and Gordon Brown’s Labour Party have odds of 4-1. A hung parliament is looking increasingly likely. Polling on St Patrick’s day gave the Conservatives a five point lead over labour, with a 3 point margin of error. Its very close.
These odds and polls gives the spotlight to the would be “kingmaker”, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Party – the odds of him winning the election outright are 150 – 1. The Liberal Party is being courted by the outriders of the two main parties, since his guarantees of support would enable either Labour or the Conservative party to claim victory in a minority government, supported by Liberals.
But what would Clegg want in return? Clegg is, by instincts, a watered down version of David Cameron and he would be most inclined to cut a deal with the Conservatives. However, his party – once the bastions of power in nineteenth century Britain, are generally left of centre and more sympathetic to Labour. He has established four tests for power sharing or support for Government. These are: lower taxes on the poor, a pupil premium in education, a greener economy, and political reform. Each of these are accompanied by policies which he would expect his political partner to endorse.
He would also expect, though it is difficult to understand why, a raft of cabinet positions in a true coalition government. Indeed, Vince Cable, his very capable shadow finance minister, has already been in talks with officials from the Treasury and he is touting himself as “the next Chancellor”, likely to be the most unpopular person in Britain once the election is over. Britain is mired in debt and the EU are demanding that taxes increased and programs be cut dramatically so as to pay down deficits and reduce debt. Britain already has the highest personal tax rates in the G8 and has a deficit close to 12% of GDP – twice the average of the EU. Personal debt levels of British households are also very high - 170 percent of overall annual income, compared with 130 percent in the United States – indicating that any reduction in social support services or increase in taxation will be very difficult for the public to tolerate.
Clegg’s thinking is based on the idea of a coalition – power sharing. Based on the election results, whoever is successful in courting Clegg would allocate a number of key cabinet positions to the Liberals and would form a power sharing executive. The least likely position the dominant party will allocate to the Liberals is the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer – the finance ministry. This will be the central position in any British government for a decade to come. More likely are positions in Education, Health, Social Services or Justice. The problem here is that the benchstrength of the Liberal Party in these portfolios is weak.
It is also unlikely, given Cameron’s desire to be an agent of social change in Britain – especially in relation to health and education – that a Liberal coalition would last long. Disputes at cabinet, significant tensions over policy direction would flare quickly and the whole enterprise might fall apart almost before it got started.
A more likely model for resolving a hung parliament is the Canadian model now in place in Ottawa. The party with the most seats, but not enough to form a majority government, acts as the Governing party and trusts in the support of the house issue by issue. While this is less stable in theory than a coalition, given the scale of the challenge Britain faces, it is more likely to be the case that the Conservatives could govern in this way for a period of time – say two years – before being defeated on a key issue. It is known that the “backroom boys” in Cameron’s conservatives are looking closely at Stephen Harper’s strategy for maintaining an aggressive minority government.
Whatever happens, this will be the most interesting election in Britain since Thatcher was first elected Prime Minister on 4th May 1979. Should Cameron repeat her success on the 6th May 2010, he will have an urgent set of tasks to start to restore confidence in Britain’s economy and to reduce the size, scope and intrusion of Government. Should Labour win, which is still a possibility (though remote), Brown will have succeeded in proving that miracles can happen and that Lazarus is not the only person to have come back from the dead.
What we know for certain is that paddypower.com, in taking all of its bets on the outcome of the election, will be the sure fire winner.
These odds and polls gives the spotlight to the would be “kingmaker”, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Party – the odds of him winning the election outright are 150 – 1. The Liberal Party is being courted by the outriders of the two main parties, since his guarantees of support would enable either Labour or the Conservative party to claim victory in a minority government, supported by Liberals.
But what would Clegg want in return? Clegg is, by instincts, a watered down version of David Cameron and he would be most inclined to cut a deal with the Conservatives. However, his party – once the bastions of power in nineteenth century Britain, are generally left of centre and more sympathetic to Labour. He has established four tests for power sharing or support for Government. These are: lower taxes on the poor, a pupil premium in education, a greener economy, and political reform. Each of these are accompanied by policies which he would expect his political partner to endorse.
He would also expect, though it is difficult to understand why, a raft of cabinet positions in a true coalition government. Indeed, Vince Cable, his very capable shadow finance minister, has already been in talks with officials from the Treasury and he is touting himself as “the next Chancellor”, likely to be the most unpopular person in Britain once the election is over. Britain is mired in debt and the EU are demanding that taxes increased and programs be cut dramatically so as to pay down deficits and reduce debt. Britain already has the highest personal tax rates in the G8 and has a deficit close to 12% of GDP – twice the average of the EU. Personal debt levels of British households are also very high - 170 percent of overall annual income, compared with 130 percent in the United States – indicating that any reduction in social support services or increase in taxation will be very difficult for the public to tolerate.
Clegg’s thinking is based on the idea of a coalition – power sharing. Based on the election results, whoever is successful in courting Clegg would allocate a number of key cabinet positions to the Liberals and would form a power sharing executive. The least likely position the dominant party will allocate to the Liberals is the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer – the finance ministry. This will be the central position in any British government for a decade to come. More likely are positions in Education, Health, Social Services or Justice. The problem here is that the benchstrength of the Liberal Party in these portfolios is weak.
It is also unlikely, given Cameron’s desire to be an agent of social change in Britain – especially in relation to health and education – that a Liberal coalition would last long. Disputes at cabinet, significant tensions over policy direction would flare quickly and the whole enterprise might fall apart almost before it got started.
A more likely model for resolving a hung parliament is the Canadian model now in place in Ottawa. The party with the most seats, but not enough to form a majority government, acts as the Governing party and trusts in the support of the house issue by issue. While this is less stable in theory than a coalition, given the scale of the challenge Britain faces, it is more likely to be the case that the Conservatives could govern in this way for a period of time – say two years – before being defeated on a key issue. It is known that the “backroom boys” in Cameron’s conservatives are looking closely at Stephen Harper’s strategy for maintaining an aggressive minority government.
Whatever happens, this will be the most interesting election in Britain since Thatcher was first elected Prime Minister on 4th May 1979. Should Cameron repeat her success on the 6th May 2010, he will have an urgent set of tasks to start to restore confidence in Britain’s economy and to reduce the size, scope and intrusion of Government. Should Labour win, which is still a possibility (though remote), Brown will have succeeded in proving that miracles can happen and that Lazarus is not the only person to have come back from the dead.
What we know for certain is that paddypower.com, in taking all of its bets on the outcome of the election, will be the sure fire winner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)