Energy: a very grave mistake
Friday 5 October 2012
 Ever since, that note has been on hold, but is now, according to Ofgem, due for redemption in 2015/16. Then, says the electricity industry regulator, electricity margins could fall from 14 percent today to four percent, when there will be a significant risk of an electricity shortfall. If the Conservatives are unlucky, they (and we) will start seeing blackouts in 2015, just in the run-up to the general election. And the interesting thing is that, back in 2008, we did warn Mr Cameron that he could face the prospect of standing at the despatch box explaining to the nation why the lights have gone out and why it is that there is nothing he or his government can do about it. Then, it was possible to do something about it and, you would have thought – as we then observed - "in electoral and practical terms, the choice is a no-brainer". But the ConservativeParty chose instead to go "green". And now, the consequences of that choice look to be very serious – although not yet fatal. A huge – if expensive - push to build gas-fired power stations is about the only thing which will save us now, otherwise we will be emulating India (pictured). And the Conservatives won't be able to say they weren't warned. They were. Ignoring the advice was a very grave mistake. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 05/10/2012 |
Domestic politics: a despised breed
Friday 5 October 2012
 But one only has to look at the photograph accompanying the piece to realise why. Never in a million years would it be possible to take young Miliband seriously as a leader of the Labour Party, much less as a prime minister. His only function in life, it would seem, is to make David Cameron look mature and statesmanlike. But the Mail headline goes on to tell us that the situation where politicians are so despised "should worry us all", which is true enough – although it is not as rare as one might imagine. Only the misty-eyed romantics could believe, for instance, that our war-time leaders were universally revered, and when it came to Harold Wilson and Ted Heath, contempt for them both was widespread. However, the Mail quotes actually come from a 39-page pamphlet written by David Blunkett, former Labour education secretary, and then work and pensions secretary. The pamphlet is entitled: "In defence of politics revisited". Blunkett dedicates it to the memory of his tutor and friend, the late Professor Sir Bernard Crick, "political theorist and democratic socialist", author of the best-selling "In Defence of Politics", to which homage is paid. Crick, in his time, asserted that politics, with its compromises and power struggles, remains the only tested alternative to government by coercion, making both freedom and order possible in heterogeneous societies. For Crick, politics was necessarily imperfect, messy and complex, and his book defended it against those who would identify it with (and reduce it to) ideology, nationalism, technology or "populist democracy". One does love this idea of "populist democracy", but then Crick is the man who, in his book, wrote that politics "needs to be defended even against democracy", the latter defined as "majority rule". This is a thesis so beloved of the EU technocrats, who regard "populism" with a horror which their predecessors reserved for Fascism, and with which comparisons are often made. Actually, Crick has half a point, in that he argues that "democracy" can not only stabilise free regimes, bit it can also make stronger unfree regimes and has made possible totalitarianism. The major flaw in his argument, though, is that nowhere on this planet in recent times can one point to an example of where a true democracy ever existed. The issue here, as I write in the pamphlet I am working on to explain the Harrogate Agenda, is that everything depends on how you define democracy. The essential premise, on which our new political movement is based, is that democracy is about people power. The word democracy is based on the Greek word, dēmokratía, formed from two parts: dêmos"people" and kratos "power". Without people, there is no democracy. But people without power is not democracy either. Democracy, therefore, is people power. To much emphasis, it seems, is placed on the dêmos and far too little on the kratos aspect of democracy, the latter requiring a fair balance of power to create a true democracy, while tempering its excesses. But if Crick – like so many – gets it wrong, one can say of Blunkett that he is a good student, following faithfully in the path of his master. In his 39 pages, the former secretary also demonstrates his lack of understanding of the fundamentals of democracy. Thus, instead of addressing the power deficit, which plagues modern politics (sometimes wrongly called the democratic deficit) Blunkett actually argues for greater and more government intervention in our daily lives.
He thus talks of government, "using the collective power it still possesses, and of course the resources of the taxpayer", putting that funding "at the disposal of people who, in their own lives, are fighting battles against vested interests or forces outside the normal realms of everyday life".
