Anthony Painter

NEW BLOG LAUNCH

2009-11-19T08:32:00.003Z

OK, E8Voice is finally dead. I launched my new blog- which contains the entire archive from E8Voice- at www.anthonypainter.co.uk.

Anyone who links to e8voice.blogspot.com then I'd be really grateful if you could change your link to www.anthonypainter.co.uk. the content on this site will not be updated though it will remain live for the time being.

Go on, give the new blog a visit and let me know what you think.

Clause IV- did Labour ditch too much?

2009-11-18T15:22:00.003Z

When Labour ditched its old Clause IV- which was the right thing to do- did it ditch too much? I am increasingly having to pinch myself when I observe some of things that are now happening such as the public ownership of High Street banks. The events of the last two years have brought a new found intellectual freedom. I never thought that I would ever revisit the old Clause IV. But that is exactly what I found myself doing today for my labour movement column on LabourList:

"The left used to be all about ownership. Democratic socialism saw ownership as power. Without common ownership, there couldn’t be socialism. Hence Labour’s old Clause IV: equity was premised on the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

Then the Gaitskellites and the revisionists got their hands on the concept. The journey from the late 1950s to the final repeal of the old Clause IV in 1995 was a forty year march of the Labour party away from paying much heed to ownership as a means of creating a more equitable society. If you forage through the verbiage of the current Clause IV you find such gems as how Labour will work to ‘promote equality of opportunity.’ Nice to know but such words float into the ether before long.

While the left was quickly dragging itself away from discussing any meaningful concept of ownership a very different thing was happening on the right: it was very actively discussing ownership and it proved to be an intellectually and politically reenergising discussion. Meanwhile, the new Clause IV doesn’t even mention ownership."

Just before you think I've taken an abrupt turn left, it is worth bearing a few things in mind:

- Common ownership is a very different thing to public ownership. In fact they are completely distinct.
- This is not a left or right issue: Thatcher was very interested in spreading ownership though her distribution was inequitable. Progressive conservatives are now openly talking about 'recapitalising the poor' and David Cameron himself seems to be engaged with this agenda.
- Ownership reconnects Labour to some forgotten threads of leftist philosophy: GDH Cole (above), RH Tawney, JB Priestley, and Common Wealth. Mutualism could be an idea whose time has come.

It's fine keeping all this at a philosophical level but now there needs to be a move towards investigating how this could work in practice (and there are already some experiments in Scotland.) To that end, I am jointly working on an idea which I'll float in the next week or two.....stay posted.

Why Tripadvisor doesn't work (and Wikipedia does)

2009-11-16T15:52:00.001Z

I used tripadvisor.co.uk for the first time this weekend. The main bulk of its contents are generated by its users just as is the case with Wikipedia.

However, popular though it is I won't be using it for a very good reason. Opinion requires a certain stock of trust whereas fact is just fact. In the case of tripadvisor.co.uk you have no idea who the reviewers are. The law of averages doesn't work when it comes to opinion- the average may be in a very different place to where you are personally as anyone on the far left or right of British politics could testify.

So I put my scepticism to the test with two hotels where I have stayed in the last two years. One was excellent- the Marmara Pera Hotel in Istanbul- to the extent that I'll be staying there again the weekend after next. One was average to below average- the Prime Hotel St John in Rome. I won't be staying there again.

Amazingly, tripadvisor.co.uk gives them both a pretty similar score. The Marmara Pera, despite its spectacular Bosphorous view, roof top bar and the fact it houses one of the best modern restaurants in Istanbul, scores 85%. Prime Hotel St John scores 81% despite the fact that it's an utterly mediocre, over-priced business hotel. It's basically a Travelodge despite its four-star rating.

And that's the difference between tripadvisor and Wikipedia. The latter is based on facts. It is either wrong or right but you can check it. It's right almost all of the time so you are willing to go with it in the main. Opinions can't be checked. On tripadvisor you don't know who the people are, what they are looking for, what they like, how picky they are, or whether there's more motivation to post if you've had an extremely good or extremely bad experience. So there just isn't the foundation to trust in the site. Trust is very important to go with an opinion.

So I was interested to see the NHS going with a 'tripadvisor' style system for ranking health services. Take this example of my local GP. There's only one review so not much to go on. But surely I should be mistrustful given that this is an anonymous opinion?

Strangely though, it works in the case of nhs.uk. Because, despite the hype, it's not actually like tripadvisor at all. Its ratings have a fairly factual basis: whether you can get through on the phone, how flexible the practice is, how you are treated by the GP and the staff, and the information that you receive.

So nhs.uk- which is an excellent web-site- works precisely because it's not like tripadvisor. It's reviews are based on factual assessments. So when I come to use the NHS, I will be using nhs.uk. When I come to book my holiday I won't bother with tripadvisor. Oh, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't use Wikipedia. Of course I do.

An Afghanistan strategy built on quicksand?

2009-11-13T16:10:00.001Z

So the US Ambassador to Afghanistan has put a spanner in the works of mission creep in Afghanistan. I don't know why the US military and diplomatic corps don't just publish all their advice on the internet, it seems to end up there in days anyway.

General Eikenberry's memo cautions against a further troop build-up in the face of the continuing dysfunctionality of the Karzai regime. MSNBC reports it as follows:

"That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.

In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai."

If there is one lesson from the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, it is that you can't build a modern state on quicksand. And Karzai and his corrupt government are mushy to their very core. What are the chances of him becoming a paragon of virtue? Minimal I would say. President Obama is right to carefully consider whether to send the 40,000 troops requested by ISAF Commander, General Stanley McChrystal. He needs to use any build-up- at the very least as leverage to get change in the Afghanistani government. I would go as far as to suggest that Karzai, despite his election victory, should step down for the simple reason that his incompetence vastly the increases the risk of the troop surge strategy. His other option should be that we leave him to the Taliban. His choice.

Patrick Cockburn argues the moral hazard point forcibly in The Independent today:

"Mr Eikenberry is rightly sceptical about the dispatch of reinforcements to prop up a regime which is more of a racket than an administration. The troops may kill more Taliban, but they will also be their recruiting sergeants. As for the Afghan government, its ill-paid forces will not be eager to fight harder if they can get the Americans and the British to do their fighting for them."

The superb Christina Lamb analysed the situation with customary thoroughness in the Sunday Times last weekend. Here are some highlights.

On the Afghan police:

"As the terrible events of last week show, creating a reliable police force is another huge obstacle. Nato officials estimate that 90% of Afghan police officers are illiterate and a third are drug addicts. Paid just $100 a month for dangerous work — more than 1,000 officers have been killed in the past year — the threat of corruption is high. The rush to expand the force has meant training is minimal and background checks consist merely of two other policemen vouching for them."

On the dilemma facing the Afghan people:

"Most Afghans are on the fence, with the Taliban intimidating them on one side, and corrupt officials and police demanding bribes on the other. In southern Afghanistan there are many cases where locals have called on the Taliban to come back because the police have been raping their young boys or have failed to deal with highway robbers."

The situation is desperate. The potential for serious further losses severe. The chances of success- when Karzai is the only option- are very uncertain. And yet, we can't just walk away and let the country descend into chaos. Equally, getting further and further embroiled in the situation is highly risky.

As I wrote last week on the anniversary of Barack Obama's election victory:

"And beyond America's shores, the most difficult decision of his presidency awaits. The last great progressive reformer, Lyndon B Johnson had his presidency scuppered by Vietnam. It is not melodramatic to suggest that President Obama faces just as serious a choice.

It is a choice that is about life and liberty not politics. The Afghanistan war is going disastrously. President Obama must choose between retrenchment and deeper engagement. A halfway house - and his inner pragmatist does have a tendency to split the difference - will feel unsatisfactory. The big strategic question suggests that he must go with the recommendations of the ISAF commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal or radically change direction.

If he goes for an additional 20,000 troops instead of the 40,000 requested then he will need all his powers of persuasion. Whatever course he chooses he must follow through on the pledge in his victory speech to ‘always be honest with you about the challenges we face.'"

The all or change strategy choice is one that military strategist David Kilcullen outlines in The Guardian today. His preference is for all. I can completely understand why President Obama is torn. There seems to be some shift in his thinking towards minimal additional troops to concentrate on training with almost no additional combat troops as Democracy Arsenal discusses.

What this strategy implies is a greater use of the predator drone strategy for counter terrorism which has been so controversial in Pakistan. Joe Biden is reported to favour this approach. It's by no means perfect and don't underestimate the popular repulsion at unmanned drones killing civilians with guided missiles. As the New Yorker's Jane Mayer reported, it may have led to the killing of the head of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud but a few hundred civilians were killed in the process.

The military commanders may now have struck upon the right strategy. It has only taken them 8 years. But with the Karzai government as it is, it is a strategy built on quicksand. General Eikenberry's caution is more convincing at this point.

As President Obama makes his final decision, he must remember the ghost of Christmas past, President Lyndon B Johnson. He must trust the spirit and intelligence of the ghost of Christmas present, President Barack Obama. And he must fear the ghost of Christmas future, President Barack B Johnson.

The Sun apologises

2009-11-13T11:25:00.001Z

Shameful and shameless The Sun has been forced to apologise for getting the spelling of Jacqui Janes' name wrong. Now they just need to apologise for their disgusting treatment of the Prime Minister.

Climate change Thursday #15

2009-11-12T17:23:00.001Z

Is there a case for carbon capture and storage?

So carbon capture and storage is finally happening. Scientific American reports on the first power station to not only capture carbon dioxide- which in this case you do by liquifying the gas with bakers' ammonia then separating it- but also store it 2,375 metres under West Virginia.

The New Haven 'Mountaineer' project (pictured right) only captures 1.5% of the CO2 currently. When it is expanded to 20% of the Alstom's plant, it will cost an extra 4c per Kilowatt hour on top of the 5c that the plant currently costs. The research and development outlay will be $700million. This isn't cheap but it is becoming a reality and that is what is important- with some Federal funds thrown in.

This is all good news for the UK government. The Department of Energy and Climate Change published its Framework for the Development of Clean Coal earlier this week alongside a series of National Planning Statements on energy policy.

Coal currently provides almost a third of our energy and is extremely polluting and this is not a trivial issue. My instinct is that we should build no more coal-fired power stations at all. Given the uncertainty about whether technology will actually reduce carbon emissions at an affordable cost and if the carbon can stored safely and without leakage I had a degree of initial scepticism. It just sounded too good to be true.

However, that would be the right policy response if the UK was the only country in the world but it's not.

The reality is that others will continue to build coal-fired power plants regardless of whether we do or not. Just take China (sorry China I'm always picking on you which is mean): 80% of its energy comes from coal-fired power stations; it now consumes more coal that Europe, Japan and the US combined; it may build some of the most efficient power stations in the world but its emissions are still forecast to increase by 3% per year according to the IEA; and it is building these power stations at an eye-popping rate of one per week.

So we need to have a crack at developing the technology. It might as well be here in the UK. Ed Miliband's plan is for any new power plant to be completely CCS from 2020 with the four proposed CCS demonstration projects fully retrofitted by 2025.

Of course, there is not just an environmental consideration here but there is naked economic self-interest involved as well. There could be a £40billion market in this creating 30,000 to 60,000 jobs in the process. In the dry inhuman language ofeconomics, I guess you could describe that as a 'positive externality.'

In the context of the credit crunch and as we look to re-balance our economy away from an over-reliance on financial services that is no bad thing. It is important to state though that the economic opportunities offered by clean coal are not sufficient reason to pursue its technological development.

However, when you combine the environmental benefits with the economic and our energy requirements then what might seem like a policy of evasion becomes a compelling proposition instead. If we all going to keep on building coal-fired power stations then we have to do something about the emissions. This may be a solution; it's worth a try.

The surprising Mr Cameron

2009-11-12T12:05:00.001Z

David Cameron's Hugo Young Memorial Lecture The Big Society was one of the more fascinating developments in the political discussion over recent months. I've discussed it in my LabourList column this week.

Just how do get from his conference speech a few weeks ago to Tuesday's speech? How can you simultaneously believe, without some major philosophical gymnastics, that 'it is more government that got us into this mess' and 'we need to use the state to remake society.'

Others have had a hack at the factual basis of the speech (Next Left, Channel 4 News, and Left Foot Forward) and on this score it was very dodgy indeed.

However, there is a much more interesting point to make. There is clearly a battle for the soul of the Leader of the Opposition in his private office. On Tuesday, Steve Hilton won. Steve Hilton is the good Cameron, progressive to his core. However, the conference Cameron was Thatcherite to his core. The good Cameron is far more intriguing. I have to say that notion that you can use the state to remake civil society is truly radical. Most social democrats, myself included, would be cautious about pursuing that as a notion. And yet, here you have the leader of the Conservative party making exactly that point.

If he really meant all this as a fundamental attack on poverty, he would have to make arguments about redistribution, asset and wealth transfer, large scale investment and he is not willing to make those arguments. However, in terms of building a more mutualistic, solidaristic, and activist society that takes more reciprocal responsibility- and I regard all that to be absolutely the right thing to seek- his arguments do perhaps have some force.

The real question becomes which David Cameron will emerge from this internal struggle (within the Tory party and within himself)? We can't say but Osborne-ite masochistic economics might force the answer. That would be a pity.

Dan Hannan at it again (on NHS!)

2009-11-11T14:13:00.002Z

Dan, Dan, Dan Hannan, the gift that keeps on giving. So here we are again. This time he's placed himself in front of the cameras again for US libertarian outfit, Campaign for Liberty. Let's all watch together then discuss:

Did you enjoy the frames of Hitler when he was talking about the establishment of the NHS? Very stylish and clever. Remember, healthcare reform in the US is Nazi- lots of people say so like these people and these. Nicely done, Campaign for Liberty.

So what can we say of Dan Hannan? Well, you could say he's extremely naive to allow himself to be used in this way- a useful idiot for the American Right just like Viscount Christopher Monckton, for example (in his case, it was all a communist conspiracy- shift the labels, same concept.) I'd be amazed if Dan Hannan saw the footage that accompanied his words. He can't have done, surely?

But away from the theatrics and symbolism, there is a point of substance. He states (using very selective data that he doesn't even bother to back up):

"You know we're not the worst in the developed world, but the United Kingdom does pretty badly."

Well, let's compare the UK and US using OECD data (UK and USA):

- The UK has 2.5 physicians per 1000 people, 10 nurses per 1000, 2.6 acute care beds per 1000, a life of expectancy of 79.1 years, and an infant mortality rate of 4.8 per 1000.
- The US has 2.4 physicians per 1000, 10.6 nurses per 1000, 2.7 acute beds per 1000,life expectancy was 78.1 years, and an infant mortality rate of 6.7 per 1000.

Most people would say that the UK was marginally better than the US overall with the exception of infant mortality where it was considerably better. Why? Because infant mortality is heavily correlated with poverty and an unequal healthcare system- like the US has.

BUT the big difference? There was one stat that I left out. That is the cost of healthcare. For a healthcare system that is comparable but worse in significant ways, the US has to spend a whopping 16% of its GDP. We pay 8.4% of GDP.

So Dan Hannan can allow himself to used as a pawn in the US healthcare debate all he likes using selective data and unsupported assertion as he goes but he is doing his country down and completely off target.

I like Dan Hannan immensely. It's like having Christmas a dozen a times a year- whenever he opens his mouth basically. Keep it coming, please.

The Sun- shameful and shameless

2009-11-10T11:32:00.002Z

When vituperative Tory bloggers can't even bring themselves to throw a right hook at the Prime Minister you know that an attack is below the belt. And that is exactly where The Sun finds itself today. I don't know whether it was their desire to follow through on their election commitment to the Tories or just exceedingly poor editorial judgement that led them to attack the Prime Minister for his letter to Jacqui Janes but it is completely misjudged. When even the paper's recently departed political editor questions their judgement then you know they've got it woefully wrong.

Actually, it was a touching thing to do and demonstrates the Prime Minister's humanity. No one should belittle the deep grief and hurt that Mrs Janes is feeling. She deserves our utmost sympathy. There is no greater loss than losing a child. No parent should have to outlive their children and it is an agony to find yourself in that terrible situation. Gordon Brown knows this as any parent who has been in this situation knows all too well.

Who can honestly say that, when we hand write letters, we write neatly, legibly, with the correct spelling and punctuation to exacting standards? In the computer age it's a skill that is in decline. Nonetheless, sometimes, when we want to make a personal connection with someone we do get out the old Basildon Bond and put pen to paper. Should Number 10 have checked the letter? Probably, but that's really nit-picking.

The reality is, this letter was a heart-felt and genuine conveyance of regret and sympathy. It was a sensitive gesture. Mrs Janes feels differently and we have to respect that. However, to me, this is a remarkable and touching thing for an extremely hard-working Prime Minister to do. It says a lot about the qualities of the man. It says something rather different about The Sun.

Today, the bodies of six extremely brave soldiers are being flown into Wootton Bassett. They were willing to give their lives for the duties that their country asks them to perform. We can't help but feel humble. We can't help but continually question whether their sacrifice is a cost that must be paid for our security and the security of the world. Those are issues for another day and they are by no means simple.

But for the The Sun to suggest that this Prime Minster, Gordon Brown, has anything other than a complete awareness of and sensitivity to the pain, suffering and sacrifice that the families of the bereaved experience is offensive in the extreme. I really hope that this was just a misjudgement by The Sun. I hope they have the decency to offer the Prime Minister an apology. Yesterday's Sun headline screamed: "Bloody shameful." Yes, The Sun, you are and shameless too.

“This is the Captain. Brace for impact.”

2009-11-09T09:12:00.002Z

Guest post by Stephen Adshead

On 15 January 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 was hit by a large flock of birds, shortly after takeoff, disabling both engines. The pilot - Chesley Sullenberger (aka Sully) – weighed up returning to LaGuardia or attempting to land at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey, but quickly determined that neither was feasible. In near silence (there was zero thrust coming out of the engines) he smoothly ditched the Airbus A320 into the Hudson River. Having made sure that everyone had evacuated, and retrieved the maintenance logbook, Sully walked off the plane. All his passengers and crew survived.

Sully had spent a career preparing for the vital decisions he made that day and from the first moment that mattered (deciding where to land) to the last (being the last one to walk off the plane) he exuded calm authority – This is the Captain. Brace for impact. When Sully and First Officer Jeff Skiles flew together again on 1 October 2009, four of Flight 1549’s passengers, and a significant number of the US media, requested to be aboard. When Sully gave the pre-flight announcement, the applause drowned out his voice. A few even stood up.

Around the same time that Sully reunited with Skiles, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced that it is seeking a $5.4m civil penalty against US Airways (and a $3.8 million fine against United Airlines). The FAA alleges US Airways operated eight aircraft on a total of 1,647 flights last autumn and winter whilst the planes were in a potentially unsafe condition. According to CNN, two Airbus A320s were allegedly flown without complying with an ordered inspection for possible cracking of a landing gear part.

Any failure to carry out inspections could have been – though fortunately wasn’t - a moment that mattered. A less obvious moment, however, was a cost-cutting measure relating to stationery.

When Skiles picked up the emergency procedures manual he discovered that the tabs marking out, for example, the guidance on safely ditching into water, had been removed. In the time between bird-strike and brace-for-impact, and in a flight that lasted, in total, 6 minutes, Skiles could have been found thumbing through the index. Fortunately for the 150 or so passengers and crew, Sully already knew how to ditch a powerless plane into water. His training, experience and perhaps most importantly judgement allowed him, in the moments that mattered, to overcome all of the obstacles before him (and to transcend the limits of the stationery cupboard).

Sully is a visiting scholar at the University of California’s Centre for Catastrophic Risk Management and co-authored with NASA a paper dealing with error-inducing contexts in aviation. There are many risk management lessons here, including broadening where to look for “error-inducing contexts” and the potential impact of poor judgement exercised by even the lowliest within an organisation. As for the tabs, Sully had complained previously about the decision to remove them and raises the topic once more in his new book ‘Highest Duty’. I would wager that he will now be heard and the tabs will be put back in.

Stephen Adshead is a litigator-turned-risk manager-turned-blogger.

Climate change Thursday #14

2009-11-05T16:21:00.003Z

There was a landmark case this week when a sustainability manager for a residential landlord, Grainger plc, was awarded permission to appeal against his dismissal on equality grounds: his 'belief' in man-made climate change constituted a philosophical belief and so was covered by the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003. The regulations encompass, "any religion, religious belief, or philosophical belief".

His solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: "Essentially what the judgment says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations."

Wendy M Grossman takes on Tim Nicholson, the man at the heart of the unfair dismissal case, in a column on The Guardian website today. She concludes:

"Religions have beliefs. Science is not a belief system but the best process we have for establishing the truth, piece by independently replicated piece. Nicholson should be appalled by the ruling he has won."

