Referism: abolishing the general - by Richard... Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Referism: abolishing the general - by Richard... Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Raedwald is coming up with some interesting ideas on the constitutional shape of the UK, which highlights the potential role of the blogs in shaping our society. For sure, the newspapers are not going to do it, having descended into their second childhood.

"Referism", meanwhile, got a good start yesterday, with a largely positive reception on the forum, with lots of feedback and questions. One issue that emerges, though, is the question of what happens if there is a general election and the new administration immediately thereafter produces a budget. Would there then have to be a referendum?

The problem is obvious because, although the answer has to be "yes", one can easily see the problem of voter fatigue, if there are too many voting sessions – with their attendant campaigns. The answer, therefore, might be to get rid of general elections altogether. 

One can imagine here the anguished howls from the political classes, and one could imagine them protesting that such an abolition would deprive people of the opportunity of choosing their government. It is, therefore, an anti-democratic measure.

It must be remembered, however, that we do not vote for governments. We vote for MPs and – as is most definitely the case now – they choose the government, with us currently ending up with one that nobody really wanted. In any case, since our supreme government is in Brussels, and we are not allowed to vote for it - and nor would any vote be meaningful as we do not have a demos – the point is somewhat moot.

Abolishing general elections, though, does not mean abolishing elections. Simply, we work on the basis of individual MPs, who will have individually a five year tenure, and then have to seek re-election. Maybe they could be limited to two terms, but that is another issue for another day.

Over term, with resignations and natural wastage, one could expect MPs to start dropping out of the system for re-election all the year round – although one might not wait for nature and introduced staggered elections. By such means, parliament is constantly reinforced by a steady flow of fresh blood.

Crucially, by getting rid of the "big bang" drama of a dissolution, and the general election cycle, we re-focus attention on what parliament does, rather than on choosing its members. So much of modern politics these is devoted to the process of election, and the attendant beauty contest. Get rid of this, and the focus is on the annual budget referendum, with the emphasis on what the government does, rather than the pretty boys and goils that are in it.

As for the MP elections, these – when necessary – are held locally on the same day as the referendum. That creates an interesting situation, with fascinating political dynamics, which need to be explored further. Consider, perhaps, where there is major opposition to the budget. Those candidates who prosper might be those who come up with ideas for a better alternative budget.

These and other issues, we shall continue to explore.

COMMENT: REFERISM THREAD

Share

Print ready

The joys of photoshop - by Richard...

Without doubt, it is the readers who make this blog so much better - received with thanks. And you can never have too much of a good thing. You have to look at these in order, to get the joke ... first this and only then do you look at this. Then it starts to get silly and sillier.

COMMENT THREAD

Share

Print ready

Sadder but not wiser - by Richard...

There is some publicity this morning (seeReuters) in the UK for a report claimed to have been produced by Oxfam, on the dire state of the Afghan security forces. It raises "serious concerns" about whether they will be ready to take over from foreign forces by the end of 2014.

The full report, called "No time to lose" is actually a joint briefing paper by multiple agencies. It is not (or does not appear to be) on the Oxfam website, so it is a little hard to find, but can be downloaded from the reliefweb site. 

At 37 pages, the report is well worth the read. Fronted by Oxfam, it is the sort of thing the charity is quite good at. If would get a lot more support if it concentrated on this sort of work, instead of frittering away its time and energies on climate change and related nonsense.

Anyhow, of the report itself, you do not have to read between the lines to discover that there is not the slightest prospect of the Afghan security forces being ready to take over from coalition forces, not in 2014 or any time in foreseeable future thereafter. 

As a taster, we are told that human rights organisations have documented a series of alleged violations of human rights and humanitarian law on the part of the national security forces. These include night raids carried out without adequate precautions to protect civilians, the recruitment and sexual abuse of children, mistreatment during detention, and the killing and abuse of civilians by local police.

The killer line in this is that the police are "seen by many communities as criminal gangs". And that is nothing new to us and why, in some many communities, the Taliban is seen as a better option. As coalition forces move out and Afghan security forces take over, the Taliban will move in. We will end up with a north-south split, and civil war – within a year of our departure.

