UK politics: UKIP doesn't do policy – shock!
Sunday 28 April 2013
 Then, one can only marvel at the irony at the Observer identifying the ghastly Bloom as the "senior MEP" complaining about the lack of policy. Farage aside, if there is one man at whose door responsibility can be laid for the policy vacuum, it is Godfrey Bloom. On the other hand, though, this is a win-win situation for UKIP's critics. Given a policy vacuum, they can criticise the party for its lack of policy. But, had the party actually develop any policy worthy of its name, it would then be open house on attacking UKIP policy. The fact is, of course, that no matter what UKIP did at this current juncture, it is creating such a "disturb" that its rivals would be seeking weaknesses to bring to the attention of the electorate. That is what party politics is all about. The great shame is that, should UKIP actually succeed in gaining a number of seats, then the policy vacuum will really matter. Successful candidates will find themselves having to make policy on the hoof, with all the lack of coherence and contradictions that that implies. From there, the likelihood is that we will see a familiar pattern. The newly emergent party will be no more able to deliver than the ones it replaces. After a short honeymoon, faction fighting will break out (as it always does). Disillusionment will sets in, the public will loss faith and move on to another potential saviour – or give up altogether. It is never possible, nor wise, at this juncture, to predict what will happen, but one can always learn from the past and what has happened. And here, for more then ten years, I have been warning UKIP about its lack of intellectual base, and the lack of is policy development. Now, the wasted years are taking their toll. Needless to say, Lord Ashcroft in the Mail on Sunday has a different "take", charging that the UKIP leader is in it for himself, destroying the only chance eurosceptics have of getting an "in-out" referendum. If it was the case that Cameron's offer of a referendum was genuine, and that he was truly set to give us an "in-out" choice, instead of a rigged poll, based on some mythical renegotiations. But, since the offer lacks any credibility, Ashcroft's points simply amount to special pleading. What the establishment politicians cannot cope with though, is that they are so tarnished by their lies, deception and indifference to public wishes, that an increasing number of voters would prefer the dubious blandishments of the Farage show, compared with anything that they have to offer. No one with any intelligence seriously expects UKIP to deliver anything of substance. But as a commentary on the poverty of establishment politics, it is very hard to beat. To the extent that a vote for UKIP is a vote against the establishment, it doesn't really matter what the likes of the Observer or Lord Ashcroft say. In fact, the more they squeak and squirm, the more attractive UKIP becomes – since the whole objective is to see the establishment in disarray. But when the UKIP supporters are done, there will still be that policy vacuum, and there will still be some serious politics to do. One trusts that there will be some grown-ups left to fill the gaps that UKIP leaves. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 28/04/2013 |
Energy: "big brother" technology
Sunday 28 April 2013
 The Mail on Sunday, in its front-page lead today, has picked up on the role of "smart" technology in maintaining our failing electricity supply system.In particular, the paper is identifying the role of "smart" appliances, telling us that fridges and freezers in millions of British homes will be automatically switched off without the owners' consent under a "Big Brother" regime to reduce the strain on power stations. The National Grid, it says, is demanding that all new appliances be fitted with sensors that could shut them down when the UK's generators struggle to meet demand for electricity. Electric ovens, air-conditioning units and washing machines will also be affected by the proposals, which are already backed by one of the European Union's most influential energy bodies. They are pushing for the move as green energy sources such as wind farms are less predictable than traditional power stations, increasing the risk of blackouts.
To assist in explaining what is going on, we also have another piece, telling us that the smart technology will cost us billions – and thousands of lives. On top of Booker's earlier piece, and his more recent report, the message is beginning to get through that our masters are up to no good.
 But with the Mail picking this up - and giving it the profile it deserves, we see a light shining on a dark corner of UK energy policy, as set out in September 2011 in a report to Defra entitled, "Delivering the Benefits of Smart Appliances" by EA Technology - for which £73,150 was paid. Chillingly, this gave the game away, admitting that the principal drivers for change in the electricity industry related "to the wide ranging measures being implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions", and in particular, to "the increasing move towards the wide-scale deployment of time variable renewable generation, particularly wind generation". Because of this, the report said, "No longer is it considered viable for electricity to be provided 'on demand' in response to the requirements of end-users". Rather, it said, "a co-ordinated approach is required whereby energy production and demand become integrated to ensure the use of renewables can be optimised whilst also minimising the use of fossil fired generation".
In other words, the primary objective of the electricity industry is not to meet demand, but to enable the optimum usage of renewables. The huge cart is being run before horse.