So are we dealing with a philosophy or are we dealing with science and should Tim Nicholson have been given the opportunity to contest his dismissal on equality grounds?

My first instinct was to disagree with Wendy M Grossman. It is often the case that anthropogenic climate change nay-sayers (whenever I call them 'deniers' they get all semantically stroppy so I'll keep away from the word for this week only as a special treat) accuse those who accept the science -i.e. pretty much all the world's scientific, policy-making, and corporate communities- of being religious.

Ms Grossman is absolutely right to refute that accusation as I do. Man-made climate change is real. It is grounded in the highest quality scientific research conducted by some of the world's leading scientific institutes, organisations, and academic establishments. We can certainly accept the causes of climate change with well in excess of 90% certainty. What the precise consequences will be are more debatable but we can look at various scenarios, none of which are good news.

However, environmentalism is a different thing. Given anthropogenic climate change there are a wide variety of responses. We could do nothing and accept the consequences: huge loss of life, extinction, famine, drought, floods, extremely hazardous weather events, war, and mass migration amongst other things. We could try to halfheartedly mitigate it. Or we could choose to adopt the conviction that collective action to avert disaster is possible but it requires sacrifice and imagination- we've managed it before so why not again?

Environmentalists of all different persuasions believe in the latter course. I count myself in that group. It is a political and philosophical outlook. The philosophical bit is based on the Brundtland Report in 1987:

"Sustainable development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

My only qualm with that quote is that it is not about future generations only. It is already about the people who inhabit this globe today.

The political belief is the conviction that, no matter how great the challenge, we have within us, as a global political community, the ability to fundamentally alter course should we so choose.

That is why my instinct was to disagree with Wendy Grossman: anthropogenic climate change is science but environmentalism is a belief (though one that it is debatable whether it falls under the Employment Equality Regulations given that it has a political component in my view.)

In the end though, I ended up agreeing with her as a result of both the statement from Mr Nicholson and the statement of his solicitor which combines science and belief. To recap, his solicitor said his philosophy was: "a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative." The first element is science but the second is belief- it is very dangerous to combine the two. The simple fact is that if you do then you allow those who would challenge the belief to, by default and extension, challenge the science also but without any requirement for scientific rigour.

However, I do wish Mr Nicholson, who is clearly a committed and articulate environmentalist, all the very best in securing the change that he and I believe in.

How to change politics for good

2009-11-05T11:24:00.004Z

I was asked to respond to OpenLeft's Which way's left? conversation on whether the left should disperse power. It seems to me that the answer is a qualified yes as this piece argues. However, I decided to float a new idea for House of Lords reform that could enshrine a better separation of powers between the Government and Parliament.

It has the following elements:

- Members elected on an AV+ basis using the old European constituencies with a regional top up.
- Elections would be every five years and coincide with European elections.
- No member of the new House of Lords can be a member of the government. If they join the Government they would have to resign their seat.
- A minimum age of 40.
- Parties would commit to selecting candidates on the basis of expertise and to reflect the diversity of the UK.

Why make these changes?

"By having a different source of authority - and timing - this new House of Lords would strengthen Parliament and make it more pluralistic. Adding in electoral reform of the House of Commons – the alternative vote - and the opening out of political parties through the introduction of primaries then the centrifugal nature of our political system begins to be reversed. There would be more counterweight in the system.

Wouldn’t this make social and economic reform more difficult? At times, perhaps, but it would also improve the quality of legislation as Governments would have to operate by consensus. It would also embed institutions that had broad consent beyond the lifetime of a Parliament or a Government. Pluralism, long-termism, consensus, and diversity could be locked into our democratic system."

Which brings me nicely on to David Cameron's absolutely barmy intention to introduce a UK Sovereignty Bill (it didn't really bring me nicely on to this but whatever....) There are two possibilities for the Bill:

- It is meaningless. Therefore it achieves nothing but may simply make the UK look silly. Parliament is already sovereign- we can leave the EU at any time.
- It is meaningful. In which case, we are leaving the European Union. European law supercedes UK law. Any UK law passed which suggests otherwise is incompatible with EU treaties and, therefore, we would have to leave. Potty.

Fraser Nelson writes:

"Mr Cameron’s proposed Sovereignty Bill — declaring the primacy of English law over the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg — will also be meaningless unless it includes the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg."

Er, that is not meaningless I'm afraid. That would mean that the UK is leaving the EU. Quite meaningful, I would say. I'd be interested to hear whether Fraser Nelson has got confirmation that is what the legislation would contain. If it does, then Cameron is committing to the UK going it alone.

Don't take my word for it. Here is Kenneth Clarke describing such legislation as: "fundamentally incompatible with EU membership."

All this lets the eurosceptic genie out of the bottle. He is placing himself in a position of fundamental and ongoing conflict with the EU. Where does that end up? It ends up in only one place: a referendum on leaving the EU as he won't get his own way. Playing with fire Mr Cameron.

Post script: The BBC adds a bit more colour to the story. Pierre Lallouche is simply saying what others are thinking.

President Barack B Johnson?

2009-11-04T12:03:00.002Z

I just had a piece posted on Progressonline: "To become a great president, Obama must learn to govern - as well as campaign - in poetry." The headline says it all, as does the conclusion:

"Another aphorism in US politics is that ‘Washington always wins.' As shown, there is cause for a healthy disdain of aphorism. If there's one man who can find a way of breaking iron rules, it's President Obama. Understandably, he keeps getting sidetracked, taking on Fox News rather than speaking to the American people. But he needs to discover his transcendent voice once again.

It's been a good year since his iconic victory. To become a great president, he must remember what secured that victory. He was the voice, inspiration and guide for a people who had lost their way. Mid-term elections loom a year from now. This is the moment. There is a fierce urgency to now."

In the piece, I discuss the coming decision he has to make on Afghanistan. It really is a bog strategic moment. It is dangerous to reduce such complex situations to binary options. However, if he goes for surge- as General Stanley McChrystal recommends- then he should really go for it. If he sends an additional 20,000 instead of 40,000 that will look weak and he will end up with the worst of both worlds. If he decides to retrench and go for a strategy more focused on counter-terrorism as opposed to counter-insurgency then he should have the courage of his convictions and explain why he has chosen such a course to the American people. Interestingly, earlier today Kim Howells advocated just such a course for the UK to take.

Whatever he decides, his presidency could be defined by this decision. The ghost of Lyndon B Johnson- a remarkably adept and successful reformist president domestically but with a disastrous foreign policy- hangs over the decision. He is right and wise to take his time.

Osbornomics- the triumph of hope over reality

2009-11-04T10:03:00.001Z

Don't worry there will be some Obama later. However, the piece I've written is more a reflection on where we are than a celebration of the victory itself. There was plenty of that last year and the early part of this year. Interestingly, looking back at the blog at that time I didn't write anything about his victory at all. I think that I'd just had enough, focusing instead on finishing the book. I still had a conclusion to write....

Anyway, the more prosaic business of the economy: people's jobs, homes and businesses.

Giles Wilkes at CentreReform has run some separate scenarios on the Conservative approach to solving the fiscal deficit and extracting the economy from recession. The Osborne strategy is to lift the burden from fiscal supports and let exports and capital investment take the strain.

It could work. It's just highly unlikely. In Slash and Grow. Spending cuts and economic recovery. Wilkes points out:

"Several organisations, from the CBI to the Bank of England, predict that the UK can only grow sustainably through net exports and business investment. Consumption, both by households and the government, needs to fall. But if these two elements (which tend to comprise 80-85% of the economy) are to remain stagnant, the other two will be left with a huge burden to carry. The highest 5 year contribution that capital investment and net exports have ever made was in the mid 1990s, when they added an average of 1.1 percentage points to annual growth.

An even more extraordinary performance will be needed if a future Conservative administration is to achieve budget sustainability by 2015. This is because, even with spending flat in real terms for five years, the gap will need to be closed by higher revenues, which require economic growth."

And remember, such a strategy would require there to be sufficient growth in world demand to take up the slack of the loss in domestic fiscal support. Other countries would also have to be pursuing strategies that were not similar to ours (everyone can't devalue all at once.) And the business sector would have to gear itself towards export markets very rapidly- this is in an economy that has a largely non-tradeable sector (Ocado can't deliver in Brussels.)

Moreover, capital investment- the second Tory anticipated economic recovery driver- is highly volatile. There is no way of predicting where it will head. It is one reason for a degree of caution in the imposition of tougher capital reserve requirements for banks- that may drain the markets of liquidity just as the recovery is gaining some pace. I must emphasise this is absolutely a short-term consideration. And you really have to wonder just how capital investment can expand at the 9% rate needed in Wilkes' Osborne scenario to get the deficit back to sustainability. The Government is not having to force Lloyds TSB and RBS to lend because they are desperate to anyway.....

This also assumes that there is a huge appetite for corporates to leverage themselves up again. There will be caution both with households and corporates if we look at, say, what happened in Japan in the 1990s and 2000s which bears some similarities to our current situation, i.e. it is a credit recession rather than an inflationary adjustment.

So what is likely to happen when fiscal supports are withdrawn?

Well, time to dust down my trusty old friend, Richard Koo, once again. Japan tried a premature fiscal consolidation in both 1997 and 2001 as I discussed a few weeks back. What was the result? Well, fiscal deficits actually increased and they precipitated a credit crunch and multiple banking failures as well.

What this means in practice is for George Osborne's highly optimistic, high risk scenario to work he needs an enormous amount of luck.

For what it's worth, my prediction? Should the Tories win and begin cutting expenditure immediately, Osborne will be forced to reverse his policy within a year or face a new economic/ fiscal crisis.

New York 23 and Republican malaise

2009-11-02T13:07:00.003Z

Well, well. The rabid ideological rump that is the Republican party has got itself in a complete state in the special election being held in the New York 23 congressional district (hands up if you thought New York 23 was a new HBO cop drama.) Not satisfied with taking down a presidential campaign, Sarah Palin is now doing her best to hand another seat in Congress to Democrats. She is the gift that just keeps on giving.

New York 23 was vacated when John McHugh, the sitting Republican representative, was appointed as Secretary to the Army by President Obama. McHugh won the seat by 65% to 35% last year. The Democrats haven't won there since the civil war.

Sarah Palin and other Republican wannabes like Minnesota's Governor Tim Pawlenty decided in their base-tickling wisdom to back an independent conservative running for the seat, Doug Hoffman, against Democrat challenger, Bill Owens. The official Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, was furious and pulled out the race after her poll ratings started to plummet.

And now? Going into the election tomorrow, Bill Owens has a very narrow poll lead. It doesn't end there. Dede Scozzafava has now endorsed, wait for it, Bill Owens. If the Democrats do manage to grab New York 23- even if they slip up in the Virginia (as seems likely) or New Jersey gubernatorial races- this will be a huge blow to Republicans. It won't make a huge difference or even any difference at all in congressional legislative calculations. But it will show that this ideologically pure party is getting close to dysfunctionality. The centre of American politics is shifting to the progressives.

The irony is that this special election was precipitated by President Obama's latest show of bipartisanship. Is that word even in the Republican lexicon?

Post script: And the Democrats win....thanks Sarah, you can come again.

Tories in a tizz over Europe

2009-11-02T12:23:00.002Z

So the Tories have got themselves in a tizz about Europe once again. They want to re-negotiate Britain's membership of the EU and Cameron will put that in his manifesto. Of course, when he says re-negotiate we instantly assume he means with other European leaders. But no, he actually means with Sun Editor, Dominic Mohan, the former Editor of the paper's bizarre column. Precisely.

Of course, they are going to keep all this bottled up. There's an electorate to be hoodwinked and an election to be won don't you know. Tim Montgomerie, Editor of ConservativeHome, tries to ride both horses- loyalty and euroscpeticism. It will work for a few months but will explode in David Cameron's face should he win next May.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in Paris, Berlin, and Madrid when the first attempt to re-negotiate the Treaties is made. David Cameron may well be prepared for a hostile reaction. I'm sure Margaret Thatcher's 'give us our money back' rhetoric could be resuscitated. He could conveniently forget that two years after Fontainebleau, Mrs Thatcher signed the Single European Act, the biggest single expansion of European power since the Treaty of Rome. Maybe he could be honest and call his rallying cry: 'give me my party back.' But he'll be disappointed. He won't be met with hostility. He'll be met with ridicule.

Maybe once they've wiped the tears of laughter away, they will decide to get all pragmatic. Sure, you can have those social and employment rights opt outs- things like maternity leave, guaranteed holidays, rights for agency workers (which also protects non-agency worker from having their terms competed away)- but there's a price. Um, we'll have that £3billion rebate for a start. You want to reform CAP? Silly boy. I hope you don't mind Mr Cameron, but we've put you with Iceland and Slovenia for the dinner. Don't worry your table gets jelly and ice cream rather than grown-ups' puddings. You just love jelly and ice cream, don't you?

(As an aside, what happens if David Cameron does succeed in a re-negotiation? Would that not be a Treaty change? So would he not be bound to have a referendum in accordance with his own promise? And what if he then lost that referendum? Just a thought....)

Jessica Asato makes the important point that Labour shouldn't just carp from the side-lines and revel in the Tories repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot for no purpose. We should 'make the case.' But what is that case?

Well, it's about national sovereignty actually. The EU, far from being a dilution of national sovereignty, is a reclaiming of national sovereignty. In a world of large regional powers, with open commerce, movement of people, global communications, and large-scale cross-border environmental damage, there is little use in defending formal sovereignty. Instead, you have to find ways of cooperating with like-minded nations to confront these challenges. That is a reclaim of de facto sovereignty- you have a greater say over the future of your people.

What is the consequence of this? We can better manage and grow our economy, fight crime and terrorism, manage our borders, reduce climate change, protect the rights of our workers, influence global affairs and confront the multiplicity of risks that modern nations face.

Is Europe perfect? No, and we have to be clear about that. We have to support the EU but also articulate a strong case for reform. It is woefully undemocratic. What say do we have over the appointment of the new president of the Council? Or the next president of the Commission? Or the Commission itself? We can only influence these appointments through the European Parliament and so there is little public debate. There is a severe deficit of transparency- what actually happens in Council meetings? The continuation of the CAP in its expansive form is a disgrace and completely unjustified.

None of this can change without enjoying a degree of influence. None of these things are costs that outweigh the benefits but nor are they insignificant. But our influence over our own affairs and our global influence (just listen to the noises coming out of Washington) depends on being a strong member of the EU. Any movement towards the periphery away from the core is detrimental to our national interest and our sovereignty.

Ultimately, that is the cost of a Conservative government. David Cameron has already placed himself on the very periphery of the EU- through his rheroric; his clubbing together with a rag-bag of anti-semites, homophobes, and climate change deniers in the European Parliament, sticking two fingers up to President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel in the meantime; and with his determination to suck Europe back into an institutional wrangle. That is not in Britain's self-interest. That is not statesmanship.

*The image is courtesy of the Ministry of Truth.
** It is also worth reading Next Left on this.

Climate change Thursday #13

2009-10-30T14:58:00.001Z

OK, it's Friday. But who's splitting hairs?

Let me introduce you to Viscount Christopher Monckton. He's convinced that the Copenhagen Treaty is a result of communists spilling out and taking over the world from Greenpeace to the US to everything else. It really is worth watching. I got as much joy out of it as I used to from watching David Icke in action.

Imagine my surprise when I heard that he's been interviewed on Glenn Beck's radio show:

I enjoy Glenn Beck also. Really. Who needs Jon Stewart when you have Glenn Beck for entertainment?

Taking on City excess

2009-10-26T10:24:00.004Z

Will Hutton pitched into the discussion about whether we should look at fundamental structural change within the banking industry. Last week, I signaled agreement with Mervyn King's suggestion that we should split commercial banking from investment banking. Hutton is clear about the scale of the challenge:

"But reforming big finance ranks alongside climate change and the Middle East conflict as one of the great policy challenges of our time."

However, he doesn't follow King's desire to see banks split down the middle. He accepts Lord Adair Turner's line that such a split would be impractical and undesirable; better instead to manage capital requirements and, perhaps, think about some form of transactions tax if that was insufficient to curb riskier behaviour. Hutton does go much further than Lord Turner in suggesting:

"Britain should now break up its banks that are too big to fail as the US once trust-busted Standard Oil in 1911 when it got far too large – the King solution. The impact on British finance and the powerful financial oligarchs would be irreversible and unforgettable. We could create more than a dozen banks where we now have four – NatWest, Bank of Scotland, and the Halifax should be given their independence again – and new banks created to specialise in infrastructure and innovation financing, where there is a gaping hole. There could be a genuinely competitive banking market, fighting to increase lending in all parts of the country and driving a sustained recovery. No single bank could pose a systemic risk because none would be large enough."

So how does Hutton's trust-busting proposal stack up?

There are three questions for me: does it actually reduce systemic risk, does it eliminate moral hazard, would there be banks that were still be 'too big to fail'?

On the first of these, the proposal fails. The risk inherent in the system (sorry to get all Monty Python on you) is what is risky. Sounds tautological? Well, let me throw another tautology your way. The systemic risk is the system.

Having scattered tautology all around, let me hit you with an oxymoron (stick with this, serious point coming.) John Cassidy sees the financial meltdown in terms of 'rational irrationality.' What he means is that while the medium term consequences of decisions are irrational, short-term decisions are entirely rational. So, for example, a Wall Street CEO who invests in a risky class of financial products knows that he (almost all are 'he') may be jeopardising his firm's future, and knows that if other CEOs are making the same calls then the entire system may be jeopardised. However, he can't but make the investment or his company's stock will forgo growth, his reputation will suffer and he will lose his job.

Over to Cassidy:

"The same logic [rational irrationality] applies to the decisions made by Wall Street C.E.O.s like Citigroup’s Charles Prince and Merrill Lynch’s Stanley O’Neal. They’ve been roundly denounced for leading their companies into the mortgage business, where they suffered heavy losses. In the midst of a credit bubble, though, somebody running a big financial institution seldom has the option of sitting it out. What boosts a firm’s stock price, and the boss’s standing, is a rapid expansion in revenues and market share. Privately, he may harbor reservations about a particular business line, such as subprime securitization. But, once his peers have entered the field, and are making money, his firm has little choice except to join them. C.E.O.s certainly don’t have much personal incentive to exercise caution. Most of them receive compensation packages loaded with stock options, which reward them for delivering extraordinary growth rather than for maintaining product quality and protecting their firm’s reputation."

Herein lies the problem with the Hutton proposal. The dynamic of 'rational irrationality', far from reducing the risk within the system, could actually increase it. Many banks chasing scarce capital will compete with each other to make ever greater returns. That in itself will increase risk taking. Ah, but aren't these investors wise to risk? No. That's the problem. The whole thing is opaque and riddled asymmetries of information. Goodness, people within firms don't know what is going on let alone investors on the outside.

So the Hutton proposal wouldn't reduce systemic risk and may indeed increase it.

Now, the moral hazard question. While none of these smaller banks would be theoretically too 'big to fail', they would certainly be 'too politically damaging to allow to fail.' Northern Rock was not a big High Street bank but it was inconceivable that it could have been allowed to fail; indeed, it had to be nationalised. This was partly due to the fact that confidence in the system would be shot (remember, the hour by hour monitoring of ATMs.....) but also the political fallout would have been devastating.

So while none of the new 'mini-banks' would be 'too big to fail' as long as their failure didn't undermine trust in the entire system, the reality would be different. What's more, contagion spreads quicker in financial markets than myxomatosis in a rabbit warren. What this would mean in practice is that any executive would still be in a position where they knew they had a taxpayer guarantee. Moral hazard would still apply. Moral hazard and 'too big to fail' are, in reality, two sides of the same coin.

On the basis that I don't see that Hutton proposal- and he has some other ideas for the creation of banks to support infrastructure and innovation which are excellent- reduces systemic risk, eliminates moral hazard, or really solves the 'too big to fail' issue I'm sticking with Mervyn King.

Only by having a commercial banking sector that is very boring, very regulated, and transparent can we shield the UK taxpayer from shouldering the burden of loss while others reap the grotesque rewards. I do not think the system is transparent enough for capital requirements to resolve the issue. The only way is to de-risk commercial banking. I do not think any of Lord Turner's objections are really convincing. There is no reason why the more sophisticated services like hedging could not be offered by regulated commercial banks. They could simply become agents for such services.

Where I absolutely 100% do agree with Will Hutton is that this is one of the big questions of our time. It is one that I fear we are ducking exposing the UK- given the the ratio of the banking sector to our GDP- to perhaps greater risk than any other European economy.

Post script: George Osborne has delivered a speech on these issues today. It contains lots of 'this should happen, that should happen' without much this is how it will happen. Intriguingly, he reiterates his proposal to hand banking regulation to the Bank of England. Yet he doesn't state whether he agrees with Mervyn King's proposal to break up the banks. Well, to support one measure is to support the other so what is it? Vince Cable is explicit in his support.