Thus underlined is the shabby little charade that we are perpetrating. We will hear from ministers and officials glowing accounts of the progress and capabilities of Afghan security forces. As we get closer to departure, the tempo of these reports will be stepped up, but they will be an amalgam of lies, self-delusion and wishful thinking.

The narrative will not be seriously questioned though. This is about saving face, and justifying the many billions wasted in the benighted country to achieve almost precisely nothing. It is needed to give some meaning to the deaths and injuries suffered by our forces, their efforts and courage. 

If despite that they – and we – end up feeling cheated, so be it. Certainly, I am left with the overwhelming sense of the futility of it all. There was all that time, the emotional investment and intellectual effort ... all for what?

We now have the charade of OBL's killing - a very convenient execution - which opens the way for a mass withdrawal of coalition troops. All the fine words and the war aims will now be abandoned. The country will again be left to rot, without any serious resolution, leaving the players no better off in their understanding of the regional stresses and the ways of solving the long-standing problems.

There are more deaths and broken bodies to come, alas, but the sooner we are done with the place the better. We can do no good there any longer - and nor ever could we. We will be sadder, but not wiser, from the experience.

COMMENT THREAD

Share

Print ready

There is hope - by Richard...

A couple of days ago we saw this, which rather suggests that the Boy has finally slid away from the faux greenery that marked the first part of his tawdry reign as not-the-tories leader. But with the pixels barely dry on the screen, we get this - a lament from the little greenies telling us that the UK green employment sector "is seeing job losses and opportunities in the green sector are expected to shrink in 2011".

This is a survey managed by Environmental Data Services (ENDS), which polled over 2,000 environmental "professionals" (contradiction in terms, surely), from which we learn that the mood among the respondents was "distinctly gloomy with three in five expecting public spending cuts to directly affect environmental employment in their organisation". 

But then we get Kerry Geldart, acting chief executive, of Society for the Environment (the Orwellian-sounding SocEnv) urging the government "to recognise that environmental professionals are leading the way, and that its most pressing duty is to get fully behind the skills and resources required to meet the future".

We also have Nick Reeves, executive director of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, saying: "The green revolution is stalling and the thousands of new green-collar jobs that were promised aren't materialising fast enough". He goes on to say: "The 'greenest government ever' must clarify its environmental policies and put in place green growth plans". 

Well, when the last greenie leaves town, would he please take his energy-saving lightbulbs with him, and sign on sustainably to the dole, leaving us to try an unpick some of the damage. But, to hear a greenie complain that his revolution is stalling is sweet music to our ears – another pic from Hawaii to celebrate (above) - this is the future.

COMMENT THREAD

Share

Print ready

If Heineken made stupid people - by Richard... Monday, May 09, 2011

... one would probably look like this woman. The other would have written the article.

COMMENT THREAD

11Share

Print ready

That "ism" again - Referism - by Richard...

.

Referism is a political philosophy which states that, in the relationship between the British people and their governments, the people should be in control. The state is the servant not the master. Control is primarily achieved by submitting annual state budgets to the people for approval, via referendums. The catchphrase is: "it's our money and we decide". Governments are thereby forced to refer to the people for their funding, hence the term "referism".

******

It always was about money. That's how parliament emerged as a force in the land, going as far back as 1215 when the tenants-in-chief secured the Magna Carta from King John. That concession, more than anything else, established the principle that the king might not levy or collect any taxes (except the feudal taxes to which they were hitherto accustomed), save with the consent of his royal council.

He who controls the money controls the king. Thus, the "council" gradually developed into a parliament. The rest, as they say, is history.

The principle survives to this day. The executive (the former king) must refer to parliament each year for approval of its budget. Without that, it runs out of money. Our problem is – and the heart of all our problems – is that this process has become an empty ritual. No parliament has rejected a budget in living memory, and none is likely to.

So each year we see this great ritual, where the government of the day pretends to ask us for money, and we have to watch the empty charade of approval being given – only then to see vast amounts being spent on things of which the majority of us do not approve, such as the European Union.