In Blunkett's world, therefore, his idea of democracy is "helping people to help themselves", a paternalistic and statist view. It puts government at the centre of community life, with its first call on "the resources of the taxpayer", which the populists are not allowed to challenge. Interestingly, Blunkett does state that "the question has to be asked as to who calls the shots, and an assessment therefore made of where power lies". But it is a question he does not answer. And unless there is a satisfactory answer to that question, any debate about politics is sterile. That, actually, is the nub of the issue. When people have power to affect change, they take an interest in politics. When, as is increasingly the case, they are deprived of that power, the disengagement settles in and contempt for the political processes grow. And, to their eternal shame, all people like Blunkett do is add fertiliser. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 05/10/2012 |
Transport: a credibility problem
Friday 5 October 2012
 The regularity with which this subject emerges though, invites suspicion that there is an hidden agenda, and we know that there is a Galileo connection in Germany, with their road toll system, currently applicable only to trucks. However, it is comforting to learn that the opposition in Germany is easily the match of the hostility experienced over here. But the game is given away by the transport minister of the central German state of Thuringia, who refers to promises that toll income would be used for improving the network and for road maintenance. He notes that, while the federal government introduced a truck toll in the early 2000s, "these funds have not ended up in the transportation budget". We have a real credibility problem, he adds. So it is with governments. They are all alike – their promises not worth the paper they are written on. But with transport it really shows. They take road fund tax from us, for roads, which is absorbed into general taxation and the roads are neglected. Then they tell us they need more funds to meet the demands of increased traffic – and propose additional charges. And then they wonder why politicians are treated with cynicism bordering on contempt. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 05/10/2012 |
EU treaties: closing down the options
Thursday 4 October 2012
 Van Rompuy, as leader of the "quartet" working on the options for a new treaty, has produced draft conclusions for the forthcoming European Council, which include some further detail on where the "colleagues" want to go. The draft has been widely leaked to and by the media, including theFinancial Times, Süddeutsche Zeitung, and FAZ. Helpfully, FT has published the draft. Watching paint dry would be vastly more entertaining than reading the draft, so suffice to say that one of the controversial yet substantive proposals is for a common eurozone budget, something which has to the support of France and Germany, and also the commission. The draft also suggests manadatory "reforms" for member states seeking financial assistance. From the UK perspective, what is important is that the proposals apply rigorously to the eurozone. Although there is a reference to the need for "strong mechanisms for democratic legitimacy and accountability", the guiding principle being that in "democratic control and accountability are effected at the level at which the decisions are taken", this too applies to the eurozone. Should this focus continue, any idea of Mr Cameron being able to use the treaty negotiations as an opportunity to seek the repatriation of power goes out the window. The "colleagues" have made it abundently clear that they are not in the mood for such games, and if the UK seeks to block their plans, a way will be found of by-passing the obstacle. Also, as we have previously suggested, this could by-pass the UK's referendum lock, which would resolve some of Cameron's difficulties, but create others. Not least, a straight in/out referendum then would be very hard to refuse, with the question boiling down to a choice between independence and being consigned to the outer zone. Whether they realise it or not, on the face of it, the "colleagues" seem to be closing down British options. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 04/10/2012 |
EU Treaties: barking mad
Thursday 4 October 2012
This is David Heathcoat-Amory, who is author of "The UK and the EU: cutting the knot", a Centre for Policy Studies paper to be published at the Conservative Party Conference.
The proposition is that Britian should negotiate with the EU for a completely new settlement. We should, he says, turn the system around and create a Europe of opt-ins, whereby nothing is binding unless explicitly agreed. All powers would be repatriated and then used selectively. Intriguingly, though, there is a way we, as a nation, could walk away from the treaties, and then selectively opt-in to aspects which suit us, such as the Single Market. And that is by invoking Article 50. But Heathcoat-Amory doesn't suggest that. Unfortunately, therefore, his idea is mad. Heathcoat-Amory is utterly, barking mad. No sane person could possibly suggest that the "colleagues" would entertain re-jigging the treaties to change the fundamental basis of the existing acquis. But, then, when you are an "above-the-line" figure like this man, you can get away with madness. It matters not what you say, but who you are … prestige is everything. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 04/10/2012 |
Posts