The rest of the speech is the normal mix of deregulation, rhetoric about red tape (as if the issue facing the British economy was supply side and not demand side!) and his usual stuff about Britain facing a 'debt crisis':

"It is the soaring national debt that sits like a vulture poised to swoop on a sustainable British recovery."

Unfortunately, shoot that bird too early and you shoot down recovery which is what will happen, of course. To his credit, George Osborne is completely honest about his intentions. If we vote for it, then we will only have ourselves to blame.

Climate change Thursday #12

2009-10-22T16:39:00.002+01:00

Climate change erupted onto the political stage this week with ferocious sparring between the two main parties on renewable energy.

The Conservatives were severely hindered by comments made by their business spokesperson, Kenneth Clarke, that:

"My view is that those few wild and open spaces that we have left in Britain should not be used for wind turbines."

He was quickly put in his place by Greg Clark, the shadow energy and climate change secretary. The Conservatives are keen to portray themselves as being just as committed to renewable energy as Labour. Indeed, their idea that communities that permit new wind turbines can keep the Business Rates from them for six years is positive. But it will not be enough simply to pursue clever 'nudge-esque' tinkering.

Greg Clark's clarification of the Conservative position came after Ed Miliband, never slow to take a new media campaigning opportunity, had dashed off a letter to David Cameron signed by 3000+ (including myself) to seek clarification of the Tory position and insist that they acknowledge the importance of on-shore wind generation.

The problem with the Tories' position, it would seem, is that they are very deeply divided so, despite good intentions, will not be able to use the full muscle of government to create market conditions that lever in major investment so that the UK meets its renewable energy commitments (15% of electricity generated to be renewable by 2020.) David Cameron's anti-government rhetoric in his conference speech suggests that ideologically they are quite simply in the wrong place to make a big difference. Can the UK afford to lose four to five years of the next ten in pursuing a laggardly approach to climate change?

The reality is that Greg Clark's rhetoric and micro-incentives are fine but Kenneth Clarke's attitude is closer to the Tory mainstream.

A report by SERA (note to self: must remember to join), shows that Tory Councils:

- Only approve 40% of applications for wind turbines.
- Have only approved wind capacity of 44.7MW of electricity from wind power.

It's all very well imploring us to 'Vote Blue, Go Green' but the reality is very different to that it would seem.

Time to split up the banks?

2009-10-21T14:48:00.004+01:00

To split or not the split? Mervyn King yesterday waded into the debate about whether deposit banking should be split away from investment banking. The Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee has followed King into the discussion. If capital requirements are so great, it may well happen anyway.

But is there any logic to such a move?

The first question has to be: did the fusion of the two forms of banking contribute to the financial crisis in the first place?

Well, it's far from incontrovertible. Glass-Steagall, the 1933 act legally separating the two functions, was repealed in 1999. As a fascinating piece in the New Yorker about the role of Chairman of the National Economic Council's, Larry Summers, in the crisis, makes clear, there are those who hotly dispute the repeal of the act as a cause.

As Ryan Lizza points out in the piece:

"Others note that the pure investment banks, like Lehman Brothers, have been the greatest source of instability, while the banks with combined commercial and investment arms have fared the best."

However, Robert Reich and Joseph Stiglitz are both clear that the issue wasn't necessarily about institutional arrangements, it was about the cultural impact of such arrangements. The casino approach won out over the safety first approach. There is little doubt that high-risk investment meant that traditional banks were up to their necks in it, even if it was Lehman Brothers, AIG, Bear Sterns, and Merrill Lynch who were swallowed by the waves. In the UK, that meant that our High Street banks were in severe jeopardy.

It's a difficult case to prove, but there is little doubt that the major banks on which savers and investors depended had become severely incautious. We can simply speculate on whether that was due to structural issues. Stiglitz and Reich argue that it was due to the consequences of such arrangements. Others, such as Robert Shiller, argue that there was a dynamic that led to ever greater risk taking. Both are right. Would having Glass-Steagall in place have prevented the financial crisis? No, I don't think the evidence is there to support that but it was probably a contributing factor. However, that does not mean that we should not consider re-introducing it.

Mervyn King's concerns are that these super-institutions: (i) are very difficult to police and regulate; (ii) when they go wrong, pose systemic risk. I agree with him.

A separation of the casino parts of the banking system from the boring bits would make things far more transparent and would place a division between the two conflicting cultures that define each. There would still be risk and the investments that High Street banks were making on our behalf would have to be monitored carefully for contagious risk as would the risks taken by insurance and pension companies. This would be far easier if there was a separation.

The argument is not just historical, it's about the future as well. As a nation that plays host to a disproportionately large financial sector, we have an interest in de-risking our exposure as depositors or, far more probably, as tax-payers.

As things stand, we have the most appalling moral hazard within our financial system. Bankers thought that they would be bailed out prior to the financial crisis. Now they know that they would be. They only way to reverse that is to ensure that no bank is 'too big to fail' and the legal separation of investment and High Street banking is part of that.

Post script: There was an intriguing debate between Will Hutton and Heather McGregor in The Observer on Sunday. My beef and Yorkshire pudding ended up on the carpet when I read this pearl from Heather McGregor:

"Lord Turner and I may agree on bonuses, but we disagree about the social relevance of investment banks. Would I miss Goldman Sachs if it didn't exist? At every level – not only does it provide a valuable service to companies whose continued financial health my business depends on, but even at the most basic level they help the country – the tax their UK bankers pay on their bonuses will help fund our budget deficit."

And why, pray, do we have a Budget deficit of £175billion or so if it was not for the reckless actions of those who you want to reward handsomely to pay down the very same deficit?!?

Her piece improves as it goes on. I made friends with her again towards the end of the piece when she argues:

"We need to return to an age when investment banking and mainstream banking are separated, as they were in the US under the Glass-Steagall Act"

Unfortunately, the gravy stain is still on the carpet just as the gravy train has already left the station.

Post script 2: Though he doesn't argue that banks should be broken up, Martin Woolf takes on the moral hazard and 'too big to fail' arguments in his column today. Worth reading.

Where we are going wrong on race

2009-10-21T10:55:00.004+01:00

Race is the most difficult subject to write about; there is just too much emotion flying around. When writing Barack Obama: the movement for change, the sections on race (and there is a whole chapter on it) were the ones I agonised over the most. Following a sparky meeting I had in Lewisham Library last week, I have revisited the discussion in the context of the UK in my column on LabourList.

The piece looks at particular issues concerning race and alienation. Just to be clear about my overall position:

- As a nation we have made huge strides in eliminating overt racism but in a sense that is the easy bit. If someone describes a black tennis player as a 'froggy golliwog guy' then that is clearly unacceptable and it wasn't four decades ago.
- Like the United States, there is a burgeoning ethnic minority middle class and minorities proliferate our media, culture, and sport. That is progress.
- However, just as in the United States, there is a large proportion of minorities who have been left behind- and that is distinct from immigration. In a sense, this is tied in with wider socio-economic change and the growth of inequality. Thirty years ago the ship of opportunity left the port and those who were left behind were disproportionately minorities.
- That is why when you listen to alienated white, working class communities and the same alienated voices in minority communities you often hear similar voices. Class is a major part of this (see the piece for some observations.)
- However, there are alienating experiences that are significantly down to race. The 'stop and search' resentment, job discrimination, etc. There are other types of discrimination too- social class, sexuality, gender- but this does not invalidate the claim that there is a great deal of hidden racial discrimination in the UK.
- Finally, we do not have an honest public discussion about these issues. What do we teach at our schools? Why would we need a Black History Month if history properly reflected the diversity of the British people? Why does so much discrimination persist? Why do our public institutions- particularly the criminal justice system- operate in a way that alienates and condemns so many minority groups?

I'm afraid all these issues are not answered adequately by the retort 'the white/ working class have it bad too.' We must seek a more equal, more mobile, less discriminatory society. We must talk more openly about these issues (in a way that the BNP does not.) We have an enormous distance to travel. If we start to talk about these issues in a more open way then many people who are suspicious of each other might find themselves with rather more in common than they think.

Anyway, I discuss my reasons for objecting to the BNP appearing on Question Time in the piece. Mainly, it is because they are a party that seeks to deny human rights to millions so beyond what is the legal requisite, their voice should not be amplified or legitimised. That is what the appearance on Question Time and the precedent it sets will achieve, whatever happens on Thursday night.

How good a negotiator are you?

2009-10-16T15:27:00.000+01:00

Guest post by Stephen Adshead

One evening a blue monster, who lived on the west side of a mountain, called through a hole, “Can you see how beautiful it is? Day is departing.”

“Day departing? Called back his neighbour to the east, a red monster. “You mean night arriving, you twit”

“Don’t call me a twit, you dumbo, or I’ll get angry“ fumed the blue monster, and he felt so annoyed that he could hardly sleep.

Owners of small children might recognise the hand of David McKee, creator of Mr Benn, and the author of Two Monsters . Arguing as these monsters do can be commonplace in a range of scenarios, not least parties in litigation. The language may be more or less colourful and, if lawyers are involved, phrases like ‘with all due respect’ and ‘your claim is speculative, misconceived and meretricious’ are perhaps more likely than ‘smelly custard tart face’.

But, as in the case of the blue and red monster, arguing in these scenarios is partly the result of a failure to see the other’s point of view, east versus west. Continuing the argument in a monstrously aggressive manner will also impede opportunities for successful resolution.

The blue monster ultimately batters his point home, coupling his ‘point’ with name-calling and, when that is not sufficiently persuasive, rocks. These rocks tend to miss the red monster but hit the mountain. When we, and monsters, engage in difficult conversations there is a tendency to repeat our points, assuming that the other person didn’t understand initially, rather than taking the time to understand the other person’s narrative and the underlying reason for the conflict. How could the monsters here have persuaded the other as to his story, without the need for gravel?

In the seminal (but unfortunately titled) book ‘Getting to Yes’, Ury and Fisher of Harvard Law School advocated interest-based, as opposed to positional, negotiation, a strategy that has become known as the ‘Harvard (or Win-Win) Method’. This method of negotiation focuses on developing mutually beneficial agreements based on the interests of the disputants and has been applied to a variety of situations, including negotiating with a second hand car dealer, the current healthcare debate in America, and negotiations with terrorists.

It has even been applied to the most resistant participants to any form of negotiation – children. The literature on interest-based negotiation continues to grow and the students of the programme on negotiation at the Harvard Law School include not just lawyers, but also psychologists, economists and anthropologists. I won’t attempt to summarise their output, but if it piques your interest I recommend the interview with retired NYPD hostage negotiator, Dr Hugh McGowan, on http://www.negotiationtip.com/ to gain an insight into how this negotiation strategy can work and ideas from him such as ‘if you listen to them, they will listen to you’.

The competitive amongst you (which I suspect will include all of the lawyers) can test your negotiation skills online. Click the link below to try and sell some nature prints at the best price to moustachioed cartoon character Bill Gimel. http://www.sfhgroup.com/ca/training/online-training/test-your-skills.php. Tip – There is another person that you need to persuade.

Had the monsters been blessed with a Harvard law degree, the internet or opposable thumbs, they might not have ultimately destroyed the mountain, thereby realising, as they watched together both the arrival of the night and the departure of the day, that neither monster merited rock-assisted vitriol. As it was, they walked to the middle of the mess and remarked ‘that was rather fun, pity about the mountain’.

The speech I'd like Gordon Brown to give...

2009-10-15T10:51:00.002+01:00

I've rounded up where I see things are after the conference season over on LabourList. Basically, little change in the public mind but a strategic victory for the Labour party- they have the Tories where they want them and where they have ended up in each of the last two elections. However, the context is different this time given the fiscal position. Nonetheless, there is all to play for.

I've had a bash at the speech I'd like to hear Gordon Brown deliver. It's not perfect, but in terms of tone it is radically different: more open, engaged and conversational. It concludes:

"We believe we face adversity down by coming together - as the British always have. We believe that we should all be equal not because it sounds good. We believe it because it means that people will be more free, our communities will be safer, and we will achieve more individually. Acting together, we will unleash our national creativity which has given us pride, time and time again.

“So let’s have a great national debate about who we are and the type of nation we want to be. I invite the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Democrats to travel with me to our major cities to debate our national future. Let’s lift our politics from the mire to the sky. Let’s make this election a proud advert for our democracy.”

Anyway, we'll see where things go from here.....

NB: The image is an initial @alexsmith1982 attempt at a Shepard Fairey.

Climate change Thursday #11

2009-10-15T10:27:00.003+01:00

In a sense, of the three areas targeted by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), energy, residential, and transport, it is the latter that is politically most contentious. The Government starting moving in the direction of some road pricing, for example, a few years ago but then had to perform an about turn.

If the conversion to electric powered cars is to happen more rapidly and we are to limit use of petrol powered vehicles in the meantime then some road pricing will have to be considered. It could incentivise the move to electric also. Revenues from any road pricing could be used to build the infrastructure of charging points etc. for electric vehicles and could be used to subsidise the purchase of new electric vehicles.

The CCC refused to take this discussion off the table. To quote:

"There is good economic rationale to introduce road pricing and thereby reduce congestion. Evidence in this report suggests that road pricing would result in a significant emissions reduction (e.g. around 6 MtCO2 in 2020) if there were no offsetting reductions in other aspects of transport pricing (i.e. fuel duty, VED.)"

There is an equity issue. There are many people on lower incomes or whom are performing essential tasks who may find themselves hit hard by any introduction of road pricing. This particularly becomes the case if the journeys are unavoidable. Perhaps there is a simple way of deadening the impact (and there must be an impact if there is to be a disincentive) for people in such a position. The reality may be that it is only longer distance journeys, i.e. those over 30 miles or so, that would attract some sort of price.

What cannot happen is that we just bury equity issues when we consider new ways of incentivising lower carbon emitting behaviour. For example, just as we provide opportunity for shared ownership social housing for healthcare workers, we may wish to provide additional grants for the purchase of new electric cars so they could avoid road charges altogether (electric cars would not attract any charges.)

This is a controversial area but one that can not be ducked if the UK is to hit the most ambitious carbon reduction targets possible. There is an environmental necessity for the UK to be a world leader, a moral necessity (we kicked all this off after all...), but also potentially a huge economic gain as we become a world leader in the science of climate change, research, manufacturing, services etc; if we get this right, the UK would become a net exporter of environmental goods and services. Let's not leave this one to Germany, the US, China, and Japan.

Just returning to the infrastructure point for a moment, it was very pleasing to see that the Mayor of London has included consideration of on-road infrastructure needed to make electric vehicles work in the city in his new London Plan. One in five new parking spaces will need to have an electric power point. Not enough in my view but a good principle to embed in the planning system nonetheless.

***UPDATE***

Boris, I was nice but then you announce eye-popping public transport fare increases. Why? Because you are refusing to take the tough choices on the environment, bowing instead to the Chelsea tractor and big haulage brigade. As Simon Fletcher explains on LabourList:

"It is claimed - though we will have to see - that the higher fares will raise an extra £125million. Yet Boris Johnson’s own actions have cut millions from TfL’s budgets – £50m-£70million a year will go when the western extension is abolished; £50million a year has been lost through the cancellation of the £25 CO2 charge on gas guzzlers; millions are being wasted through the new Routemaster plan, the removal of bendy buses and the ending of the mutually beneficial agreement with Venezuela."

************

Finally, I'd encourage you to have a quick read of The great BBC global warming swindle piece I posted a few days ago. One to watch....

UK on a collison course with China?

2009-10-12T17:26:00.003+01:00

I will report more fully on Thursday about the Committee on Climate Change's first report which was published today. I attended what as a fascinating launch addressed by Lords Turner and Stern.

The top-lines of the report are: we should not be fooled that we are hitting the underlying targets for carbon emissions by the fact that we are in recession. This reduces emissions but, more worrying, lowers the price of carbon so disincentivising low-carbon investment which will slow the transition to a low-carbon economy. To hit our targets, i.e. to meet the government's carbon budget, there needs to be a step-change in three main areas: energy, buildings, and transport.

Most intriguingly though, the discussion took an interesting turn when Tim Yeo MP, Chairman of the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (and who was very supportive of the report), questioned the panel about the UK exporting its emissions. Tantalisingly, Lord Turner indicated that investigating the consumption model of emissions (current policy is geared towards production of carbon rather than consumption) was beyond the legal remit of the Committee. However, it was absolutely clear that he would welcome that remit being widening so as to investigate the question further.

The problem with measuring production of carbon without considering consumption alongside that is that off-shore emissions are not taken into account, i.e. so the emissions embedded in the products and services we import and international transportation are not properly considered.

Lord Stern made it clear that as part of their evidence base feeding into the 12th five-year plan, the Chinese will be publishing the historical data of emissions of each country going back to the 19th century.

China seems to have an interest in provoking this discussion as they are a surplus nation exporting products that they manufacture and we consume. They could make an argument that the West, and the UK is majorly implicated here, is not consuming either its historical and current smoke.

However, as someone pointed out to me, it may not be in China's interests to push the issue too far. It may provoke a discussion about global imbalances and the rate of the Renminbi. Why would the resolution not be to appreciate the Chinese currency so that production was moved elsewhere?

China is likely to have many developing world allies with this argument but it could become explosive. At the very least, the UK will need to have its own assessment of the impact of its consumption patterns (net environmental impact.) So it is right that the Committee's legal remit should be expanded.

The Great BBC global warming swindle

2009-10-12T09:45:00.006+01:00

So The Great Global Warming Swindle has come to the BBC. Of course, it is dressed up in the adornment of 'balanced reporting' that is so important to the BBC. But, nonetheless, it uses the type of arguments used in that infamous, wholly manipulated and, at times, fabricated Channel 4 documentary.

The culprit? Well, it is an article from the BBC's Paul Hudson which poses the provocative question, What happened to global warming?. It has all the hallmarks of the climate change denying press: the lone gunman, the conspiratorial scientific establishment, expert quotes relegated to the foot of the article (it must be balanced remember), an air of sensationalism, it's all very confusing (when it isn't in the slightest)and a bit of quasi-science sprinkled in. Only this isn't The Spectator (and for completeness, here is George Monbiot's response to the linked article.) It's the BBC.

And the worst thing? This is a very old debate about solar flares etc. The impact of the solar cycle on the earth's climate has long been appreciated. It's not new. It's not a devastating challenge to anthropogenic climate change.

Here is a screen clip from Peter Sinclair's effortless rebuttal of The Great Global Warming Swindle.

The blue line is temperature rises. The red line is solar activity. You will see how they march in step until the early 1970s. Then they diverge spectacularly. That does not imply that solar activity has no impact on earth's temperatures. It has an enormous impact. Climate change may be appearing to slow and that is because of diminished solar activity and is temporary. Nonetheless, eight of ten warmest years on record have been in the last decade or so. The BBC piece could easily have pointed this out but failed to. Poor.

For a real treat, here is Peter Sinclair's short video rebuttal of The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Oh, the assertion that the world hasn't warmed in the last decade is nonsense as well. Here is paper from Yale explaining what has actually happened. (As well as solar activity, there is El Nino and La Nina to consider also- who said this was simple?)

I will be at the launch of the Committee on Climate Change first report this morning. Tweets and a blog will follow.

Post script: And just in case the BBC thinks that the way it reports has no consequences, then read this blog post from Tory Bear. Careless talk costs lives and not just polar bears.....

It's the fighters and believers....

2009-10-10T12:21:00.001+01:00

I can't help but post this incredible video. It's the fighters and believers who change the world. We can succeed because we must.

If you have a blog, Facebook account or Twitter etc then I think this video deserves to be disseminated....

A few weeks ago the Tories did their own historical video on 'progressive conservatism.' It was laughable. I can't even be bothered searching for it again.

'Against the Odds' reminded me of this incredible speech to the Labour party a few years back which I had the absolute pleasure to watch. "There are good men and women all over the world. Those good men and women are to be found in the Labour party of Great Britain."

It wasn't the Conservative party conference that he attended...

Post script: Note to 'Against the Odds' film-maker. Very few people are roused by Manchester United winning the Champions League (quite the opposite)....Liverpool really coming back against the odds in 2005 is genuinely rousing...

Climate change Thursday #10

2009-10-08T11:43:00.001+01:00

There was a frankly disturbing article in The Observer by Robin McKie last weekend on the increasing evidence of rapid ocean acidification.

This ocean ecosystem devastating process is another consequence of anthropogenic carbon dioxide intensification alongside climate change. In fact, climate change and ocean acidification interact with one another creating the type of feedback loop that is so unpredictable and unhelpful in terms of its environmental consequences. Cold water absorbs carbon dioxide at a faster rate than warm water.

This means that cold waters- such as the Arctic Ocean- acidify quicker (Co2 dissolves in water to produce Carbonic Acid) but as waters warm up they will leave more Co2 in the atmosphere hastening global warming. The oceans have absorbed half the Co2 we have produced since the industrial revolution. According to the research quoted in The Observer piece, they are now only absorbing 25 per cent of it- 6 million tonnes per day.

