EU Referendum: the charade continues
Monday 5 August 2013
 Now, to continue with the pretence, the Financial Times is bigging up the expected appointment of Ivan Rogers, David Cameron's adviser on European and global issues, as ambassador to the EU. A former Treasury official and City banker, "he has emerged as the favourite to take on one of the toughest jobs in British diplomacy: renegotiating Britain’s relationship with the rest of the EU ahead of a proposed referendum", says the FT. This post is "laden with political sensitivity", the paper intones, as it tells us that Mr Rogers is credited with fostering improved relations between London and Berlin. And this, we are also told, is "a factor that could prove crucial in Mr Cameron’s attempt to extract a better deal from the EU ahead of an in-out referendum planned for 2017". However, if it is not this piece of news you are feasting your eyes upon, then an alternative on offer is the appointment of a new Dr Who. Of the two bits of news, there need be no guesses as to which is deemed as more important by the majority of the media claque. Moi, I'm off to rainy Manchester and thence to Lisbon for the final session of filming for the "Norway Option". I'll write again when I get there – Lisbon, that is. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 05/08/2013 |
EU politics: Tory weakness on parade
Monday 5 August 2013
 There is a certain predictability about political stories that the legacy media copy off each other. They usually go for the low-grade personality politics, so this one is ideal for the communal feast. But, ironically, none of the media can explore the story to its fullest extent, without also damaging the Tory source. The essence is that the Tories are planning to use third parties to feed stories to the media, highlighting UKIP councillors who make "embarrassing comments". No doubt other inputs will be used in what was described in All The President's Men by Woodward and Bernstein as "ratfucking". But the greatest inadequacy of UKIP does not require any specialist techniques, nor underhand action to discover. This is a party which is dedicated to leaving the EU and which has not yet developed a coherent exit plan, much less an attractive alternative vision for a post-EU Britain. In its own terms, therefore, UKIP is a failure. And in the context of having to fight an "in-out" referendum and overcome the status quo effect, some of the offerings from UKIP members are such that they would, if anything, reinforce the status quo effect. Those with ill-intent towards UKIP, therefore, could make a case that the party does more harm than good to the cause. However, this is a path down which the Conservative Party cannot travel. To challenge UKIP over its failures to devise an exit plan would invite comments about the lack of any coherent plan from the Tories. It would also lodge in the public mind that there should be such a thing, and thus add pressure to bring a plan into being. Thus, the one thing the Tories cannot do is criticise UKIP's performance as a eurosceptic party, for fear of highlighting its own greater inadequacies. As a result, the Party is reduced to manoeuvring round the edges, picking on marginal and largely irrelevant issues, in order to gain some political advantage. And so does UKIP complain of Tory election guru Lynton Crosby indulging in "gutter politics" (pictured), although it too has its own handicaps. Anxious to demonstrate that it is a "proper" political party and not simply a single-issue pressure group, UKIP is also seeking to avoid discussions on eurosceptic issues. We thus have both parties playing the equivalent of the "pin the tail on the donkey", as they attempt to find their targets blindfolded. The big loser, of course, is the debate on leaving the EU. For different reasons, no one wants to talk about "Europe", and we are left immersed in trivia while the important issues are sidelined. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 05/08/2013 |
Water: a democratic deficit in action
Monday 5 August 2013
 They have been found guilty of causing more than 1,000 incidents in the past nine years, with sewage spills cited as causing particular distress. Yet, despite huge profits, they have faced "pitiful" fines, fined a total of only £3.5 million. Pollution incidents, which have included sewage illegally pouring into a harbour for more than a year, and managers destroying records, show no sign of declining, according to data obtained from the Environment Agency (EA) under freedom of information rules. Only a third of the 1,000 incidents led to a fine (of an average of just £10,800); the rest resulted in cautions. This was from a water industry that was paid £10.5 billion by customers in 2010-11, while making pre-tax profits of £1.7 billion and paying dividends of £2.2 billion, a 42 percent year-on-year rise. In 2013-14, water bills are rising by 3.5 percent - above both inflation and average pay rises. The report gives rise to an opinion piece by Nick Cohen, who does not mince words. His headline is "The water companies and the foul stench of exploitation", with the sub-head: "The privatisation of water is a story of greed, incompetence and fleecing the public". Reference is made to a recent report by George Turner for the think tank Centre Forum. "Since 2005," he concludes, "prices for water have been too high, more than required to run a decent service for customers whilst providing a reasonable return for investors". Instead, Turner writes, "Investors have taken an unreasonable return … So unreasonable, indeed, that as well as making the public pay through inflated prices and the taxes they dodge, the water companies are looking for direct taxpayer support". One example of how the public is being fleeced is Yorkshire. In 2006, it whacked up its gearing. Dividends followed suit. Despite spending more than it received from customers, it still paid out £886.8 million in dividends – a return for debt and equity investors of 24.1 percent. Overall, the costs to its customers of paying such inflated returns was £139 extra every year on the average water bill between 2005 and 2010. The water industry is like the banks: too important to fail. As with the banks, writes Cohen, it is run by reckless and greedy men. One day, they will need other's people's money to save a business that is not only stinking but sinking too. And there lies an interesting contrast with Norway. There, the water supply and sewerage is owned by the municipalities. Attempts to privatise the system have met with stiff political resistance and get no further than the letting out of a few management contracts. It is unlikely to be a coincidence that, in a country where the average wage (£52,000) is twice that of the UK, charges – assessed on a full cost-recovery basis – are roughly eighty percent of the average for England and Wales. Norwegians are a people who value democracy and insist on democratic control, and for that reason resisted the privatisation of their water. We, it seems, are paying the price for a weak democracy, and our compliant nature. I cannot see the Norwegians tolerating what we have permitted. If you want to see a democratic deficit, therefore, look at your water bill. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 05/08/2013 |
Monday, 5 August 2013
Posts
