Media: all the tat that's fit to print
Saturday 10 November 2012
When the lead "news" item in the Daily Mail is on the adventures of a polyeurathane snowman, the state broadcaster is eating its words over false accusations about a senior Tory politician, and the lead in other newspapers is the resignation of General David Petraeus over an extramarital affair, it is unsurprising that real news struggles for a hearing.
This is actually quite dangerous, as a healthy democracy requires an alert, interested and active population. But since we don't have a democracy anyway – or anything even approaching one – the failure of the news media any longer to perform a useful function is not so terribly important. As a branch of the entertainment industry, it has little relevance to how we are governed. That Mr Cameron too has allowed himself to be absorbed into the entertainment industry, occupying a breakfast sofa the morning after he had been talking with Merkel and should have been dealing with serious things – also tells you that national politics no longer has the gravitas that it once had. But, if the power has been exported to Brussels, the British media has not followed. Instead, it has trivialised itself and has focused largely on itself, while pandering to the baser instincts of its residual audience. But when the "noise" level is so high, one wonders whether it is even worth trying to be heard. The roar of the tat drowns out attempts to run a different agenda. What thus comes over from so many of my friends, colleagues and acquaintances is the tendency to switch off entirely. It is simply not worth the effort of trying to sort the wheat from the chaff. The mental "off" switch is the only rational option. This is quite understandable. When a tsunami approaches, one does not stand and face it. One runs for cover. So it is with the media. We build our shelter and let the roar of the tat cascade over us and drain away. Eventually, sense will return – everything is cyclical – and a grown-up media will re-emerge. But it seems to be a dreadfully long time in coming. How long are we going to have to wait? COMMENT THREAD Richard North 10/11/2012 |
EU politics: acrimony is good
Saturday 10 November 2012
 The BBC piece tells us that the EU parliament and the council are having difficulty in establishing an "agreed position", where the EU commission is after another €9 billion (approx) in "emergency funding" to add to the already agreed €129.1 billion for 2012. The problem here is that this brings the 2013 budget up to just over €137 billion – representing a 6.8 percent increase on the previous year. That is all fine and dandy except that the Council has already decided on its "common position" and it has gone for €132 billion – a 2.79 percent increase. The need for this was flagged up a little while ago and what we are looking at here is a continuation of the budget procedure – where the EU parliament has the final say. As it stands, with two different "common positions" - the EU parliament supporting the commission - the two parties have gone to conciliation. But these talks have now stalled. If the parties do not agree, or the EU parliament as a whole does not agree the final deal, then the budget falls. The commission has to start over, with a new proposal. In the meantime, the "colleagues" are running to the wire – it is November and the new budget must be in place by the end of the year. If it isn't, the EU goes onto a fixed formula, which is basically this year's budget, paid in equal parts a month at a time. What makes this doubly interesting is that the annual budget procedure is time-limited and, according to Süddeutsche, the conciliation procedure must be concluded by Tuesday. The standard allowance is 14 days. Reuters seems to be enjoying the drama and it tells us that the commission is not getting a lot of sympathy from member states. This, then, is really about which institution is going to blink first, the EU parliament or the council. The commission is just a spectator in this particular process. Anything which adds dissent and confusion to our enemies, however, is all good fun, especially as a second report from Reuters refers to the talks collapsing "in acrimony". This I like, although I suspect the "colleagues" may not be too happy. When it comes to the EU, acrimony is good. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 10/11/2012 |
Energy: coal in decline
Friday 9 November 2012
It is a measure of the decline of a once-great industry that a colleague of mine, on hearing that one of the last pits in Yorkshire is to close, remarked that he was not aware that we still had any pits in God's own country.
But first the BBC and then The Independent remind us of the presence of Maltby colliery near Rotherham in South Yorkshire – Dennis MacShane country – only to tell us that it is indeed going to close. Hargreaves Services, which operates the pit - the scene of some of the biggest pickets in the 1980s strikes - says the it is no longer viable on safety, geological and financial grounds after producing coal for 104 years. About 540 staff were issued with redundancy notices last month. This announcement adds to what is already considered a gloomy week for the mining industry, coming just two days after the Daw Mill mine in Warwickshire had its owners, UK Coal, take a move towards mothballing this operation. At an emergency meeting on Monday, the Independent tells us, K Coal's shareholders voted through a range of measures in an attempt to rescue the struggling group, including splitting off the Saw Mill mine into a separate legal entity, which means it can no longer be subsidised by the group's other mines or its profitable property arm. Once the country's most productive pit, Daw Mill, has been plagued by geological problems, and will now close by 2014 unless production rises and costs come down, putting 800 jobs at risk. The fate of Maltby and Saw Mill are setting the seal on an industry that has been terminal decline since the Thatcher years. In 1913, it delivered 292 million ton of coal and, although by the time of its nationalisation in 1947, annual production had declined to 200 million tons from 1,038 mines, by 1983 its output was aleady down to 120.8 million tons from 308 mines. Last year, we are told, the industry, which was reprivatised in 1994, produced just 17.8 million tonnes of coal at 52 mines and employed just 6,419 people – a monumental decline from the 470,000 workers in the industry in 1947. However, that is by no means the whole picture as, according to government statistics, in 