According to a report by the Royal Society published in 2005, the issue is not just the increasing acidification of the world's oceans- 100 per cent of the Arctic Ocean is forecast to be corrosively acidic by 2100. But it is the rapid nature of change also. To quote Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide:

As CO2 continues to enter the atmosphere from human activity, a proportion will be taken up by the oceans. If CO2 emissions are not regulated, this could result in the pH decreasing by 0.5 units by the year 2100. This is beyond the range of current natural variability and probably to a level not experienced for at least hundreds of thousands of years and possibly much longer. Critically, the rate of change is also probably at least 100 times higher than the maximum rate during this time period. These changes are so rapid that they will significantly reduce the buffering capacity of the natural processes that have moderated changes in ocean chemistry over most of geological time.

Like global warming, the issue is not just volumes but the rapidity of change and the inability of ecosystems to adapt to rapid change.

What is the impact of this acidification? Well, whole ecosystems could collapse- organisms who rely on calcified shells, mussels etc, could be threatened as could fish that feed on them. Coral reefs could simply dissolve. For humans the economic cost could be considerable, the natural cost immense (e.g. coral reefs protect coastlines from erosion), and the whole thing is mightily unpredictable.

What's more, the ocean that has been shielding us from from much of the negative impact of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will not be able to cope with the continued intensification. The Royal Society report details that photosynthesising plankton only increase their CO2 absorption by 10 per cent with each doubling of atmospheric CO2. Again, over to the Royal Society:

In almost all of the phytoplankton species examined to date, it has been found that doubling the present atmospheric CO2 concentration has only a small direct effect, 10% or less, on the rate of photosynthesis.

Finally, almost no mitigation technique (bunging limescale in the oceans for example) will work other than on a local scale. Only one thing will work: reducing the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. There are no easy routes out of this one.

Which brings us nicely onto the EON's decision to postpone the construction of a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth. I am extremely agnostic about carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Pragmatically, it may well be essential but it almost seems too good to be true and so probably is. Even if the UK does not adopt the technology, other nations will build coal-fired power stations and so globally technological progress may be necessary. The UK, with government leadership, has the opportunity to be at the forefront of that.

EON's decision is an economic one. The government's insistence that any new coal-fired power stations should be carbon capture and sequestration ready has altered the economics and certainty of any new investment. The company clearly wishes to pause for breath while it considers these issues more thoroughly.

From the UK's perspective, it would be possible to rapidly increase the deployment of renewable energy generation. Indeed, it is necessary to do so. However, the pragmatist in me suggests that globally CCS may be a necessary technology. So why not make the innovation here for export? It would be a major aspect of a UK comparative advantage in the provision of low and zero carbon energy generation.

Cameron dust and twigs

2009-10-06T16:16:00.003+01:00

Well, it's been an incredible day for LabourList with the posting of an open letter from Stephen Fry and many others criticising the Tories' dalliance with Polish homophobe Michal Kaminski. Mr Fry tweeted the link to his 800,000 or so followers and since then Alex Smith, LabourList's Editor, has literally been holding the whole thing together straining every sinew in the process.

He found time to post my weekly column which dealt with the emerging picture of the Tories from their conference in Manchester: irresponsible and damaging to the national interest.

The 'dust and twigs' reference is in relation to a David Cameron as 'tea bag' analogy that someone outlined to me over the weekend:

As he explained, you don’t know what’s in a tea bag until you dip it in hot water and see what emerges. On the evidence of Sunday morning, Cameron’s tea bag is full of dust and twigs.

The dust just washes away leaving a foul taste behind. It’s the twigs, though, that are the real concern.

More than any Opposition in living memory, this Cameron Conservative party is hell bent on pursuing major policies that are extremely detrimental to the UK’s national interest

And while you are considering the national interest and these Conservatives, I would highly recommend taking a few moments to read Edward McMillan-Scott's analysis of David Cameron's new friends. It is fierce and absolutely on the money.

Being nice about Tories and other things.....

2009-10-05T15:46:00.001+01:00

Just some snippets today. Firstly, a couple of bits I've sprayed around the web over the last few days.

There was my LabourList column on 'why democratic reformers almost always lose.' It deals with the angry reaction to the Prime Minister's announcement on electoral reform in his speech of last Tuesday:

"Pluralists and reformers disagree amongst themselves. It’s in the nature of the endeavour. If they are truly committed to seeing reform actually happen they do so in a respectful manner. They know that compromises may be necessary along the way.

If PR were to be the only viable way forward then if it was a system that improved on first past the post (i.e. AV+) in terms of democratic renewal then that would be acceptable. I hope that if AV proves to be the only viable alternative - which it seems to be - then pluralists and reformers of all types will accept that also.

It doesn’t seem that it will happen that way. And that is why, just as they almost always do, the majoritarians will win."

Next, I posted on the Progress website about the Conservative party's new online organisation tool. It is not so much the tool itself that I like- the technology is fairly straightforward and Labour has its own version-ish. But it's the openness of the Conservative approach that I like- a lot.

Anyone can use their tools and http://www.myconservatives.com/ was launched with a fanfare from their party leader who explained it as an aspect of the new politics. That is why I said that the Tories appear to 'get it' on technology. Party culture impacts the likelihood that new media is effective. The Conservative approach could make a difference over time (though not to the next election.)

Finally, I just want to draw attention to a couple of articles.

I've written on credit agencies in the past and there have been two recent pieces in the New Yorker that deal with the issue. Firstly, James Surowiecki explains how credit ratings agencies not only fostered the bubble but accelerated the panic in the crash. What's more, they did so because they have become an institutionalised part of the system as a result of SEC rules.

Secondly, John Cassidy describes the process of rational irrationality- i.e. individuals behaving in rationally risky ways- and the crunch. It was rational for the credit ratings agencies to upgrade junk securities because they would lose business if they did not. As Cassidy states:

"But in a market environment the individual pursuit of self-interest, however rational, can give way to collective disaster. The invisible hand becomes a fist."

Well put.

Oh, and Graeme Cooke's take on the Tories' welfare proposals is worth a read too. He is a former Special Advisor to James Purnell and now heads up the Open Left project at Demos.

Inherit the Wind at the Old Vic

2009-10-04T13:33:00.002+01:00

Inherit the Wind is a fictionalised account of the 1925 Scopes Trial in which a schoolteacher is prosecuted for teaching Darwin. It centres around a gladiatorial courtroom battle between acerbic lawyer, Henry Drummond, and lawyer-cum-politician-cum religious propagandist, Matthew Harrison Brady. Kevin Spacey portrays a wily and intellectually agile Drummond. David Troughton delivers a breathy and tense Brady.

The original play was first performed in the McCarthyite era. The themes reach across times. During the course of the trial Drummond makes clear that what he is seeking to establish is not what is 'right' but instead what is 'true.' As such he is positing progress against ignorance. At one point, he refers to general relativity. Brady has stood still whereas Drummond has moved on. They used to have so much in common but now they appear to have little as Drummond humiliates Brady- who in a highly unusual move is called as a witness though he is the prosecuting counsel- on the stand.

Comparisons with To Kill a Mocking Bird are inevitable (and I have written about TKAMB previously.) Where Atticus Finch is concerned about justice and that his kids grow up in a world where there is some sort of notion of right, Drummond is slightly differently focused. His concern is truth. In order for truth to out, people must have freedom to speak out no matter how wrong they may be. His concern is the battle of ideas and progress; laws must not get in the way of that.

Brady is based on William Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson, and populist lawyer and public lecturer. Bryan toured the nation lecturing against the works of Charles Darwin. He also became a vigourous prohibitionist which the play references. In his reactionary disposition and anti-intellectual fervour his descendants abound American politics. They line the streets to protest against healthcare reforms that are in their own interests; they smugly profess their deceitful certainties on rightist TV shows and talk radio; and they fail to engage with anything that may challenge these certainties.

Actually, I am being grossly unfair to Bryan. He comes across a man of populist integrity in a way that Beck, Hannity, Palin, Limbaugh, Coulter etc do not. They appear to be on the make- personally or politically. Bryan was driven, it seems, by some notion of betterment with a degree of personal emotional need. In the play, Brady travels with his mother. It turns out that he just needs some love. But no amount of love can fulfil such a hungry heart. And so it stops.

That ushers in the play's most powerful passage. Drummond's intellectual certainties begin to waver. The man of ideas can never remain still. He reveals an intellectual love for Brady's articulate ignorance. From a man with slightly grating, though admirable, intellectual confidence, doubts begin to set in, humbling him in the process. God or Darwin? The Bible or The Origin of Species? Both books rock the scales.

This production at the Old Vic is stunning. The performances are powerful. The set- which begins at Main Street, Hillsboro, Tennessee- seems to go on as far as the eye can see. When two jurors join the audience we all become part of the drama. The on-stage appearance of a monkey is greeted with gasps of excitement.

The play is not as emotionally wrought or viscerally affecting as To Kill a Mocking Bird. The 'crime' at its centre is not as electrically charged as an alleged rape. Racial justice touches a nerve in a way that intellectual freedom doesn't seem to. We never quite get to emotionally engage with the accused, Bertram Cates. These are observations rather than criticisms. This play is a play for all times. Ignorance rears its head masked in many different guises throughout time. And Spacey v Troughton is just sublime.

Inherit the Wind is on until December 20th at the Old Vic.

IMF takes on big finance

2009-10-02T13:56:00.001+01:00

Lord Turner put the cat amongst the pigeons in proposing what very much sounded like a version of a Tobin Tax on financial transactions a few weeks ago. His basic argument was that the way to curb bonuses was not to perfume the stench but rather to drain the swamp, i.e. reduce the profits of socially useless banks.

Amazingly, the IMF is now also on the case. They worry about the impracticalities of a Tobin Tax. However, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the IMF managing director has tasked his deputy, John Lipsky with looking at the possibility of introducing some sort of insurance levy to build a fund to cope with the fiscal consequences of bank collapse.

While the fund would clearly be used to help developing countries service their debts in the event of a widespread loss of liquidity in the main, would it not be right that such a fund could be used to help others who shoulder a great deal of risk through the size of the international financial markets that locate on their shores? The UK and Ireland are obvious examples.

It will be interesting to see how this discussion develops and how the insurance approach will be less avoidable by financial institutions than the tax approach, also favoured by the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy.

There is still much to do to combat the risks of financial collapse that proposed reforms have not diminished significantly enough. I still fail to see why an EU wide separation of the risky parts of the financial system from the parts that look after our money is not being properly considered. As long as Paris, London, and Frankfurt were in on the act- as they would be if it was an EU directive- it should be doable. And don't even start me on credit ratings agencies.....

Blind justice- sue online

2009-10-02T10:16:00.002+01:00

Guest post by Stephen Adshead

Lady Justice is often depicted – as she is on the lampposts outside the US Supreme Court – wearing a blindfold and carrying balanced scales; indicating that justice should be blind and meted out impartially, without fear or favour.

In his book ‘The End of Lawyers’, Richard Susskind drew attention to a recent US phenomenon that may deliver just that, electronically. The online courtroom.

“On January 18, 2009 at approximately 10:30pm I entered into Dirty Girl Laundromat on 2009 Wisk Avenue between Tide and All Streets, Bronx NY. As I walk to an available washing machine with my clothes in my arm I found myself slipping on the floor since it was wet.

"In the process of trying to keep my balance with my clothes in my hand, I eventually fell on my right side on my hip, butt and back. Due to the fall I was unable to get up and the ambulance was called and I was taken to the hospital. As a result of the fall I sustained a fracture hipbone, bruised butt and T-11 back injury.

"I was admitted into the hospital for two weeks and have not been able to return back to work. I am filing a jury lawsuit for permanent personal injuries and loss wages….”

This is an example of a case at www.i-courthouse.com, where justice moves swiftly and surely. Justice here is “more egalitarian, more democratic and, actually, rather enjoyable”, according to the website. And the court is “always in session”.

To find out whether the plaintiff is awarded damages for his bruised bottom you will need to volunteer to be a juror. Don’t despair - anyone can act as a juror on pending cases. Internet bandwidth appears to be the only restriction. You can also combine jury work with other internet-based activities, perhaps surfing, reading blogs, gambling, or even gainful employment. Who goes empty handed? Who gets damages? You, and your online peers, decide.

This is no sinecure position – you will be presented with plaintiff’s and defendant’s opening statements, evidence and closing arguments, and be given an opportunity to post questions to the plaintiff and defendant. You can review digital photos or videos and follow links to legal information. In short order, you, the jury, will deliver a verdict, one which according to the website is binding and enforceable.

If handing the keys to the judicature seems a touch radical, why not try online computer-assisted dispute resolution. At www.cybersettle.com its customers engage in an online double-blind bid, enabling them to settle disputes electronically and, therefore, instantly. Still unsure? Fortunately, this digital video makes it all clear. In the past 10 years, Cybersettle claims that it has handled over 200,000 transactions and has facilitated over $1.6 billion in settlements.

As a litigator-turned-risk manager-turned-blogger, I can see benefits to online courtrooms and computer-assisted settlement negotiations – speed and cost to name but two - even if I am hesitant to use them currently and on complex cases. The 2.0 versions may assuage my doubts that the jurors are 12 year old kids operating from basements and may include a paid/professional jurors option.

The internet has the power to deliver incredible variation and flexibility, e.g. 12 electricians to decide a dispute about negligent wiring or 12 bilingual English/Chinese speakers to decide a case resolving around promises made in both languages. Jurors could be rated in the same way that they are on ebay and, much like professional arbitrators, their impartiality will be evident from their appeal to all the parties to a dispute.

For the time being, I will simply volunteer to be a juror (no.11). Now, back to the case of The Dirty Laundromat...

Stephen Adshead is a litigator-turned-risk manager-turned-blogger.

G20: oh, my God!

2009-09-25T18:05:00.001+01:00

I have written a blog for Left Foot Forward on the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh. It starts off with an anecdote recounted in a recent New Yorker piece by James B. Stewart. My summary:

As they discuss the imminent collapse of Lehman Brothers, Flowers turns to Paulson and says, “By the way, have you been watching A.I.G.?”

“Why, what’s wrong at A.I.G.?”

“Well, you should take a look at this.” Flowers handed Paulson a spreadsheet he had received from A.I.G.

“Oh, my God,” gasps Paulson and the rest is history.

The G20 in London was a stunning success. This one less so. Significantly, less so. Why? Becuase not enough progress has been made on managing financial risk going forward. Or, to put it another way:

A future Hank Paulson is less likely to intone ‘oh, my God.’ But I wouldn’t bet the cash in a sock at the back of your wardrobe against it.

Climate change Thursday #9

2009-09-24T14:24:00.005+01:00

China (not) in your hand

Some leapt for joy, others were less impressed but the moment of this week's UN Conference on Climate Change was clearly President Hu Jintao of China's speech.

The Telegraph found it underwhelming. The Guardian thought it very significant.

Nicholas Stern was full of warm praise for China and also India as he sees that they have moved on significantly and will reduce their carbon emissions by a greater amount than almost anyone else compared with trend (perhaps....) To suggest that China and India are leading the way is, to put it mildly, over-egging the pudding somewhat. The rhetoric from China was indeed significant but it has been creeping in this direction for some time.

Of course, the US, despite the commitment from President Obama, is both the real culprit and the real villain when it comes to climate change. Europe has embraced its responsibility to significantly cut its carbon emissions and now it would seem so is Japan. Friends of the Earth was right that President Obama's speech was a disappointment. But his hands are tied.

This is the real issue with China and why it is not playing a leading role as Nicholas Stern suggests. Unless it commits to some measurable target of carbon intensity reduction to begin with and then declare a commitment to actually cut its emissions within, say, a decade then Congress will have an excuse not to act. If they are genuinely planning the cuts then they should commit to them. That will enable President Obama to more forcibly demand action from Congress. This game of playing hard to get that China is playing benefits absolutely no-one.

There is an attitude in the US that China doesn't play by the rules. It had exactly the same attitude towards Japan in the past. See the recent decision to take action against Chinese tyre imports. It is part of the mindset that China is a free-rider. If China fails to agree to actual targets then suspicions will be raised and the US will have an excuse not to act.

Can all this be resolved by December? Possibly. However, even it is not December is the beginning not the end of a process. There does need to be a seizing of the moment while international attention is on this issue so there is no better time for China, India and the US to make meaningful commitments.

What is important is that whatever happens in Copenhagen, there is an understanding that this is just one staging post on a long and grueling road. There is a good piece in this month's edition of Foreign Affairs by Michael Levi- Copenhagen's Inconvenient Truth (subscribers only)- that makes this precise point. I don't think we should let China off the hook just because Copenhagen marks the beginning of a process rather than its end-point and Levi seems to suggest that we should be willing to do so. But the characterisation of Copenhagen as a WTO-style process rather than a one-off treaty is useful.

What this week has shown is how far there is still to travel. I'm more towards the Telegraph's scepticism than the Guardian/ Stern's praise for China. In fact, I don't think that the US, China, or India get even close to a five out of ten for their performance this week.

Not good enough.....but there is still time. Just.

Brown's Brighton challenge

2009-09-24T09:20:00.001+01:00

So it gets serious now. The election campaign starts next week. Of course, David Cameron will get an easy ride. See Alistair Campbell's take on the media on his blog today. In my LabourList column this week I put it like this:

David Cameron has the easiest job in the world. He could read his conference the entire works of Marcel Proust and the media would characterise it as charismatic and visionary. They will marvel at the sight of a bipedal standing without support. He could bounce on one foot while singing the frog song and it would excite comparison with the best of The X-Factor compared with Strictly’s finest moments. You get the picture.

Gordon Brown has an enormous challenge, however. As I write, the finishing touches are being applied to his speech. It really needs to be top draw. Again, referring to my LabourList piece:

He has to convince that he has the ideas, and determination to continue. He doesn’t want to win just in order not to lose. He has to have a notion that connects his personal philosophy with a better Britain. He has to acknowledge mistakes, ditch the political baggage, and free himself for the good fight. He has to speak to the nation and say we’re better than to give up in an economic storm, things aren’t so bad that we have to turn to the first travelling salesman who passes through town, the years ahead are tough - and when things are tough you see the best in us.

And now is not the time to give up on social justice. Now is the time to advance it: less inequality, less environmental destruction, greater opportunity for all, a world united in facing up to its enormous collective problems, and a politics that is more open, democratic, and involving. If there is one lesson from financial calamity, it is that we must build a different way of doing things.

The Prime Minister has a piece in Prospect this month and was interviewed in the New Statesman. The Prospect piece has some good flourishes- especially the notion of caring society with better childcare and long-term care. It does feel rather muddled though; clear messages do not emerge. The New Statesman interview touches on how personalised politics has become:

“I think people have got to take responsibility for the statements that they make, and I have not tried to personalise politics in that way.” He adds: “It’s not the way I was brought up to behave and it not the way I behave.”

Indeed. Whatever happens in this election campaign, one only hopes that the tone and atmosphere is fitting for the scale of the problems we face and the fundamental differences between the parties. I think we all know that I'm going to be disappointed....

Lib Dems stutter along in Bournemouth

2009-09-22T10:00:00.000+01:00

You do have to laugh when Lib Dems bemoan splitting the reformist vote and decry wasted votes. And yet, this is precisely what their leader, Nick Clegg, no less did in Bournemouth yesterday.

He is absolutely confident that his party have the most radical environmental policies of any of the 'main' parties. I'm not sure I accept that but, that notwithstanding, the Lib Dems- who admittedly were in the vanguard of political environmental awareness in the UK- have been able to do absolutely nothing about it. Why? Lack of what Nick Clegg calls 'influence.' I call it power.

For the simple fact is that if you apply Nick Clegg's logic to his party then a voter would be absolutely mad to vote Lib Dem in any constituency where they are not currently first or second. And given that numbers around 120 seats or so, the only identifiable reasons to vote Liberal Democrat even in those seats is that you are banking on a hung parliament or all the other parties are equidistant from your political standpoint so you cant decide which other party to vote for. Hardly a strong basis.

Now on to the proposal to impose a 0.5% levy on houses over £1million. We'll put aside some minor technical confusion over what that £1million is based on and look a the policy more fundamentally. I am in favour of exploring the possibilities offered by wealth taxes for the most affluent as a means of giving those who are asset poor a better start in life- for example, the young unemployed.

This levy proposed by the Liberal Democrats seems to be the wrong way of going about it. Levies are good because they are difficult to avoid but bad because they take no account of ability to pay. Instead, I would favour a special capital gain tax on house sales worth more than £650,000 (say). It is very easy to calculate (and would be separate from capital gains tax): house price (sale) - house price (purchase) x tax rate. If the price had gone down there would be no tax. It would be collected at point of completion so would be difficult to avoid.