Richard North 28/04/2013 |
Booker: MPs are full of hot air
Sunday 28 April 2013
 Here in Britain, where we had our fifth freezing winter in a row, the Central England Temperature record – according to an analysis on WUWT – shows that in this century, average winter temperatures have dropped by 1.45ºC, more than twice as much as their rise between 1850 and 1999, and twice as much as the entire net rise in global temperatures recorded in the 20th century. But, hang on, Booker says. It wasn't meant to be like this. Weren't we told that, thanks to all that carbon dioxide we are pumping into the air, the world was faced with global warming; that, according to the computer models, temperatures were due to rise by at least 0.3ºC every decade; and that snowfall in Britain was "a thing of the past"? And the questions keep coming. Wasn't it to meet this unprecedented threat that our MPs voted almost unanimously for the Climate Change Act? Weren't we meant to be "giving a lead to the world" by cutting our CO2 emissions by 80 per cent in 40 years, doubling our electricity bills by heaping taxes on fossil fuels, and spending hundreds of billions on subsidising all of those 32,000 wind turbines? Somehow oblivious to this, Booker wearily continues, the world's emissions of CO2 have continued to hurtle upward, by 50 percent since 1990. Yet global temperatures have obstinately failed to rise. Attempts to get a global agreement on cutting CO2 emissions have collapsed. Pretty well every developed country, apart from Britain, is going flat out to build more fossil-fuelled power stations – leaving our own politicians almost alone in the world, with their fantasy that, by "decarbonising" our economy at unimaginable cost, we can still somehow give everyone else a lead in changing the earth's climate. Has there ever in history been such an almighty disconnect between observable reality and the delusions of a political class that is quite impervious to any rational discussion? This was superbly illustrated by two Commons debates on Thursday 18 April, when for the first time we had an MP, Peter Lilley, standing up in Parliament to confront the rest of them with an utterly withering blast of reality. On one side were those still lost in their bubble of make-believe, led by Tim Yeo, the man who earns £200,000 a year on the side lobbying for firms in the "renewable" industry. On the other was Lilley, simply mocking them all, pointing out with facts and figures just how "united in lunacy" they had become. When Yeo claimed that China has "some of the most ambitious decarbonisation plans in the world" (without admitting that he is paid up to £1,000 an hour by a firm trying to sell feedstocks to China for biofuels), Lilley reminded him that China is now adding more CO2 to the air every year than all Britain's emissions put together, and that by 2030 it will be responsible for half the world's total emissions.
So contemptuous was Lilley, and even at times so funny, that his speeches are well worth reading in full on the Commons website.
But, by golly, says Booker, when one sees what childish idiocies were being parroted by all those MPs around him, it brings home just what a problem this collective flight from reality is presenting us with. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 28/04/2013 |
Local politics: a question of democracy
Saturday 27 April 2013
 Page always makes for entertaining reading and his experiences as a councillor for South Cambridgeshire District Council strike a chord. Councillors, he says, are more interested in feathering their own nests, wasting money on the trappings of office and imposing politically correct drivel on council taxpayers. As to democracy and independence, he believes the sheep on his farm have more individuality and freedom of thought than most councillors, who are "merely party hacks obsequiously following thediktats of their political masters in Westminster". When you've finished the piece, though, you are none the wiser as to what to do about an affront to the very idea of democracy. One comes away with the vague sentiment that it was all somehow better in the 1980s and 90s, when councillors weren't paid, there were no party politics and John Prescott had yet to do his worst. Completely lacking, though – as so often from this type of lament – is any sense of what precisely is wrong and, more to the point, what ordinary mortals can do about it. Given that the elections are next week, many of the commenters on the piece are directing readers to vote for UKIP, as if that would make a blind bit of difference. We are looking here at a irretrievably flawed system – changing some of the councillors can have only a marginal impact. In fact, South Cambridgeshire District Council embodies some classic example of the failure of English local government, not least because, in any democratic system, the council has no reason to exist. Formed on 1 April 1974 after the Heath/Walker local government reorganisation, by the merger of Chesterton and South Cambridgeshire Rural Districts, it surrounds the city of Cambridge, but is separate from it. With no town in the area and no single population centre exceeding 10,000, and a hundred separate settlements, it lacks a natural focus, relying on a newly expanded Cambourne for its administrative centre to govern a population of nearly 150,000 and increasing. In democratic terms, a mixed population of commuters, white collar workers, academics, industrial workers, agriculture it lacks a demos, either in geographical terms, or in the sense of there being a community sharing a common interest. With a population of 150,000, it is only slightly less than half the size of Iceland, a nation in its own right with 56 municipalities. Whatever South Cambridgeshire District Council might be, it is not localgovernment. These two defects – the lack of a recognisable demos and the sheer size of the population – means that there cannot be anything approaching democracy. And that is without addressing the "power deficit", the fact that the very structure of local government makes it an agent of central government, excluding mere people from the decision-making process. All of this renders Page's laments a matter of detail. Even if the issues he raises were resolved, his local authority still would not be democratic. Therein is our problem. The system is so fundamentally flawed that no amount of trimming round the edges will make any worthwhile difference. With a great deal of effort, it might be possible to achieve marginal improvements, but nothing fundamental will change. Ironically, though, in 2006, South Cambridgeshire was ranked as the fifth best place to live in 2006 and is one of the least deprived areas in Britain. There is, it appears, life without democracy – but we should stop pretending we have democratic local government or, for that matter, ever did have it. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 27/04/2013 |
Posts