This must stop. The ritual must turn back into substance, and there must be real control over the annual budget. The politicians cannot be trusted to discharge this duty. They have their fingers in the till and a vested interest in maintaining high levels of expenditure. The power must go to the people who pay the bills - us.

The means by which must be achieved is through the ballot box, with an annual referendum. The budget must, each year, be submitted to the people for approval, and comes into force only once approved. The politicians must make their case, put their arguments, and then ask us for the money ... and they have to say please. We, the people, decide whether they get it. We, the people, have the power to say no.

If you want politics – you got it. Do you want out of the EU? Fine, build up a caucus and vote down the budget. Make it plain to the politicians that no money will be forthcoming until we withdraw. Simples ... and it is that simple. Starve the beast, rather than risk everything on an all-or-nothing rigged ballot, given at the discretion of our masters.  And let's do it at local level as well.

Logically, there might have to be a fall-back position, where the executive can draw down maintenance funds, pending approval, to keep basis services going – or not. If Congress does not approve the budget in the US, it falls. That tends to concentrate minds. Only, in this case, it is the people who stop the money. And money talks.

It is that which makes the big difference - we are talking about a continuous process of control.  By contrast, a one-off referendum, agreed (or not) by the government, on a grace and favour basis, for its own tactical advantage, is to concede the power to the government.  We, the people, still have to go to The Man, and ask him "pretty please" can we have a referendum.  When we hold the purse strings, The Man says "please" to us.

So how does this become an "ism"? Well, in my earlier piece, I wrote about the need of society to communicate to its government its "wishes and needs", to make it perform and yet prevent it from taking over, swapping the master-servant relationship.

We do it by controlling the purse strings, and we do that by making the government refer to us for permission to raise and spend funds. Our tool is the referendum, our philosophy is thus "referism" and we are "referists" or, in colloquial terms, "reffers". If we want a political party, and I would not advise it, then we set up a Referist Party.

Better, I thought, we work with the existing parties. We build a movement and make it clear that the first party to offer an annual referendum on the budget gets our vote. We could, tactically, even pick on one of the parties, and tell it that it will never get into power unless it agrees to our terms. We have the power to do that, if we mobilise and then use it.

There are, of course, many other possibilities, but the talking must stop some time and things are getting urgent. We have to take control peacefully, before it spirals down into incontrollable violence. This is a way to do it, tried and tested and known to be effective. Let's do it - let's mark 9 May 2011 as the day we started getting out of the EU, and begun to assert control over our own governments.

Needless to say though, there will be resistance to the idea.  The first and foremost problem is the "not invented here" syndrome.  Many people who profess to be interested in change, or actively pursuing it, are actually more concerned with "self" and self aggrandisement. They will not support it because they did not think of it, and it hasn't got their name on it.

Another main centre of resistance will be the tribalists - into which group the politicians and their supporters will follow. They will not support anything unless it has been endorsed by the tribe and presents no risk to their ambitions. Clearly, ceding power to the people is not going to be welcome.

Woven into these groups, but possibly with an identity of its own, will be a group comprising the power brokers and agenda-mongers, those who instinctively recognise that this is a system that will work, and is therefore dangerous. Would the Climate Act survive if the government had to justify the costs to the people each year?  Such people will find every reason possible for opposing this, but will never declare the real reason.

Then, of course, the reactionaries, who we can lump in with the "not enoughers". The one will hate anything new and different, the other will complain that there are more and better things we could do ... and there is this 953 page report which sets out the detail. With these, we can never win. But win we must. The power of the idea is unstoppable.

COMMENT THREAD

5Share

Print ready

An astonishing revolution - by Richard...

A report on shale gas by Matt Ridley for the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) had Booker romping into the field yesterday with a brief review, having promised to write about the subject a couple of years back, when it was still fresh and the GWPF hadn't yet invented it.

The report joins a comprehensive overview produced by DECC and is joined today by another, more comprehensive study produced by the European Centre of Energy Resource Security (EUCERS). Each report has merits and, between them, probably provide as much information as any non-expert could reasonably want (or be able to deal with), on this exciting issue.