The weakness is that revunues would be weakest when they are needed most, i.e. during a recession. However, this policy is about long-term investment in the asset base of the asset poor so I am not overly concerned about that (income tax take goes down in a recession too but that doesn't make it a bad tax!)

The Lib Dem policy has gone off half-cock unfortunately. That will make the debates about how we can tax wealth more difficult. This needs much deeper thought before this is thrown into a media maelstrom so the Lib Dems ideas haven't actually helped very much- other than we now know what we're up against. But we knew that anyway.

Climate change Thursday #8

2009-09-17T17:28:00.006+01:00

Two companies, a country and a Secretary-General

A few things have caught my eye this week. One was a good piece on the future of green motoring in the Economist. Of course, if I was Jeremy Clarkson, I would rave about the Tesla Roadster and moan about the Chevrolet Volt (us Europeans get the wimpy sounding Ampera instead but we are wimpy I guess.) Actually, the Tesla was so good that Jeremy Clarkson spat out his steak and chips and lost his voice as a result. Here is his review (i.e. boyish drag race):

However, it wasn't without a hitch to say the least. One of the major issues is the need to charge the car and the time it takes. So, exciting as the Tesla Roadster may be in a pioneering sort of way, the basic issues of battery life remain. Step forward Better Place.

Better Place can't resolve the Tesla's apparent reliability issues but they aim to solve the charging issue. They do this in two ways. Firstly, they will install an efficient charge point in your garage or in shopping centres etc.

As they say on their website:

"Better Place intends to deploy charge spots at private homes, workplaces and public locations such as parking lots and streets."

Local authorities take note- are you speaking to Better Place?

Perhaps just as interesting is their plan to introduce battery replacement stations (like a petrol station but with batteries.) At the moment this is a good solution for high consuming commercial vehicles like Tokyo's major taxi company Nihon Kotsu (see post script below!) who have contracted with Better Place with funding from a Government Agency, the Natural Resources and Energy Agency.

How does battery switching work? It takes just over a minute and here is a demonstration:

A cheer for Lithium-ion technology. And a second cheer for thin film solar panels and for the second featured company, Applied Materials.

In an op-ed in the New York Times yesterday, Thomas Friedman, discussed the company's environmental technology and manufacture.

Friedman is one of the most passionate advocates for a green industrial policy in the United States. He argued that the US should become the 'Saudi Arabia of green' in his most recent book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded.

Sorry to quote at length but it's necessary I'm afraid:

"The other day, Splinter [Mike Splinter CEO] gave me a tour of the company’s Silicon Valley facility, culminating with a visit to its “war room,” where Applied maintains a real-time global interaction with all 14 solar panel factories it’s built around the world in the last two years. I could only laugh because crying would have been too embarrassing.

Not a single one is in America.

Let’s see: five are in Germany, four are in China, one is in Spain, one is in India, one is in Italy, one is in Taiwan and one is even in Abu Dhabi. I suggested a new company motto for Applied Materials’s solar business: “Invented here, sold there."

He goes on to praise Germany for a coordinated approach to its renewable energy policy that allows: freedom of generation; access to the grid; transparent and economic pricing. Germany? 50,000 renewable energy jobs which Friedman reports is second only to its car industry. The government is playing catch-up in the UK. We may be too late on solar. Let Germany have solar power. Our prize is wind and wave power. If we had got off the blocks quicker then the Vestas turbine blade manufacturing facility on the Isle of Wight might have been saved. That was a warning shot that the government is heeding.

Finally, a quick mention for the Secretary-General of the UN who spoke to The Guardian yesterday and expressed his frustration at the lack of progress in discussions between the developed and developing world (courtesy of Left Foot Forward.)

Next week, sees a UN summit on climate change (referred to in the Guardian piece.) G20 Voice who kindly enabled me to cover the G20 Summit back in April have rebranded themselves and will be at the conference simply as Voice. Expect some coverage of the great bloggers (for instance) who will be in New York next week.

Post script: Speaking of Tokyo's taxis.....I ended up with a taxi driver last night in Tokyo who spoke unbelievably good English. Why? He used to be an international sports photographer and publisher and lived in Holland Park for three years where he used to hang out with George Best.....and was also a friend of Diego Maradona (whom he introduced to Tokyo night clubs.) Enough said (yes, I did ask and yes, he did answer....) And now he's driving Nihon Kotsu taxis....long story.

Tory cuts- a second credit crunch?

2009-09-17T12:21:00.003+01:00

Giles Wilkes at CentreReform and myself have been having a discussion about cuts, the economy, etc on his blogsite (highly recommend.) Sunder Katwala has also blogged on this.

Giles made an important point that should the Tories pursue a strategy of radical cuts in public expenditure with the aim of provoking a depreciation of the pound then it is likely that the Bank of England would have to step in.

My column for LabourList this week argued that cuts in public expenditure at this stage could be disastrous. Now imagine cuts and interest rate rises. With all those people on variable rate and tracker mortgages now and businesses likewise, the results could be devastating.

It would be possible that a second credit crunch could be provoked (again, that is exactly what happened in Japan in 1997 when they prematurely cut public expenditure.)

This Tory economic approach is mad, bad and very dangerous. Labour must communicate that.

Election is about judgement not cuts

2009-09-16T09:18:00.001+01:00

I've mentioned Richard C Koo's The Holy Grail of Macro-Economics before and, given that I'm in Tokyo at present, what better time to re-read. I'm glad I did as it gave me the inspiration for my LabourList column this week: This election is not about cuts- it's about judgement.

This whole argument about 'cuts' has been really niggling me for the last couple of weeks. It is slightly disappointing to see the Government get sucked into it, as allowing it to be the definitive discussion risks economic insanity. The Prime Minister knows this of course. But Labour must take charge of issues and on this one- despite being in the right- it has failed to do so.

The simple fact is that the Japanese government, facing what Koo calls 'a balance sheet recession' characterised by a major decline in demand for debt following the bursting of an asset-price bubble, took their foot off the gas too early on two occasions: in 1997 and 2001. The result was disastrous both times- economic growth plummeted, tax revenues collapsed, and rather than shrinking, deficits increased. This is what the Conservatives risk with their economic policy.

Alastair Darling has said that the deficit must be cut in half within four years of the resumption of growth. Ideally, sure. But no-one knows how the economy, tax revenues etc will fare in the recovery phase. Actually, Japan's experience shows that as corporate balance sheets are purged tax revenues can actually soar. But we just don't know. What we do know is that an early return to fiscal rectitude could be disastrous. As Koo puts it, in this scenario governments should 'err on the side of incaution.'

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that we should not be concerned about the deficit and national debt. But they are a necessary evil in these abnormal economic times. If we cut as if we are in normal times then that will be calamitous. Deficits can be a good thing if they prevent the economy tanking, are not inflationary, do not crowd out private sector investment, and invest to raise the productive potential of the economy, i.e. future incomes and consequently tax revenues.

That is exactly the set of circumstances we are now in. So the question, in a country whose national debt is not particularly high in comparison with similar advanced industrial economies, is not can we afford the deficit? The question is can we afford, in current circumstances, to be without it?

Finally, on the history of cuts, there hasn't been a single year (apart from 1946) when public expenditure actually declined. You can look at this great website UK Public Spending (run by a US conservative it seems but that makes it even better!) to compare. Here is the year by year expenditure from 1940:

And here is the national debt, which interestingly doesn't dip beneath 100% of GDP until the early 1960s:

The key point here is that public expenditure does not have to be collapsed in a deficit scenario, it has to be managed. It will take quite a while to pay down the current national debt but while interest rates remain low there is no need to panic. Keeping the economy on track is the best means of repaying the debt, and that must be the absolute focus. And please Labour, stop playing the Tories' game.

My column concludes:

So all this talk of cuts - and it is disappointing to see the Government start to get sucked into it - is grossly premature. It is highly dangerous. Nobody knows how quickly the fiscal situation could recover as we are in unchartered waters. There are signs that tax revenues increase very rapidly following a situation like this one but that’s an optimistic scenario. But damage this recovery and we know they will worsen significantly as will the deficit.

Should the Conservatives secure an election victory that they crave but do not deserve, they will face a stark choice just as the Hashimoto and Koizumi administrations did. Either the economy or policy is jettisoned. Should George Osborne become Chancellor then I have a prediction. By his second Budget he will be in the midst of a panicked reversal of his Government’s economic policy.

That is the public discussion that Labour must provoke over the next few months. It should ignore siren voices and make the case - whatever the short-term data shows - that this recovery is far form certain.

Talk of ‘cuts’ is a fine hypothetical discussion but it’s not the primary issue. The real choice is between judgement and recklessness. It is this Prime Minister and this Government who have demonstrated that judgement.

Climate change Thursday #7

2009-09-11T04:36:00.001+01:00

Japan comes to the party

OK, so it's Friday. It's Thursday in the US- can I cheat that way? Anyway, Japan, the most technologically advanced nation in the western world has a leading business hotel without wifi. So this is late as I had a dash and frantic search for a USB to LAN cable. The MacBook Air that I'm using is so technologically advanced that it does not have an ethernet port. Caught between two stools.

However, it's an intriguing time to be in Japan as its new government is about to be formed with the coalition negotiations completed. In Japanese political terms this is, of course, seismic with the Liberal Democratic Party's almost complete lock on post-war Japanese politics being broken.

It is also important in the process of securing a deal at Copenhagen in December. Yukio Hatoyama, Leader of the Democratic Party of Japan, and Prime Minister-designate is a committed environmentalist. Well, he is committed other than a few of those glaring contradictions you get in all things Japanese- wanting to eliminate road tolls and such like.

However, on the central commitment- a major cut in Japan's greenhouse emissions relative to 1990 levels- he is rather bold. Currently, Japan, the host of the Kyoto negotiations and agreement (the clue's in the name), stands to fall short of its own commitments. It is 16 per cent out with three years to go.

On top of this, the LDP, famously entwined in an iron triangle of politics, bureaucracy and big business was proposing a rather tame 8 per cent cut on 1990 levels by 2020. Hatoyama, used to walking on the wild side (his wife was abducted by aliens) is going for a rather more robust 25 per cent. There was a deluge of 1980s and early 1990s literature called things like Japan as Number One. When it comes to cutting greenhouse emissions Japan might just be about to challenge the EU for number one spot. Keep bidding up guys.

Of course, there are get outs to the commitment. It only applies if the other major polluters- notably the US and China- make significant commitments also. It includes Japan's investment in carbon saving technology in developing countries and that will require there to be close watch on what is included in that. The Clean Development Mechanism has thrown up all sorts of challenges: additionality, measurement, monitoring, etc. Ultimately though, these are broader issues faced by all the signatories of Kyoto and the forthcoming (fingers crossed) Copenhagen treaty.

The prospects of a substantive deal have increased significantly in the last 18 months or so. Starting at the end of 2007 with the election of Kevin Rudd, followed by Barack Obama's victory in November 2008 (watch out for Congress though....), the EU's strong 20-20 commitment at the end of January of this year, and now this commitment from the incoming Japanese government have significantly shifted the prospects of a deal.

China though is still talking in terms of peak emissions in 2030. That is a long way short of what is required. However, empty moralising won't win the argument. There should also be an acknowledgment that China's issues are genuine- it is our development that has got the world to this position not China's (until recently) and it does import a great amount of our emissions as it manufactures many of the products we consume. Equally, we need a major cut in global emissions and so can't allow China to continue even with a less than baseline target. It will need some vision and finesse to find a way out of the coming impasse.

Though the changes in the US, Australia, the EU, and now Japan place increasing pressure on China, the last thing that should happen at Copenhagen is that China should be isolated (it won't be anyway as other major developing nations with align themselves but that is equally problematic.) With the changes in the Japanese government's attitudes at least the moral authority of the developed world is now stronger. There is still, however, an enormous distance to be traveled.

Changing Britain, changing politics?

2009-09-07T16:22:00.001+01:00

I meant to post this a few days ago but I had a piece on the Demos Open Left website on the changing nature of modern Britain and what it means for politics. My conclusion was that we need a pluralistic approach to politics instead of pitching to the median voter- sorry Worcester Woman.

However, from the perspective of the left this does not mean that there are no parameters. We need to understand those parameters alongside a rethink about what the left will mean in the next decade or two.

The article concludes:

This can’t become some exercise in tracking the median voter and designing party programmes to simply appeal to the successors of Worcester Woman alone. The next left must be broad based and pluralistic. The traditional working-class is diminished and fragmented. It cannot be taken for granted anymore. Any programme with social justice by definition must embody an ethos of helping the least advantaged.

The historian Eric Hobsbawm has said: “The European left relied on a working class that no longer exists in its old form, and in order to recover it will need to find a new constituency.” Well, we can agree with that as long as the new constituency has a place for this metamorphosed working class.

The political debate and discussion has proceeded at a furious pace on the left over recent months. It must have context. That context is an understanding of a Britain that has changed considerably even since Labour came to power. In so doing, the future path of the left will not be in any way determined. However, at least it won’t be wandering unaided in the dark.

My stint on LabourList continues. Today I've put up great posts by Rowenna Davis on the gender pay gap, Will Straw on the need for Labour to put the environment at the centre of its politics, and Morys Ireland on whether movement politics is dead in the wake of reports that Conservative membership has fallen by 25% since David Cameron became leader.

Women, rubbish or what?

2009-09-07T12:59:00.003+01:00

GUEST POST from Professor Adam Foster

I have spent the past few weeks enjoying the women’s European football championships. As per the stereotype of an Englishman, I am football obsessed (although not by the Premiership) and consider myself fairly knowledgeable about what constitutes a good game of football.

The women’s game at the highest level has it all, passion, skill, luck, cheating, fouling and dodgy referees, and is excellent entertainment. It is particularly attractive when you consider the relative cost and availability of tickets for this kind of prestige tournament, not to mention the accessibility and reliability of the tournament venues.

In light of this, I was surprised and disappointed by the lack of coverage in many media outlets. In particular, the only comment I found from the Guardian newspaper, usually a fairly decent source by UK standards, was on their podcast Football Weekly.

They had received several comments from listeners about their lack of coverage of the women’s Euro, and the host asked his team of “pundits” why. The immediate response was “Because it’s rubbish.” I cannot imagine a similar response on a Tennis Weekly or Athletics Weekly podcast, not that those sports would suffer from such a lack of coverage.

Why is it, that in football this kind anachronistic “laddish” behaviour is tolerated? Is it because the best women’s team, Germany, would probably lose to the Luxembourg men’s team? So what…James Ward could probably beat both the Williams sisters, and the world record holding women’s 100 m runner, Flo Jo, wouldn’t have even qualified for the Olympics in the men’s competition. Yet millions of people watch women’s sports, as most people want to be entertained and see people achieve greatness regardless of gender.

To arbitrarily decide that certain sports are only for men is ridiculously short sighted. The enclaves of “Men’s” sports are increasingly isolated and eroding, and their defence echoes the desperate revisionism of other failing institutions.

Unfortunately, I see the influence of similar prejudice on a daily basis, as science is another field where men overwhelmingly dominate the authorities. This means men define the conditions for success, and the only “right” path is the one well trodden by male ancestors. Hence, aggressive posturing, conceited declarations and absolutism are characteristic of a good scientist, whereas doubt, caution and humility are all signs of weakness. So a good scientist is a wise scientist…very dangerous.

In this environment, either women bend to the prevailing winds of testosterone or break…there is no room for their world view.

Yet, as in sports, their approach is often superior for the overall aim – in sport, the aim is entertainment, in science it is understanding. We need a lot more rubbish in both.

Jack Straw on al-Megrahi

2009-09-05T11:38:00.005+01:00

I've just posted a piece by Jack Straw on LabourList. He doesn't pull any punches in 'why let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?' and concludes:

"Al-Megrahi was however not released by the Scottish Executive under any part of this normalisation deal. The Scottish Executive had an absolute right to veto a Prisoner Transfer Agreement for Al-Megrahi and they exercised it. Rather Al-Megrahi was released under quite separate and compassionate grounds. As the Scottish Executive made clear, they made the decision without any pressure from London.

That has not, however, stopped the conspiracy theories.

The prize for the most zany so far must go to the broadsheet newspaper, which suggested that I’d only released Great Train Robber, Ronnie Biggs, on compassionate grounds because of Al-Megrahi’s impending release.

Total nonsense.

I had no knowledge that Al-Megrahi was going to be released until I read about it on a BBC website, after I had released Biggs when his condition deteriorated. I understand of course why Al-Megrahi’s release prompts such strong feeling and emotion and it’s right that the decision is fully scrutinised.

What will become clear is whatever people may think of the decision of the Scottish Executive, there was no underhand deal, no grubby arrangement, no great, or small, conspiracy. But as so often when it comes to these matters, there are always some who are loath to accept the more straightforward truth."

A tax on inheritance for a better start in life?

2009-09-04T09:49:00.002+01:00

Stuart White on LabourList- as part of the the 'everyone with a stake and a say' series- has argued that a greater proportion of the the total value of inheritance should be taxed. The proceeds should then be reinvested to create a greater platform of wealth for each individual in the form of savings so that they have the freedom to make their own way in life. Think of it as turning all into trust fund babies.

He takes inspiration from Thomas Paine who argued:

"When a young couple begin the world, the difference is exceedingly great whether they begin the world with nothing or with fifteen pounds apiece. With this aid they could buy a cow, and implements to cultivate a few acres of land; and instead of becoming burdens upon society...would be put in the way of becoming useful and profitable citizens."

Stuart concludes by arguing:

"Of course, it is an understatement to say that inheritance tax is unpopular. But it is important for social democrats to understand what their own principles imply. Our principles imply much heavier taxation of inherited wealth – which we can then link to initiatives to widen asset ownership.

In view of this, we should not simply capitulate to public opinion, but make the case for what we think is right. One thing is for sure: until we start doing so, wealth inequality is going to go on rising and our warm words about ‘opportunity’ and ‘fairness’ will become even more divorced from the reality of British society than they are now."

Personally, I believe that the left has neglected the issue of wealth at the expense of an obsession with income. Of course, the two are not unconnected- far from it- but they need to be considered alongside each other.

Is the 10:10 campaign doomed to failure?

2009-09-03T15:02:00.001+01:00

I have just published a great piece by Kathryn Corrick over on LabourList. She rightly says that the 10:10 campaign with its celebrity glitz, pr muscle, and dazzle risks failure. It doesn't help individuals measure their carbon emissions, is vague, and is too PR/ advertising focused.

I would add- though Kathryn doesn't make this point- that there should be some sort of incentive/ disincentive beyond that to really manage our individual emissions. This could be introduced further down the line once we have reliable measurement. Here is an article from a few weeks ago where I argue that case.

Here is a quote from Kathryn's piece:

“If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it”, is an oft used and misused quote in business, attributed to the business management theorist Peter Drucker (points to anyone who can actually find when and where he actually said it) and attributed to a certain style of management consultancy.

The Labour government has often, and in many cases rightly, been criticized for taking such measurement + management sentiments to the max with target driven policies. Yet there is one new initiative where such thinking is desperately needed otherwise it is doomed to only go as far as any good PR person can take it – the media and no further.

To make matters worse the big launch of this project, supported by the Guardian, has all the veneer of measurement – or at least a target – in its title.

Yes, 10:10. Ten percent by Twenty Ten. http://www.1010uk.org

Also, on the site today is a piece from Fiona Millar, Chair of Comprehensive Future, on the back of a pamphlet they have published about abolishing selective education and the 11 plus. Fiona says:

"End the 11 plus. It is not a new idea but it should shoot straight into the manifestos of all the mainstream political parties.

Why?

Because they all claim it doesn’t work.

Because we are in an era where affluent parents think nothing of shelling out between £3000 and £5000 to coach their children to pass the test.

Because the chances of a poor child getting into a grammar school are virtually nonexistent - they take on average 1- 2% of children on free school meals.

And above all because the children who fail the test, poor but also often with special needs, frequently they end up in secondary modern schools, , many of which do a heroic job but still struggle with an unbalanced intake of children who feel the system has rejected them."

Climate change Thursday #6

2009-09-03T09:13:00.000+01:00

Beware the wise. GUEST POST from Professor Adam Foster

Climate change is one of those topics that drags an opinion even from those people who proudly exclaim their ignorance of science. For egregious examples of this please see http://bit.ly/13ewI and http://bit.ly/W2oe8 (see what a liberal editor I am! AP.) It has transcended real knowledge, and become accepted wisdom of the masses.

In 2004 I was sitting in a hotel bar in Athens with a colleague watching the devastation following the Indian Ocean earthquake. As the death toll climbed through 100,000, a lady on a table in front us turned round and said with great sincerity, “Global warming”.

I watched with great amusement as my colleague, a researcher in climate modelling, fought internally with the desperate need to explain that it had absolutely nothing to do with global warming, knowing that it would achieve little save animosity. She eventually replied, “Yes. A tragedy.”