2011 UK coal production increased by 1.1 per cent on 2010. The increase, though, came from open cast mining, which produced 2.6 percent more, counteracting a decline in deep mined production of 1.1 percent. On the other hand, coal imports have exceeded UK coal production since 2003. In 2011 UK imports were 33 million tons, an increase of 23 percent on 2010 (27 million tonnes) but a decrease of 36 percent on the 2006 record of 51 million tons. Since 2005, nearly half of the UK's coal imports (mainly steam coal) have come from Russia, with Colombia, Australia, the USA and the Republic of South Africa being the other main suppliers. Russian alone supplied 9.8 million tons in 2010. Demand for coal in 2011 was 52 million tonnes, showing little change on 2010 and, during the last ten years, over 80 percent of demand for coal has been from major power producers for electricity generation with around a further ten percent used for the manufacture of coke. Now, we look to see a significant decline, as the EU's Large Combustion Plant Directive kicks in. By next March, five of our largest coal-fired plants, capable of supplying a fifth of our average power needs, are to be shut down. Yet, UK proven reserves of coal amount to 3.2 billion tons, comprising 2.3 billion underground and 852 million tons surface reserves. At current rate of consumption, that exceeds 450 years supply. With the hype about shale gas and the propaganda about wind and other renewables, we sometimes forget that Great Britain is still an island of coal and, Common Fisheries Policy notwithstanding, it is set amid a sea of fish. How remarkable it is that, in a world where 42 percent of electricity is still produced by burning coal, the British industry is in terminal decline. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 09/11/2012 |
EU Referendum: another day, another poll
Friday 9 November 2012
 The actual figures are 49 percent for "out" and 28 percent "in", with 17 percent undecided. That gives an unadjusted majority of 21 percent who want to leave the EU. Of the "decided" vote, we're looking at a 63-37 percent split, giving an overall majority of 26 percent, a considerable improvement on the 48-31 split from the last poll, which gave us that famous 17 percent lead. This latest figure is getting to a level where it just starts to get interesting, not only because it represents a clear shift in sentiment towards leaving, but is almost enough to suggest that we could overcome a status quo effect.
However, this only tells us how the voters might respond to a straight in-out poll, but not how they would react to a rigged poll, where a renegotiation option was offered. On current form, it might be a close-run thing.
Returning to the YouGov poll, this was also carried out in Germany, where the polling went 57 percent in favour of staying in, with only 25 percent saying opting to leave, and nine percent unsure of how they would vote. That is unsurprising, and in the context of Merkel saying she wants "more Europe", gives her something of a boost. Sadly, when it comes to UK polls though, the polsters haven't yet caught up with the reality, seeking to ascertain sentiment should the eurozone go for full political union, leaving the UK in the outer zone. Given a choice between this, and a negotiated exit which kept us in the Single Market, pro temp, I suspect there would be a runaway majority for the negotiated exit. And that is possibly why the pollsters are not asking the question. Instead, YouGov is trying to link the current poll results with the EU budget spat, which is hardly relevant and confuses the issue. But then, that it often the game played, not least because an overwhelming poll in favour of leaving would create its own dynamic. For the time being, though, the poll levels are not enough to get excited about, although, just for once, time is on our side. Mrs Merkel seems to be making sure of that. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 09/11/2012 |
EU politics: Merkel visit – Brussels comes first
Thursday 8 November 2012
 There is one clue in the German media. You can find some details in the broadsheets, such asHandelsblatt, but you have to struggle to find them and most media organs have not updated their stories since yesterday – those few that have them. One concludes that the German media isn't really interested – the story isn't important to them. The Handelsblatt headline, though, is a contradiction in terms. Merkel is going out of her way to create irreconcilable differences – taking the EU places which she knows Cameron can't follow. If we didn't know already, the loss-making Guardian told us all we needed to know of Merkel's pre-visit to the heart of darkness in Brussels, where she addressed the EU parliament, calling for eurozone countries "to surrender key tax-and-spend powers". The Guardian called it a "rare landmark policy speech", in which she voiced Berlin's "absolute determination" to stand by the euro and to strengthen the EU through greater integration of policymaking. When you think that through, and consider the diplomatic implications, for her to reaffirm her commitment to greater integration, immediately before a meeting with David Cameron, whose own party is committed to resisting further integration, is a pretty tactless thing to do. For Merkel then to speak in honeyed words of "overcoming differences" simply doesn't stack up, any more than does her proclaiming that she wants a "strong Britain in the European Union". What European Union? What is Frau Merkel talking about, the Union as it is now, or the Union that she is shaping, the one she knows Britain cannot and will not join? On the other hand, Cameron isn't really taking this seriously either. Having come scooting back, late, from a whirlwind tour of the Middle East, he cannot have been in any fit state to entertain serious talks or make important decisions. What we are seeing, therefore, it not what we're getting. Some papers like the Daily Mail sense, if not understand, the emptiness of the story, and try to jazz it up with pictures of Greece imploding. But that doesn't work. These days, riots and Greece go together like bread and jam – predictable and routine. All that said, the German Chancellor does not come to London for nothing, even if it's via Brussels. Or perhaps she does – perhaps her real purpose was to deliver a message: as far as Germany is concerned, Brussels comes first. And if that is the case, we should have no difficulty framing a suitable response. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 08/11/2012 |
Posts