Booker puts it fairly and squarely as "an astonishing revolution" which could solve all of the UK's and the world's energy problems for centuries to come, the "incredible technical breakthroughs of recent years that allow almost unlimited amounts of cheap gas to be extracted from the world’s vast reserves of shale, our commonest sedimentary rock".

That, as you might expect, is an oversimplification, necessary for Booker to cram the detail into the shrinking space he is allotted at the fag-end of the paper. He refers only to shale gas but there are several types of what are known as "unconventional hydrocarbons", which include so-called "tight gas" from low-permeability rock, and coal-bed methane (CBM). 

At back end, there are the methane hydrates, with extraction techniques being tested by the Japanese amongst others. Total deposits are estimated at around three million tcf which, with total annual energy consumption approximating 500 tcf gas equivalent, gives us potentially a supply lasting 600,000 years, which should see me out.

What is not an oversimplification, therefore, or even the mildest of exaggerations is the "astonishing revolution" claim. Even with existing technology, we are indeed looking down the nose of an energy revolution which promises to bring cheap supplies of gas to the world, for the foreseeable future and beyond.

In terms of potential supplies in Europe, three major potential shale gas Paleozoic plays have been identified: the Cambrain-Ordovician (which stretches from Denmark through to Sweden), the Silurian (Poland) and the Carboniferous (which runs from the UK through to Poland).

The relatively cautious EU Commission and the International Energy Agency (IEA) believe these and other basins could yield between 33 to 38 trillion cubic metres (tcm), of which 12 tcm are tight gas, 15 tcm shale gas, and 8 tcm coal bed methane. In comparison, total conventional gas reserves in EU member states currently amount just to 2.42 tcm. 

As we have noted on this blog, such sizeable resources have the potential to reshape radically the European gas supply picture. EUCERS argues that shale gas deposits could play a vital balancing role for regional gas markets. Therefore, in theory, they might be able to cover European gas demand for another 60 years.

A new EIA study, however, now estimates the technically recoverable resource in Europe at 624 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in comparison with 862 trillion cubic feet in the US, 1,069 tcf in Canada and Mexico, 1,225 tcf in South America and 1,275 tcf in China, although such figures are subject to wide variation. 

Ridley, for instance, cites a study which has total in-place resources of 25,300 tcf, not counting large parts of the globe that were not surveyed, which include Russia. These numbers, he lucidly explains, "could prove either too optimistic or too pessimistic".

What is unquestionable is that, as far as energy crises go, there isn't a crisis. Gas supplies, world-wide are in surplus and international wholesale prices are tumbling. New ships, such as the Bu Samra, are coming into service, and the whole energy picture has become transformed.

Unfortunately, writes Booker, we here in Britain and the EU are run by people so much under the sway of such dogmas that they may be disposed to resist to the last the thought of our joining in this revolution (although large reserves of potentially suitable shale are buried below much of eastern England). 

The problem, however, is more domestic than EU, as our continental cousins, under the shadow of the Bear with its malign grip on Europe's gas supplies, have a better grasp of the realities than do our gilded policy-makers. Thus do we see, even today, a frankly insane report from the House of Commons Committee on Climate Change highlighted in The Daily Mail.

This tells us that offshore wind farm plans "are a costly mistake", which we knew already - we've been writing that much on this blog for ages. But it goes on then to call for "hundreds more wind turbines to be built onshore at a lower cost over the next eight years".

The type of insanity that confronts us here demonstrates that we have a different sort of crisis – a policy crisis, where our politicians and the green lobby have so far lost touch with reality that they no longer inhabit anything approximating the real world. The wind "bubble" has already burst, and in but a few years, as more plentiful and cheap gas supplies become available, the dead wind farm sited at South Point (Ka Lae) in Hawaii is going to symbolise a failed revolution (pictured above). The land will be littered with broken windmills.

It is my guess that sense will actually prevail on mainland Europe first. As Booker concludes, here we are having to resist "unscientific eco-lunacy which has those who rule us in its grip". When people finally wake up to what is going on, and that they are being totally stitched up on their energy costs to pay for the lunacy, we might just start getting some political traction out of the anti-green movement.