However, opinions on climate change without knowledge are usually easily dismissed, as in any field. Much more dangerous are opinions backed by a little knowledge, as these require expert analysis, which is not easily accessible. A classic example is given by this well-meaning gentleman (His full comments are below this New Scientist blog):

"Analysis.

Considering the above data table, we can see that the specific heat of CO2 is greater than any of the 3 major atmospheric gases: CO2 at 36.94 J/mol ( -1 ) ( K ) Nitrogen at 29.12 J/mol ( -1 ), Oxygen at 29.38 J/mol ( -1 ) and Argon at 20.77 J/mol ( -1 ) .

Now, taking the assumption that burning fossil fuels will remove 100 ppm of oxygen from the atmosphere by combustion and replace that O2 with CO2, given that CO2 has a specific heat at 36.94 and O2 at 29.38 the heat capacity of that 100 ppm of the air would increase by about 25 percent.

As 100 ppm is 1/10,000 of the atmosphere, that would be an change in the thermal properties of the air of 1/4 of 1/10,000, or 1/40,000 increase.

If the heat gradient of the Earths atmosphere is 400 degrees F, that is to say, if the surface temperatures on Earth would decrease 400 degrees F without the existence of the atmosphere, which is similar to conditions on the surface of Earths moon, a change of 1/40,000 would be 1/100 of one degree F.

In a further consideration, assume an increase of 100 ppm of atmospheric CO2 from some external source without any combustion of any fossil fuels. Lets simply increase the volume of the Earths atmosphere by adding 100 ppm of CO2 gas.

In this further consideration, the change in the thermal properties of the atmosphere would be 5 times greater than in the previous analysis. Instead of a change of 1/100 of a degree, the change would be 1/20 of a degree F.

A change of either 1/20 of a degree F or 1/100 of a degree F would not pose any risk to either the safety and well being of the American people or pose any national security risk. There would be no harm from increased drought, heavy downpours, flooding, heatwaves, wildfires, sea level changes, storm intensity or any harm to people, wildlife, agriculture, resources or ecosystems. Temperatures would remain well within the standard deviation for most data sets and well within the norm.

Indeed, atmospheric CO2 levels could increase by up to 2000ppm without any discernible climatological effects based on this data and analysis. CO2 simply will not absorb enough heat to have the effects ascribed in the proposed finding."

Convincing isn’t it? Climate change is then surely just a myth created by scientists to fund their research projects…

In response, one could think that the majority is usually correct (dangerous), and comment that NO single scientific organization disputes climate change (only single scientists), and the vast majority are committed to it as a clear threat. Furthermore, modelling the climate is perhaps the most complex problem on the planet, demanding the use of national supercomputers and a vast army of researchers, and perhaps a one-page calculation is not very convincing.

One could also point out the CO2 has the lowest value of Global Warming Potential compared to all the other gases we are pumping into the atmosphere (it is still the most important due to its volume in the atmosphere – Beware the wise!).

Or we could look at the details of his argument…

Unfortunately, he doesn’t understand what heat capacity is. It is actually a measure of the energy required to raise the temperature for a given substance amount (either number of atoms/molecules or mass). The higher the heat capacity, the less a substance will increase in temperature with energy.

So in fact, by his argument CO2 is actually cooling the atmosphere, and we should pump more in.

This cooling does occur, but is a much smaller effect on temperature than the real mechanism of global warming: CO2 is not sucking in heat; it actually adsorbs and emits long-wave heat radiation that would otherwise escape from the Earth. Its ability to do this is related to the details of the electronic structure of the CO2 molecule and the specific quantum orbitals electrons occupy – effectively the colour of CO2.

We know CO2 acts as a "Greenhouse Gas", and it has increased most in the industrial age. Other gases have also increased, e.g. methane, but CO2 wins due to its volume, lifetime and potential for heat radiation. Water vapour has the highest potential, but the water cycle always balances the system i.e. it rains...

The safest advice when listening to scientific experts is to trust those that qualify every statement with assumptions and possible errors, and use phrases like ‘Difficult to quantify’ and ‘Complex system’. Anyone who appears absolutely convincing in their opinion is almost certainly too wise to be right.

Adam Foster is Professor of Theoretical Physics at the edge of the world (Tampere University of Technology, Finland.) Trying desperately to engage with reality when sober. He started blogging before it existed and then stopped when it did. And now?

Cameron's approach to rights is legally illiterate

2009-09-02T17:23:00.001+01:00

Ed Williams, a leading employment barrister, has strongly criticised David Cameron's plans to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a 'British Bill of Rights' over on LabourList.

He concludes:

"Yes we need a Bill of Rights, but not the legal nonsense that is the Conservative version, but one that builds on the rights in the HRA and goes beyond them into the field of welfare, education and health provision. In the meantime we should strengthen the current HRA, for example by placing a duty on public bodies to promote human rights, or by looking again at how despite the Higher court’s issuing a declaration of incompatibility the Government suffers no sanction if it fails to make the legislative change.

The time is now for those who believe in the case for human rights in this country to challenge the hollow, ill thought out and politically expedient policy of David Cameron and his Conservative Party. Repealing the HRA exposes once again the absurdity of Cameron and Osborne's claims to be in the "progressive" tradition of British politics."

Cry for economic not just social democracy

2009-09-02T15:21:00.002+01:00

Bill Kerry of The Equality Trust- the campaign group which was set up by him and the authors of the excellent The Spirit Level- has argued on LabourList that social democracy is no longer enough. There is also a need for economic democracy- i.e. as one commenter put it, we need 'coopererative advantage' not just 'competitive advantage.'

Kerry concludes:

Social democratic thinking still too often seems stuck in the 20th century tax and spend paradigm. It does not currently recognise the need to fundamentally change the ownership and nature of economic activity in order to narrow the gap between rich and poor and address questions of global warming and sustainability. As The Spirit Level, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, comprehensively demonstrates it is greater income equality that is the essential pre-condition for a better and more sustainable society. Income differences arise in the workplace and that is where they should be addressed.

Whilst every re-distributive tax and benefit must continue to be defended, this alone cannot provide a vision of the good society. To remain relevant and to avoid subsiding into a wholly backward-looking and defensive set of ideas social democracy in the 21st century must embrace economic democracy at its core. We need to set about transforming our economy rather than promulgating a set of policies for accommodating whatever form capitalism comes up with next. Progressives must now campaign for the competitive economy to be replaced by the co-operative economy – that can be the vision social democracy currently lacks.

Obama style campaigning in the UK

2009-09-02T13:20:00.001+01:00

Gisela Stuart MP and Caroline Badley argue for an entirely new approach to party organisation in the latest piece I've put up on LabourList. This is not theory. They've put into practice with startling results. Zak Exley's The New Organisers has to be one of the best articles I've ever recommended anyone!

Here's a taster:

This notion of the decline in party activism is evident everywhere from the mass media describing a Labour Party “organisation in creaking disrepair” through to academic papers on the subject.

In Birmingham Edgbaston Constituency however, the reality on the ground could not be more different. We’ve always been on the more positive end of the organisational spectrum but since January this year we’ve recruited over 100 extra activists – some to deliver leaflets, some to talk to voters and some to collect petition signatures.

When we tell people about this we get one of three reactions – disbelief; two - you may have done it but it won’t work in our patch or three - how? (and please explain in detail).

Guest editing LabourList this week....

2009-09-02T09:36:00.001+01:00

This week I'll be guest editing LabourList so I'll post some good content from there on this blog from time to time. Should be fun. The theme is 'creating a Britain where everyone has a stake and everyone has a say' and it will also be looking a creating a 'greener, more liberal, movement based party.' Here's an extract from my guest editorial this morning.

"Both domestically and internationally capitalism needs to be moderated and constrained to serve wider social objectives.

What is striking is how many on the left of politics lack the confidence that that is possible, how much indeed they accept the assumptions of the right that competitiveness imposes severe external constraints. In the global arena, their lack on confidence is partially, but only partially justified; in the domestic arena in rich developed countries hardly at all."

The quote is from the final chapter of Just Capital: the liberal economy by the current Chairman of the Financial Services Authority, Lord Adair Turner. His suggestion that some form of transactions tax- a Tobin tax- should be introduced was not the most interesting aspect of his contribution to a Prospect Magazine round-table discussion on global finance. It was rather his concern with the social utility of the UK's obese financial sector.

Number 10 and HM Treasury waved away the notion that the financial sector may be over-weaning and over-powerful and came out with the familiar riposte that a Tobin tax is impractical. It is not clear that it is at all: most financial transactions take place in regulated and transparent markets. This quote from 2001 would seem to be portentous.

Climate change Thursday #5

2009-08-27T08:52:00.001+01:00

High Impact, Low Impact

Let's start off with the high impact this week. The UK's Department of Energy and Climate Change has launched a 'Road to Copenhagen' document which details its aims, analysis, arguments, proposals, and action. It is worth a read- you can download the document here.

There is now a Copenhagen portal website also where they are seeking your support for a deal at Copenhagen. Go on, sign.

The UK government is seeking a deal where:

- Developed countries commit to cutting their emissions by 25%-40% by 2020 on 1990 levels and by 80% by 2050;

- Ensure developing countries- with the support of the developed world- cut their levels by between 15%-30% compared with the 'business as usual scenario' by 2020;

- Encourage developing countries to complete low carbon development strategies so a sound assessment of how much support they will need can be undertaken;

- Ensure emissions from international aviation and shipping are included;

- Establish robust reporting, monitoring and verification systems to ensure that committed emission reductions are achieved.

It is a very positive approach from the UK Government. Some of the analysis in the document shows how far there is to go:

As can be seen, Japan, the USA, and Russia are considerable laggards when it comes to climate change with the EU and Canada- those socialist idylls with their healthcare and their equality and their public investment- way out in front. When you bear in mind the extent of EU expansion eastwards, this is a considerable target.

And just in case there was any doubt about the strong link between carbon emissions and growth. Here is a table that maps carbon emissions per capita with GDP per capita:

And finally, for a low impact approach to carbon emissions, see the story of Colin Beavon in this week's New Yorker. He tried to make his life as close to zero environmental impact as he could- he became "No Impact Man" with supposedly hilarious results. Only they are not really, they are predictable. And his family are miserable. He writes a book, blog, and gets the film deal. The book is No Impact Man: The Adventures of a Guilty Liberal Who Attempts to Save the Planet and the Discoveries He Makes About Himself and Our Way of Life in the Process. Narcissus is alive and well.

As Elizabeth Kolbert's review concludes:

What’s required is perhaps a sequel. In one chapter, Beavan could take the elevator to visit other families in his apartment building. He could talk to them about how they all need to work together to install a more efficient heating system. In another, he could ride the subway to Penn Station and then get on a train to Albany. Once there, he could lobby state lawmakers for better mass transit. In a third chapter, Beavan could devote his blog to pushing for a carbon tax. Here’s a possible title for the book: “Impact Man."

Give me the high potential impact of Copenhagen any day over metropolitan guilt and obsession. And self promotion.

Science and religion- never the twain?

2009-08-27T07:54:00.003+01:00

GUEST POST from Professor Adam Foster

Young scientists are often criticised by superiors for doubting their work and presenting it too pessimistically, and are encouraged to “have a little faith” and “believe in your results”. Taken literally, these kinds of comments are completely inappropriate to a profession based on quantifying the accuracy of data and providing detailed lists of possible sources of error and underlying assumptions.

You do not need to believe in the quality of your results, you know their quality - whether you choose to tell your audience exactly their quality is a question of ethics and whether you have tenure yet.

The ability to “not believe” and to avoid the seduction of faith is a critical component of good scientific practice. In light of this, studies of faith among scientists makes interesting reading. Overall, about a third of scientists in the US (certainly the global centre of scientific productivity) state that they believe in God, a significant drop from the nationwide average of 83%. However, some studies also defined a subset called “Good scientists” based on membership of the US National Academy of Sciences - in this set, only 7% believed in God. These statistics seem fairly damning - maintaining a strong faith in God appears to corrupt the objectiveness necessary for good scientific decisions.

Scientists full of faith are often highly vocal in praising the importance that spiritual balance brings to their work, or at least they are confident that the two spheres have no negative overlap. They seem to be wrong.

As such, it is difficult to understand the recent appointment of Francis Collins as director of National Institutes of Health (NIH) by President Obama. The $30 billion NIH is a massive responsibility, and few would argue with Collins' track record in administration and genetics research. However, he has made his Faith a very public part of his portfolio, including a book in 2006, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

He also co-started the BioLogos Foundation, which aims to emphasize the compatibility of Christian faith with scientific discoveries about the origins of the universe and life. The approach espoused, shared by many creationists and Jehovah's witnesses, is to start from a faith fact and then find scientific facts and theories that fit, disregarding any that don't. This is anti-science, and he has been widely criticized for his views, particularly by the watchdog of religious corruption in science, Richard Dawkins, and in the anti-creationist blog Pharyngula.

As head of the NIH he will have a very strong influence on Health policy in the USA. How many innovative directions and breakthrough treatments will be hindered because they clash with his religious views? Which lobby groups will get preferential treatment? How can we have faith in him?

Adam Foster is Professor of Theoretical Physics at the edge of the world (Tampere University of Technology, Finland.) Trying desperately to engage with reality when sober. He started blogging before it existed and then stopped when it did. And now?

Crass Chris Grayling and The Wire's reality

2009-08-25T16:09:00.001+01:00

I was perplexed and appalled to hear Chris Grayling Shadow Home Secretary compare modern Britain to The Wire this morning. So I devoted my labour movement column to his crass comments putting to one side what I had planned to write. While researching Barack Obama: the movement for change, I spent some time in an urban community where he had worked as a community organiser. The article looks at the reality of a The Wire style community and comes to the conclusion:

Nobody is claiming that Britain doesn’t face major social issues - few nations do not. To pretend they are new is dishonest. To compare Britain to the communities we see both in The Wire and across America is disingenuous. The only conclusion has to be that while it is clear that the Conservatives are desperate to get into government, they are not serious as a party of government. If they were, they would not fantasise about a Britain derived from a TV drama in this way.

Doing the right thing on torture

2009-08-25T10:08:00.001+01:00

A few weeks ago I argued in a piece for Guardian America that Eric Holder, the US Attorney General, should both publish the CIA report into torture abuses and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate illegal activity by CIA agents. The piece concluded:

As a young community organiser in Chicago, he would say: "Stick to the high road." His attorney general is doing just that, it would seem. But the special prosecutor road is not the right one. It may end up grubbing around in the under-growth rather than chopping the tops off the trees. What is needed instead is a public and high-powered open investigation with full legal, moral and political force behind it. Holder's route, should he pursue it, is a weaker option.

Holder's fear is that, if he does go ahead, he will be jeopardising the president's domestic programme. But Americans have the right to know what was done in their name. They have the right to a public debate about why it was wrong and why it has jeopardised national security. They have a right to see those responsible for authorising torture prosecuted.

This is not about revenge. It is about doing the right thing. It is about preventing the United States, in the face of future unknown security threats, from undermining its basic values of decency and respect for human life again. It is about pulling the rug from under those who seek to muddy these waters. In so doing, it may be a case of ultimately protecting the president's domestic agenda. Stick to the high road.

Well, Eric Holder, you did the right thing and well done to you. Courageous, necessary, strong, Holder, an unsung hero of this administration, is demonstrating the independence of thought and determination that, politically awkward as it may be, benefits any strong leader.

The rule of law is back in vogue and long may that remain the case. The Attorney General's statement yesterday was clear:

“As attorney general, my duty is to examine the facts and to follow the law. Given all of the information currently available, it is clear to me that this review is the only responsible course of action for me to take.”

The appointment of a special prosecutor is politically awkward but legally right. Moreover, this will be the beginning of the road that will lead to full investigation and potential prosecution of those who sanctioned torture in the Bush administration under the auspices of 'enhanced interrogation techniques.' John Durham has been appointed to determine whether a full investigation of any agency employees and contractors is warranted. Should he come to the conclusion there is justification then the immediate question must be, why did they feel empowered to act in the way that the did? That question leads right to the Department of Justice, the Pentagon, and, ultimately, the White House.

Finally, we may be on the path to not simply moving on and letting bygones be bygones but also holding those who made decisions that were against human rights, justice, and US national security to account.

Eric Holder, we salute you.

Tax the wealthy, tackle youth unemployment?

2009-08-22T12:05:00.002+01:00

I am pleased to see Polly Toynbee take on the argument I made in City excess and youth unemployment - the twin results of free global capitalism on speed, i.e. that we should consider taxing the better off in order to finance employment and skills investment for the least well off and, especially, the young unemployed. My proposal was:

In addition to clamping down on tax avoidance and evasion, the idea of some sort of wealth tax needs to be considered seriously. The easiest and most obvious way is to start to tax higher value houses more. Capital gains could be applied to the top bracket of first residence housing - in excess of £750,000 say and local taxes on the same properties could also be increased. There are other assets that could be targeted. Politically, there would be difficulty so the purposes would need to be explained very clearly.

Perhaps fighting unemployment could become the justification for wealth taxation? Proceeds could be invested in building up the asset base of the least well off - housing, education, savings, pensions and so on. In these tough economic times, we could use the revenues to create employment. Why not create jobs and skills refitting public buildings so that they are more environmentally efficient? The arguments will have to be clear and open.

The only difference between us seems to be that Polly argues for a tax on earnings. I argue for a tax on wealth (it will raise more and is less avoidable.) Here is her conclusion:

An emergency youth opportunity tithe on high earners for the duration of the recession would be political capital well spent. Reprise the spirit of Labour's 1997 £5bn windfall on utilities that paid for the New Deal for the young: it was popular and it made sense. It would be tempting to swoop down on bank bonuses, making an explicit link between those who helped cause the crisis and those who suffer its consequences. When even George Osborne spots the anger in the air at outrageous pay in an unrepentant City, a windfall is politically possible. There is now new political scope for an appeal for fairer sharing between old and young, between lucky and unlucky generations.

I think we have a discussion.

How did I get an 'A' grade in maths?

2009-08-21T09:28:00.002+01:00

Something has been bothering me ever since my A Level results day. Every year when A Level results come out the niggle gets to me again and these last few days have been no different. I knew what I would get in my Politics and Economics A Levels but the one that everything else was riding on was the Mathematics. Somehow, God only knows how, I got an 'A' grade.

Believe me, I am not boasting about this. I am genuinely confused. Just a few months before I had got an 'E' in my mock exam. A Level mathematics was split into two parts- everyone did 'pure' mathematics and then you had an option of mechanics (for the scientists) or statistics (for those who couldn't really do proper maths, i.e. me.) Even by doing the easier statistics paper I was struggling.

I knew that to get to the university I wanted to I would need a 'B.' So from the mock I learnt how to answer the questions. Statistics was fine, I had an excellent teacher, Mr Ralph, who gave us model answers. Just learn them.

The other paper- calculus, induction, quadratic equations and all sorts of other nasties- was an absolute blur. I had no idea what was going on but I got an 'A.' How? I learnt how to answer the questions going back over all the past papers. Without any understanding of what I was doing or what it was for, I still managed to hoodwink the examiner that I did. It's a trick I've deployed a few times since.

So, how did I do it? It's simple actually. Without knowing it, I had actually learnt how to do exams. I had not understood that mathematics is pure logic, a language to convey irrefutable and falsifiable meaning; a means of understanding our world across its dimensions, to analyse its patterns and communicate its form and logic. But I did know how to make the examiner think I understood what it's about.

Which brings me nicely onto the exceptionally tedious debate about whether A Levels are getting easier or not. Awake? This the time of the year when the media celebrates in success with footage of elated students waving their results in the air as if they were flags at the Last Night of the Proms. They then cut back to some grumpy curmudgeon or other who bemoans how easy they are like a father who says, "Son, what a marvelous achievement in learning to play the piano to such a standard. Now let me go and get my sledgehammer and smash it up."

'A' Levels have not got easier. But what has happened is that since league tables, Ofsted and the like, we are now far more likely to teach to the test- much as Mr Ralph did with my class (and I'm very glad he did.) Moreover, there are far more consequential results with so many more university places available. The reason I found a way around the system? I needed a 'B' grade minimum. There are so many more pupils chasing grades to secure a university place so they learn how to do well at exams (either by understanding the subject- the better route- or by, like me, learning what the examiner is looking for.)

So the incentive to improve is strong for schools/ teachers and pupils alike. It's no mystery and anyone who thinks it is because 'A' Levels are getting easier is just plain wrong. Of course, next year we'll have the same debate again. Yawn.

But there is a bigger issue here. As I have said, I did not understand mathematics but could do it. I'm sure there are a great many students who were in the same position yesterday if they are being honest. In this economy- a predominantly knowledge economy- being able to do an exam is a fine skill. But the greater skill set is the ability acquire deep understanding, look at things from new perspectives, deploy knowledge and analytical capability in creative ways, and find new ways of doing things that aren't just about meeting someone else's standard (i.e. an exam.)

The excellent A Level results do create a problem of differentiation for universities which I fully appreciate. Both myself and Professor Adam Foster whose guest post yesterday I would strongly recommend reading got the same grade at 'A' Level mathematics. I can promise you- and there is no humility here whatsoever, just the truth- our mathematical capability was not is the same league. On paper, we appeared to be the same.

(Incidentally, he got a 'C' grade in Politics but he did argue- in a one sentence essay- that the reason that Republicans win US presidential elections was because they are in tune with the values of the American people: they eat big steaks and wear baseball caps. Actually, foreshadowing Drew Westen's The Political Brain, that answer should have got the highest grade.)

However, the main issue is our whole approach to education. This differentiation issue is just part of it. In this society, this economy, are exams the valid measure of capability? Peter Hyman, in an excellent piece for The Observer last weekend, argued that we should concentrate on the skills we need to give students to succeed in life rather than exams etc. I'm inclined to agree. So next year, let's say congratulations to those who succeed and then shift the debate in another direction. Let's ask what do we expect from our education system? What will benefit the students most in life? What constitutes excellence in education in the modern day? Then we can extricate ourselves from this torpid 'are 'A' Levels getting easier?' debate.

Post script: Adam (@suurimonster) informs me that he actually got a 'D' in politics. More grade inflation......

Climate change Thursday #4

2009-08-20T11:33:00.003+01:00

Apocalypse Now?

So we are facing an apocalypse. That sounds like bad news. Paul Kingsnorth is adamant and counsels absolute despair in this exchange with the sunny panglossian George Monbiot.

Here is a taster from Kingsnorth:

The writing is on the wall for industrial society, and no amount of ethical shopping or determined protesting is going to change that now. Take a civilisation built on the myth of human exceptionalism and a deeply embedded cultural attitude to "nature"; add a blind belief in technological and material progress; then fuel the whole thing with a power source that is discovered to be disastrously destructive only after we have used it to inflate our numbers and appetites beyond the point of no return. What do you get? We are starting to find out.

And this:

The challenge is not how to shore up a crumbling empire with wave machines and global summits, but to start thinking about how we are going to live through its fall, and what we can learn from its collapse.

Monbiot concludes:

You appear to believe that though it is impossible to tame the global economy, it is possible to change our founding myths, some of which predate industrial civilisation by several thousand years. You also believe that good can come of a collapse that deprives most of the population of its means of survival. This strikes me as something more than optimism: a millenarian fantasy, perhaps, of Redemption after the Fall. Perhaps it is the perfect foil to my apocalyptic vision.

I find myself in the Monbiot camp on this one. There is a climate crisis absolutely. The consequences of it will be terrifyingly severe and unpredictable. But let's not write ourselves off just yet. We've met great challenges in the past but this is perhaps the greatest. A century or so ago European powers often found themselves in catastrophic wars against themselves where millions of lives were lost as the competition for resources, nationalism, and technology combined to brutal effect. That doesn't happen any more- we found other ways of doing things.

We've managed successful international environmental treaties before such as the Montreal Protocol. Let's give it a meaningful go before we write off the species.

One thing I will say for Kingsnorth is that he mentions The Road by Cormac McCarthy which is excellent. Buy it.

On the more pessimistic note, the anti-environmental lobby in the US is gearing up in a major fashion. TheHill.com reports a major national effort that will culminate in rallies and will be backed by millions of TV adverts. The Waxman-Markey bill which I mentioned a couple of weeks ago could face the same ferocious assault in Autumn as Obamacare is facing currently.

I particularly like the sound of Energy Citizens which is an alliance of the American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Farm Bureau Federation. Those are the sort of citizens that would make Thomas Paine proud. They will spew the usual mis-information but hey-ho.

The link to the article came courtesy of @algore. Follow him (in a Twitter sense....)

Scientists need to get real

2009-08-20T10:31:00.001+01:00

GUEST POST from Professor Adam Foster

Many battles are fought in an effort to get the public (notice already the implicit segregation) interested in science, and it is a conflict that certainly calls me to the frontlines. However, there is much less effort expended to get scientists interested in the public, with many leading researchers proud of their disengagement from “common man”.

To some extent, particularly for the harder fields of science such as physics and mathematics, a scientific career is a rejection of the world as we currently perceive it and an attempt to find the underlying truth. This often attracts people who feel the world has rejected them, and elitism and cultism are readily embraced. The consequences of this range from the minor inconvenience of social dysfunction in the real world to an incapacity, or unwillingness, to understand the long-term implications of research.

In the last decade, the increasing awareness that many of the technologies and industries at the heart of global economic output are direct results of basic research, along with the powerful impact of biological studies on medicine, has led to pressure from governments to reduce the time between ideas and implementations. Generally, research proposals must now have real applications embedded within them, and, ideally, direct involvement from relevant companies.

This encourages engagement beyond the academic world, but, on average, scientists are not stupid, and they can spin a proposal to read as a beautiful hybrid of research, technology and industry, while planning to avoid reality corruption at all costs. The companies selected are often spin-offs from scientitic departments, led by ex-academics, keeping everything on the inside. The creation of this separate, scientific world, as in many other fantasies, leads its occupants to believe that the normal rules do not apply to them.

An example is the recent outcry from the scientific community when politicians interfered with funding decisions. Republicans in the US House of Representatives killed three grants from the $31 billion National Institute of Health bill. These grants focused on studies of prostitutes in Thailand and China, and alcoholics in Russia in order to better understand the spread of HIV/AIDS. The projects were approved in peer-review and would cost only $5 million over five years, and likely greatly aid in stopping this global threat.

Killing them was short-sighted, ill-informed and panders to the worst aspects of US nationalism (not all US nationalism is bad). It is also the fifth time since 2003 that conservative Republicans have tried to kill peer-reviewed projects.

So what? The loud complaints from researchers seem a particularly tired rallying call. Since 2003 hundreds of well-prepared and organized proposals from all spheres of life have been killed for political reasons, without any real consideration of their value. Why should scientific proposals get such special treatment? Considering how few are actually affected, perhaps they already do. If scientists want to get more money from the public, then they need to engage with their world, and play by its rules.

Adam Foster is Professor of Theoretical Physics at the edge of the world (Tampere University of Technology, Finland.) Trying desperately to engage with reality when sober. He started blogging before it existed and then stopped when it did. And now?

City excesses and youth unemployment

2009-08-19T17:22:00.005+01:00

Two sides of the same coin? City excess and youth unemployment. This week's LabourList column is now up. I argue that we need to redistribute assets in order to develop the capabilities of each individual:

City excess and youth unemployment - the twin results of free global capitalism on speed

Osborne- reformist not progressive

2009-08-12T13:40:00.001+01:00

My weekly column has been posted over at LabourList. It discusses not just George Osborne's progressive conservatism speech- which actually was about reform rather than progress- but also some old fallacies of the left that are starting to creep back in like an ideological opposition to markets that could end up hindering rather than advancing social justice.

Progress is not just about reform- it's about social justice.

Primary motive- political change

2009-08-10T18:40:00.002+01:00

Progress has launched a campaign to introduce primaries into Labour party selections- Prime Time. I have been arguing the case for 18 months now, both here and elsewhere so I gave a quote of support to the campaign:

'The demand for political change is irresistible and it’s right across the political spectrum. Labour has a simple choice. It can instigate change or be swallowed by it. Every single selection from tomorrow could be decided by those who have expressed support for Labour. A spending cap could easily be set just as it is in every single election in the UK. It would bring people to Labour rather than repel them as some have erroneously claimed; it could become the start of a real movement for change. It would be a disaster if this just becomes some sort of intra-party factional battle. Someone will get this right. Why don’t we make it Labour?'

Parties are suffocating, local selections are decided by ever smaller and self-selecting cabals, there has never been a greater distance between political parties and the communities they serve (with notable exceptions), politics is in its worse state in living memory, the status quo is just not acceptable anymore.

The process put forward by Will Straw- a short-list decided by members, the final vote by those who declare themselves to be Labour supporters- is a closed primary and is the right solution. It's difficult to estimate but I would imagine that would mean the participation of two or three thousand typically rather than 100 as is currently the case. Straight away you bring a whole new class of people into party politics and the party would change unrecognisably. I can only think that defenders of the status quo think the party is fine as it is. It is not- in terms of engagement, policy discussion, responding to local communities, participation, representation, it is underperforming. Things must change.

The money argument is spurious. A cap could be put on expenditure once the selection was announced. If primaries became a permanent feature of our electoral landscape you could require candidates to set up a campaign committee or some such and limit all expenditire to that committee and impose a cap of say £5,000 or £10,000. That is the sort of level of expenditure that serious selection campaigns currently spend so there is not great difference- other than that there is no cap currently. Finance could be found from trade unions and elsewhere for candidates.

That leaves the 'I don't hear people on the doorstep wanting constitutional change' canard. I promise you anyone who has spent time on the doorstep over the last few months has heard about very little but the demand for change. People don't say 'I want PR' but they do say 'you guys don't listen', 'expenses show how out of touch politicians are', 'a plague on all your houses', 'I only see you guys when you want my vote.' There are a myriad of other expressions that are basically demands for political change. Sometimes you have to reach behind what people are saying.

It was disappointing to see this debate turned into a factional dispute by- the usually interesting- Neal Lawson last week. It is a false choice between proportional representation and primaries. In fact, if you have PR, possibily with a greater number of safe seats as a consequence (depending on the system but let's not over-complicate), then primaries become even more important. I just hope that the next phase of Labour politics is not characterised by every single thing- political change, social policy, how many sugars we have in our tea- rammed into this false real v new Labour torpid debate. This approach was evident in John Harris' piece in The Guardian this morning. Those he agrees with are pure of motive while those he doesn't are wolves in sheep's clothing. Surely we can do better than that?

I have been privileged over the last few months to be in a position to give something in the region of thirty talks on Barack Obama. I always relate it to political change in the UK. There is always an enthusiastic response: in Nottinghamshire (see my account of the Lowdham book festival here), Walsall, Liverpool, Essex, Surrey, Acton, Birmingham, or wherever it's always the same.

People are demanding change. Why else did 16,000+ people vote in Totnes? Now the way the Tories did it is not right for Labour. But that's not the point. The point is the motivation for people to get involved. So what on earth are we waiting for?

Malcolm Gladwell gets it so, so wrong

2009-08-10T17:06:00.002+01:00

Malcolm Gladwell sits in the Maycomb courthouse where the local lawyer, the dashing and ruminating Atticus Finch, is defending a local black man against the charge of rape. To Malcolm's left sit Scout and Jem, who from their chatter it is clear that they are the son and daughter of Finch. Tom Robinson, the man charged with a heinous and violent crime against Mayella Ewell, is forlorn and confused; he is clearly numb with fear.

Amazingly, despite overwhelming evidence that Robinson could not have been responsible for the beating that Ewell suffered, he is found guilty. This staggering outcome is greeted with equanimity by Malcom Gladwell. He dismisses Finch's defence:

The putative rape victim, Mayella Ewell, has bruises on her face, and the supporting testimony of her father, Robert E. Lee Ewell. Robinson concedes that he was inside the Ewell house, and that some kind of sexual activity took place. The only potentially exculpatory evidence Finch can come up with is that Mayella’s bruises are on the right side of her face while Robinson’s left arm, owing to a childhood injury, is useless.

He doesn't stop there. He has Finch himself in his sights who he dismisses as a well-meaning but ultimately reactionary southern liberal. While he may have human compassion that is greater than others of his southern brethren, he is reconciled to status quo- Jim Crow segregation. What's worse is that Finch invites us to replace one set of prejudices with another. In tearing apart the testimonies of Bob and Mayella Ewell, he preys upon their ill-educated, poor working-class nature: a crime to these christian, liberal southerners that is unforgivable. Racial prejudice should be wrenched from our hearts- though not necessarily from our society- but class disdain is acceptable in this paternalistic and parochial world view. Such is Gladwell's charge.

But how can Malcolm Gladwell question Finch's case and in so doing impugn the integrity and motivation of Atticus Finch on the basis of the evidence that is presented to us in To Kill a Mocking Bird? He may have be sat up in the public- colored- gallery next to Scout and Jem but he missed something. lf he were applying the analysis of his book Blink he might question why his sub-conscious and conscious interacted in such a way as to miss out a key piece of exculpatory evidence. What was it?

Well, Malcolm Gladwell mentions the bruising the right side of her face and says that was the only exculpatory evidence presented. Admittedly, as Gladwell points out, a man with only a strong right arm could have beaten Mayella Ewell in this way. What he fails to mention- and this is where his article's argument collapses with a flourish- is the bruising all around her neck. Now, even though the Sheriff Heck Tate asserts the slimness of Mayella Ewell's neck, are we really meant to believe that a one-handed man could inflict these injuries? One hand around a neck? Try it. Around a cat's neck maybe but a human neck? Of course not.

Any right thinking juror would not have convicted Tom Robinson. But he was convicted.

Where Gladwell does have an argument is the use of Atticus Finch of a set of prejudices against the Ewell's- i.e. that they were the 1930s equivalent of trailer park trash. However, there is more than a little evidence of the violent and hate-filled nature of Bob Ewell- he goes on to attack Scout and Jem and others. Whereas the evidence against Tom Robinson is flimsy to say the very least. So ultimately, Gladwell attempts to twang our guilt but is not justified in doing so- not on the basis of this trial anyhow.

Yes, Atticus Finch was presenting the best case he possibly could. That's his job. He's a lawyer. He doesn't 'grapple with the structural dimension' of racism. Too right. His job was to represent his client. What does Malcolm Gladwell expect Atticus Finch to do? Give an 'I have a dream' speech on the Maycomb courthouse floor? How would that have helped Tom Robinson?

No, what Atticus Finch does is something far more subtle and more important than that. He attempts to humanise his client. The strongest challenge to injustice is empathy. If you give the outsider a story, a personality, a life, we can't help but empathise. Once you have empathy, you are moving rapidly along the road to equality. On what basis do you discriminate against people you feel to be like you, your equals?

More broadly, that is what Harper Lee does in the wonderful tale. She dignifies the outsider. Tom Robinson and Boo Radley are the obvious cases: the black man and the recluse with possible mental illness. That is is the powerful force for change.

What changed America? What moved it from racial segregation to legal equality? The obvious answer is civil and voting rights. However, it was empathy and the moral force that comes from that that led to the legislation that was passed in 1963 and 1965. It is easy to point to Brown v Board of Education, Topeka which reversed the previous legal sanctioning of separate but equal under the 1896 Plessy v Ferguson case, as the starting gun for the civil rights movement. But the legal route is a long one.

Personally, I see events in the following year, 1955, as the moment when Jim Crow finally got his comeuppance. The brutal murder of Emmett Till in Money, Mississippi brought the violence and injustice of southern racism into full national view. There are obvious parallels between the fate of Till and Robinson; both their ordeals came about through liaisons with white women and the reaction of their men. Later that year came Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycotts. This brought to national prominence one Reverend Martin Luther King.

His Southern Christian Leadership Conference used protest and moral persuasion in a jujutsu on the violence perpetrated by the likes of Governor Wallace of Alabama and Bull Connor. The non-violence of the movement- at Birmingham, Alabama, Selma and elsewhere- was its power. Its message was moral. Legislative changes were the objective. Empathy, mass mobilisation and morality were the means. All this was lifted to the heavens by the majestic oratory of King himself. Are we to believe that the Congressmen and women who voted to change civil and voting rights in 1963 and 1965 having failed to do so for generations were suddenly swayed by abstract legalism? No, it was the unanswerable moral case for equality and justice built upon the sturdy foundations of empathy.

And in that courtroom in Maycomb, Malcolm Gladwell while not concentrating quite as closely as he might also missed another performance of stunning oratory, a moral and Christian insistence that Tom Robinson be granted the dignity that goes with being a man. He doesn't throw Mayella Ewell overboard as Gladwell suggests. He sympathises with her. But that sympathy can only go so far when a man's life is at stake.

So Atticus Finch is- in a small town Alabama way- a monumental and heroic figure. Do not underestimate the power of To Kill a Mocking Bird- published in 1960 with the film starring Gregory Peck following close on its tail in 1962. The timing couldn't have been better. In itself, it became part of the moral persuasion for change. The Atticus Finchs of the world, far from contributing to perpetuation of Jim Crow segregation, challenged it in their little but powerful ways. What was the world view of Jem and Scout after seeing their father in action? It could be nothing more than understanding the injustice around them. Would they despair? Perhaps. Would they recognise change and possibility of change if they saw it? Perhaps. But those kids growing in the 1930s deep South could not fail to understand the moral force of their father.

As it happens, Atticus Finch is a fictional character. But millions of us have become Jems and Scouts under his tutelage and influence. Malcolm Gladwell is an iconoclast and never fails to intrigue, inspire, and challenge. But on Atticus Finch Malcolm, you've just got it so, so wrong.

And as a treat, here is the closing statement of Atticus Finch, played by Gregory Peck in the 1962 version of To kill a Mocking Bird.

Are bloggers parasites?

2009-08-09T15:41:00.005+01:00

A couple of months ago, David Simon- creator of the The Wire (the best show, ever, in case you didn't know) and former Baltimore Sun journalist- described bloggers as parasitical. The internet:

"leeches...reporting from mainstream news publications, whereupon aggregating websites and bloggers contribute little more than repetition, commentary and froth. Meanwhile, readers acquire news from the aggregators and abandon its point of origin—namely the newspapers themselves. In short, the parasite is slowly killing the host."

Now this view created a storm. The above quote, I have lifted from a New York Review of Books piece. I wasn't at the event. I didn't hear David Simon say it. I have just piggy-backed on another writer- namely Michael Massing. It is not clear that he was at the event. He may have lifted it from somewhere else. He may not have done. But the quote spreads virus like.

The thing is- and this will disappoint many bloggers- I have a great deal of sympathy with David Simon's perspective. Blogging does rely on the mainstream media. I haven't counted how many TV clips and articles I've linked to or embedded in 18 months of this blog but a lot. Does this blog add value? Well, it's my voice and my take; that's all I'll say. I'll leave the qualitative judgements to others. But a lot of blogs do add real value. Massing quotes a whole array of them.

Nonetheless, when you see the amount of newspapers in financial jeopardy which includes the very precious Observer, it does make you stop and think. Is there another way of capturing the chaotic, free-wheeling, but excitingly democratic spirit of the blogosphere but finding a way of that co-existing with a viable, diverse and high quality professional media environment (though some bloggers now are professionals....important qualification)?

In other words, can an antagonistic relationship become a symbiotic one?

This is rather down to the owners of newspapers. They are in the position that the music industry was in a few years ago. Aggregation sites and Google alerts/ news searches as well as blogs are taking the control of content away from the outlets themselves. Rupert Murdoch is responding by threatening to charge for web content. That basically reverses time to pre-internet days. I used to be an avid reader of the FT online until they started charging for content.

But hear me out. It's not that I object to paying for content- either as a blogger or as a reader. Far from it. I object to having to pay in dozens of different ways and then not having the freedom to share the content with others.

What is required is that newspaper proprietors get together and create a platform- like a news version of iTunes or Spotify- that can consolidate distribution and collect fees. For example, I wouldn't object to paying a subscription of £20 per month say, for the rights to link to any article in UK press. Equally, I am sure the majority of readers would not object to a monthly fee (probably slightly less than £20) for the same privilege. But once you have the GMG, News International, et al all doing different things it breaks down and the newspapers start to undermine demand for their content again. Far more people read a variety of newspaper content than ten years ago. And that is a good thing. Let's not undermine that.

The fact that the major news groups have not got together to make this work is playing Russian roulette with the future of the newspaper industry. If a revenue raising distribution platform is not found soon then newspapers will continue to struggle, the internet will grow in a different way but without the same quality, or we will start to reverse the internet revolution.

Bloggers like myself will still get our free content. But we'll quote it rather than link to it. We all lose.

So, listen to David Simon- he has a point- even if he does labour it as Eric Etheridge argued in the New York Times. But equally, newspapers are going to have to find a way of making this work beyond the free with advertising model that is failing. The only way it can work is if they get together somehow and make it happen with new ways of distributing paid-for content without stemming its flow. It would be fairly enforceable as most bloggers use either Blogger or WordPress who could make subscribing- if such links are used- a condition of service.

Blogging can be parasitical but with a bit of creativity it could make a major contribution to its host. And while we're at it, why is BBC content not available for embedding within blogs? What could possibly be lost by doing that? The US networks do it with ads. Perhaps that content could de distributed through the same platform as the papers.

There is a different way. It just requires initiative, open dialogue, and cooperation to make it happen. So it's a long shot.

Post script: Please follow Save the Observer on Twitter and BUY THE PAPER.

Climate change Thursday #3

2009-08-06T18:24:00.004+01:00

This week's climate change Thursday is a tale of two governments. The first is the British government that, as we saw last week, has got its act together in relative- though not absolute- terms.

However, it appears that the public sector itself is not setting a good example. According the parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee, recycling in the public sector has declined in 2006-07 to 2007-08 from 38.5 per cent to 35 per cent and the use of renewable energy has declined from 28.3 per cent to 22 per cent over the same period. The problem with this is not just its impact on emissions which is the primary concern but also that it will cost the government cash.

Under the Carbon Reduction Commitment, public sector organisations and local authorities will have to buy carbon credits from the private sector- costing us all money and, as it is a market-based solution, there is no way forecasting what that cost could be. Moreover, what sort of example does it set?

There is further information available about the scheme here if you are interested.

The other government under the microscope this week is the US. Under the Obama administration they appear to be getting on the case. The stimulus and investment package passed included significant investment in renewable energy, retro-fitting of public buildings, and the creation of a more efficient grid. The administration's budget did the same thing. However, it is starting from a very low base.

In an interview with the New Scientist, John Holdren, President Obama's scientific advisor, said:

"Two things are obvious: the industrialised nations have an obligation to lead, and the developing countries have to join pretty soon, or we're going to be cooked."

It is unsurprising that the US is beginning to stir on climate change given the catastrophic consequences it faces if the world fails to act. The only mystery is what took it so long. Just take the agricultural oasis of California as a case in point. A while ago, Energy Secretary, Nobel prize-winning, Steven Chu, said:

“We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California. I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going.”

Now, to have any chance of a comprehensive climate deal at Copenhagen, the Waxman-Markey bill- which introduces a US cap and trade system much like the EU's Emissions Trading System and sets targets for renewable energy- must pass the Senate following its successful navigation of the House of Representatives on June 26th.

There are fears that with healthcare sucking out all of the legislative energy from Congress that the bill could be punted into next year. That would be a disaster for Copenhagen unless a clear direction of travel had been established. Without the bill, what chance that China, Russia, and India, will commit to a substantive deal at Copenhagen?

Totnes tory primary- over 16,000 vote!

2009-08-04T12:04:00.000+01:00

Tory press man, Henry Macrory, has just tweeted that the turnout for Tories' primary in Totnes is 16,639 and they are still counting.

Remember a while ago I blogged on my experiences in Lowdham in Nottinghamshire at a book festival- Revolution in Rural England- where there was enthusiastic support for political change in my audience across the political spectrum. What is happening in Totnes seems to be bearing this out. Phenomenal. If politicians think they can resist the tidal wave of political change- as they are doing- then they have another thing coming.

A staggering Tory primary in Totnes.

2009-08-04T10:55:00.002+01:00

I am absolutely staggered- and impressed- by reports that the Tories have held a primary in Totnes in which 10,000 people have voted. I have called in the past for closed primaries in the Labour party- i.e. registered Labour supporters would be able to vote- but this primary in Devon is incredible. A full report has been posted by Michael Crick.

As it happens, I'm currently in the next county along- Cornwall. As I only have wifi access in McDonalds, I can't see there being a lot of blogging this week though I will somehow get 'Climate change Thursday' done.

You may be interested in a couple of things from the weekend.

i) I had a piece on Gary McKinnon on the Huffington Post. As is typical with these things, I got attacked from the right for being too PC and from the left for being un-PC. I really fail to see how describing Asperger's as a disability- given that the doctor who diagnosed Gary McKinnon, Prof Simon Baron-Cohen, described it as such and so does the National Autistic Society- is a major issue. Convince me otherwise?

The sad thing about the discussion is that it is a sideshow from other major issues- the fate Gary McKinnon himself, and widening understanding of Asperger's so that we can insure that individuals and their families get the right support and that they are given every chance possible to fulfil every ounce of their potential just as the rest of us are. If describing it as a disability means that Gary McKinnon and others with Asperger's get that support then so be it.

ii) The Australian newspaper quoted my 'what it means to be left' response which appeared on Open Left. Not quite sure why, but very nice of them anyway.

iii) My LabourList column will appear later today. It's on can and should Peter Mandelson be Prime Minister?

iv) Giles Wilkes, author of a magnificent paper on economic policy, made a comment yesterday on my 'The Economic Consequences of David Cameron' piece. The full piece is here.

Back to McDonalds which I pretend to detest but actually rather enjoy their Sausage and Egg McMuffins. Thanks Ronald.

America, Britain and the power of ideas

2009-07-31T11:36:00.001+01:00

LabourList is having an ideas themed day, ably edited by @Jessica_Asato. My contribution is on the United States- as a set of ideas and ideals- and ponders why the British are so reticent about delving into our own past in order to change our future. It looks at the campaign of Barack Obama as an example of what can happen. And then, just this morning I read a poem that I wished I'd quoted which ponders 'when history and hope rhyme.' Here is an excerpt from The Cure at Troy by Seamus Heaney:

History says, Don't hope
on this side of the grave.
But then, once in a lifetime
the longed for tidal wave
of justice can rise up,
and hope and history rhyme.

Dare we dream? The link to the article is below:

Brits need to abandon their reticence about ideas and follow the American Dream

Brown can win the election. Or can he?

2009-07-30T12:21:00.001+01:00

Gordon Brown can still win the next election. However, my confidence has been slightly shattered this morning as it emerges that Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's woeful Chief Strategist and CEO of PR firm Burson-Marstellar, has predicted the same. He famously came up with the dumb 'inevitability' strategy for Hillary Clinton and was completely out-manoeuvred by the Obama campaign.

Here is an analysis from Portfolio magazine of his performance. It comes to the conclusion that he failed to spot the right micro-trends in the election of last year. Ironic, given that his famous book is about micro-trends. I wrote about this over a year ago. Mark Penn's political instincts are not needed here.

Climate change Thursday #2

2009-07-30T11:09:00.002+01:00

This week, the World Wildlife Fund has published its climate change scorecards measuring the performance of the G8 against environmental targets. Two things are worthy of note. Amongst this small group the UK does very well. However, and more noteworthy, none of the G8 get anywhere near the 'good' standard when it comes to the WWF/Allianz ranking. Here is the league table:

And here is a video that explains the findings:

Of course, climate change denial has had a new lease of life recently, hence this weekly feature that will simply present evidence and ideas. A recent interview in The Spectator with the author of the new climate change deniers bible, Heaven And Earth: Global Warming — the Missing Science, Ian Plimer is typical. The amazing thing is that all the arguments in Ian Plimer's book have been around for years and have been consistently rebutted. I particularly like these two:

- "CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life." Hmmmm, we've seen the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere rise by about a third in a century and guess what, the earth's warmed up and it's coincided with widespread industrialisation. As for the rest of the statement- so what?
- "There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase.’"

Over to NASA to rebut that one.

Of course, these sorts of claims are very familiar. We hear them time and time again. You can follow the discussion in this debate on LabourList for further examples of generating heat rather than light (very environmentally unfriendly.) The argument is that Labour must become a greener party. That is right. Back to the WWF data, the government's performance on climate change probably gets a 'not bad' but much more to do. In this regard the impending closure- other than a small reasearch and development facility- of the Vestas wind turbine blade manufacturing company in the Isle of Wight is a very disappointing development.

And finally, if you are ever in need of short sharp rebuttals to climate change denial then visit the Royal Society's rebuttal site which is very useful.

More next week......

Remembering John Smith

2009-07-29T14:11:00.001+01:00

A couple of months ago, I promised Rupa Huq that I would answer some questions about John Smith and his legacy on the fifteenth anniversary of his death. I failed to do so- slap wrist. So I am making amends today:

Where were you when you heard John Smith had died?

I was doing a bar job during a year out between school and Uni and was taking a food order when someone came and told me. I found it deeply upsetting as just a few weeks before I had heard him speak- the first Labour leader I had heard speak- in Symphony Hall in Birmingham. When I was at school- a very Tory school- people would mock the Labour party and I'd be able to retort, yes, but what about John Smith? He had respect beyond the Labour party.

How did you view John Smith when he was leader and how do you view him now?

How did I view him? Moral, sturdy, reassuring, decent, intelligent.
And now? The same.

Do you think he would have made a good Prime Minister?

Well, the first question is would he have become Prime Minister? I believe he would have done. A lot of people blamed his shadow Budget for Labour's defeat in 1992. There is little doubt that NI increases and the new top rate of tax kicked in at far too low an income level. You have to wonder from that whether he did have a strong understanding of middle England in particular. However, he probably learned a hard lesson from that experience. So I believe that Labour would have won in 1997 with him at the helm but probably with a much smaller majority as middle England would still have been a bit jittery with him.

Those qualities I outlined above are good qualities for a Prime Minister. Yes, I believe he would have made an excellent Prime Minister. You can't predict how it would have been different....more social democratic, less reformist perhaps.....but his personal qualities were many of the right ones.

What do you think is his lasting legacy?

Three-fold:

i) Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. It was Smith who nurtured them.
ii) Vince Cable. He was his SPAD in the 1970s but then he jumped onto the SDP ship....whereas John Smith:
iii) Stayed with the Labour party through the dark days of the early 1980s and kept a centre of gravity that would enable Labour to compete for office effectively once again.

The economic consequences of David Cameron

2009-07-29T13:31:00.001+01:00

My LabourList column this week is on the David Cameron's economic policies. It's got Churchill, Roosevelt, Keynes, J.K.Galbraith and others. Watch the debate unfold as the normal list of Tory Trolls will first mock then get increasingly fraught in the comments. It's kind of a sport.

The economic consequences of David Cameron

Social media and English reserve

2009-07-29T13:09:00.001+01:00

We English are very strange people in many quirky ways. But on Sunday I was playing around with my iPhone on a train on the way back from giving a talk to the Surrey Fabian Society annual garden party and the gentleman opposite me starting asking me about one or two things about the phone. As a result, we started chatting- he was an iPhone fan too. He was also a blogger (on poetry, politics, art and other things), public speaker, and retired Connaught Hotel executive.

Now I know all this social media is about bringing people together on-line and it just struck me as fascinating that two people should strike up a conversation in this random way. The same happened to me in a coffee shop this morning. I just wonder whether the liberating energy of the internet and new technology is beginning to remove some of that old English reserve? Self-expression is what it is about and, actually, that is a great counter-balance to our natural reserve (though, shouldn't generalise too much....)

Anyway, the guy's name was Colin Hurrell and below is the very generous email that he has just sent me with some links to his blogs which you should visit.

Hi Anthony,

I enjoyed chatting to you on the train to London on Sunday afternoon.

How often such opportunities are not fulfilled because of our English reserve. I am glad we both had iPhones!

I found your comments on Barack Obama very interesting. Obviously you have a great passion for your subject and extensive knowledge too. I am impressed!

I have a Democrat friend in Cleveland, Ohio and in our weekly chat on the internet we have often discussed American politics - and particularly the President, both before and after his election. I am a great admirer.

I have taken a quick look at your website and mean to go back there from time to time. However, as I am sure you will agree, there is so much on the internet and we do not have time to visit everything.

You asked about my blogs and here are the five addresses:
kendrive.blog.co.uk
grumpy.blog.co.uk
colintellsyouwheretogo.blog.co.uk
poemsandprose.blog.co.uk
picturepost.blog.co.uk

The first four usually have daily postings, but I have not added to "colintellsyouwheretogo" for some time.

My main interest is in "poemsandprose" and "picturepost" and the other blogs are often trivial and somewhat puerile.

However, you may care to take a look at "kendrive" today, as it is about "Climate Change", which I know you have mentioned on your website, commenting about 'deniers'.

The minority view I have expressed is probably easily debunked, but I think people should look at alternative theories.

This afternoon I am giving a presentation of poetry to a small group in someone's house in Staines. It is called "Who would fardels bear?", which you probably know is a quotation from Hamlet:

Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?

That is when he is contemplating suicide and my talk will feature eight poets who took their own lives. It sounds dreary, but it is not really so.

Well Anthony, good luck in all your endeavours.

Let me know when you are next giving a lecture on Barack Obama in the London area, as I would like to come along.

Regards,

Colin (Hurrell)

Nick Clegg, John Hemming, and Ayoub Khan

2009-07-28T10:19:00.002+01:00

Well, well. Not only has Nick Clegg failed to take action against Ayoub Khan but the very liberal Lib Dem MP for Birmingham Yardley, John Hemming MP, has pitched into the scandal. On Hopi Sen's superlative Blog from the Back Room, he made the following comment:

I think this web post is libellous.

I agree with Ayoub Khan that the landrover was torched by Labour supporters in order to intimidate witnesses.

Amazingly, he then goes on to state on his own 'web log' (get with it John for goodness sake, it's 2009):

I personally believe that the car was torched by Labour supporters in an attempt to intimidate witnesses in the Election Court. To that extent I beleive (sic) that it succeeded. Neither Ayoub, nor myself have any evidence as to who torched the car, but we have a lot of experience of Birmingham Politicns (sic). To that extent we have a "reasonable suspicion", but no more than that.

Again, I quote the Elections Commissioner: Mr Straker QC described this allegation as 'unpleasant and unsubstantiated.' And yet, John Hemming insists on making yet again. Note that he doesn't accuse anyone specifically (can't risk a libel case can we, John?) and note that by his own admission neither he nor Ayoub Khan have any evidence- perhaps the liberal concept of the rule of law as opposed to the rule of John Hemming's beliefs passed him by- grade F GCSE Politics.

There are now two questions. Why hasn't Nick 'do what's right' Clegg intervened? And why is John Hemming defending a man who has been described by an Elections Commissioner of making 'unpleasant', 'unsubstantiated', and 'sordid' accusations?

Post script: If you require a bit of background here is the coverage of this in the Guardian and Birmingham Post yesterday. I also posted on this further down the page.

Top ten blogs- vote!

2009-07-27T17:16:00.005+01:00

I am going to say this only once. Here are the ten blogs I voted for in the Total Politics Top Ten blogs poll 2009:

1. LabourList. http://www.labourlist.org/
2. Next Left. http://www.nextleft.org/
3. Liberal Conspiracy. http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/
4. Hopi Sen ‘Blog from the backroom.’ http://hopisen.wordpress.com/
5. Progressonline. http://www.progressonline.org.uk/
6. Rupa Huq. http://rupahuq.wordpress.com/
7. Don Paskini. http://don-paskini.blogspot.com/
8. Mark Reckons. http://markreckons.blogspot.com/
9. Craig Murray. http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
10. Danny Finkelstein. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/blogs/

I included one Tory, one Lib Dem, and two independent.

Feel free to vote for this site but you must follow the instructions very carefully.

HOW TO VOTE HERE

Obama shows worrying signs of mortality

2009-07-27T15:52:00.002+01:00

Well, President Obama did an hour long press conference last Wednesday where he almost exclusively talked about healthcare reform. Right at the end of the conference he was asked a question by a reporter from the Chicago Sun-Times about the arrest of an acquaintance of his, the Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates. President Obama answered that the police had behaved "stupidly" in the arrest.

What does the media obsess with over the next few days? Surely the biggest social reform in the US certainly since welfare reform under President Clinton and probably since the Johnson administration? You got it in one. It was the president's gaffe. And now Rep. Thaddeus McCotter- who sounds like a character from Harry Potter- from Michigan is keeping that particular plate spinning with a resolution condemning the President Obama. Dull, dull, dull. Whatever next? Will he find his eyes being drawn to pretty girls?

Of far greater interest though was Hillary Clinton's interview yesterday on Meet the Press. This was a refreshingly different Hillary Clinton from the cactus-like candidate we saw in the presidential election last year. She announced with a degree of pride that she had a portrait of William Seward- former New York Senator, Secretary of State, and one of President Lincoln's famous team of rivals- in her office. There was an authenticity and honesty about the following:

"Well, I, I am the chief adviser on foreign policy, but the president makes the decisions. You know, I have a picture of former Secretary of State Seward in my office. He was a New York senator who went on to serve President Lincoln, which is part of what created this concept of team of rivals. He became one of Lincoln's closest and strongest advisers. Why? Because he understood, as I do, that the election is over. The president has to lead our country both internationally and domestically. I saw this when my husband was president. At the end of the day, it is the president who has to set and articulate policy. I'm privileged to be in a position where I am the chief adviser, I'm the chief diplomat, I'm the chief executor of the policy that the president pursues. But I know very well that a team that works together is going to do a better job for America."

Indeed. And now I've been nice about Hillary Clinton for at least the third time.

The full (hour long) interview is below:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Nick Clegg's Lib Dems in action?

2009-07-27T10:13:00.014+01:00

Let me introduce you to Councillor Ayoub Khan. He is a Lib Dem Councillor and Cabinet Member on Birmingham City Council and the Lib Dem prospective parliamentary candidate for Birmingham Ladywood. It seems that he is someone who creates wholly untrue accusations against his political enemies. He is facing a possible professional investigation by the Bar Standards Board that could result in his suspension as a barrister.

What has he done?

- He falsely accused a fellow Councillor of witness intimidation. Elections Commissioner, Timothy Straker QC, described that as 'sordid.'
- He also accused his political opponents of setting fire to an ally's Land Rover. Mr Straker QC described that one as 'unpleasant and unsubstantiated.'
- When he appealed the decision in the High Court last week according to the Birmingham Post today, "Lord Justice Leverson and Mr Justice Wilkie said there was “no sensible basis” for Coun Khan’s claim that Mr Straker’s findings were perverse or unsubstantiated by evidence. His assertion that Mr Straker’s judgement was flawed was “barely even arguable."

Now, this is a man who will apparently stop at nothing to smear his political opponents and his tactics have been laid bare in the High Court. He is a very senior Liberal Democrat in Birmingham. I have been struck by Nick Clegg's robust response to recent political scandals. Albert Bore, Leader of Birmingham's Labour Group, has written him a letter in which he quoted the intrepid Liberal Democrat leader:

“We don’t need to wait for months for a report to tell us what to do. We just need to do what’s right. If politicians can’t manage that much they can wave public trust goodbye."

Hear, hear. So Nick Clegg, what exactly are you waiting for? Councillor Ayoub Khan has reached the end of the political road: sack him from Birmingham's Cabinet, de-select him as a Councillor, de-select him as your candidate in Birmingham Ladywood and kick him out of your party. This more than anything else you have faced is a test of your credibility.

Obama's 'plunging' popularity

2009-07-24T09:37:00.002+01:00

Obama's approval average, having peaked at 65.5% in the middle of February, has 'plunged' to 54.8% today according to Real Clear Politics data. Here, have a play with the graph yourself:

An article on the same website pretty much comes to the conclusion that this is not atypical and his approval rating at the six-month mark is pretty much in line with where George W Bush was at the same stage into his presidency. What can we conclude from this? Things, in normal circumstances, get tougher the longer you are in the White House. Nothing breathtaking in other words.

3,000,000+ Americans have lost their jobs since the inauguration, 14,000 are losing their healthcare every day, they are seeing iconic businesses such as GM go to the wall, times are tough. So an approval rating that has shrunk by 10% or so from its very high peak is not surprising. Obama has fallen from the stratosphere and has joined us here in the troposphere. He's the guy holding the ball in these troubled times.

But none of this is what will be preoccupying the White House. They can worry about the polls in the run-up to mid-terms next year. Their almost singular devotion is to healthcare reform. It is is now very unlikely that a bill that meets the president's goals will be passed by Congress in time for the August deadline he set. He wants a system that widens coverage to everyone who wants it, cuts costs, increases quality, and is self-financing. He's not asking much then. It looks like it will find its way through the House of Representatives but it will still face a rocky journey through the Senate.

What's the problem? Well, as E.J.Dionne says, healthcare reform is hard. Why is it hard? Well, because despite a filibuster proof 60 Senate seats and a whopping majority in the House many centrist Democrats are still nervous about this package. They are nervous about its impact on small businesses, the impression that it will reduce choice (which it won't really), whether it will be properly financed and so may add to a deficit that is understandably unpopular, and if it is properly financed where that cost will fall? 49 Democrat congressmen have to defend districts next year that John McCain 'won' in 2008. They tend to be so-called 'Blue Dog Democrats'- i.e. Democrats with a more conservative hue.

Having said that, failure can not be contemplated for the Democrats. To have tried and failed- yet again- will be even more politically catastrophic for the Democrats. So ultimately, they have reached the point of no return. This is easy for the Republicans. They can sound absolutely united on this issue. They have been opposing healthcare reform for decades. Ultimately, something has to be done on the Democrats' side.

To saddle a Democratic president -as happened with Bill Clinton- with such a monumental failure will disastrous. It may not be taking a wrecking ball to Barack Obama's presidency but it will certainly, at the very least, remove the sheen of invincibility from him. The price in political capital will be high for the Democrat in the White House and the Democrats in Congress. So this time, healthcare reform must pass. That success will be a driver towards reelection as people realise the world hasn't ended and, for many, if not the vast majority, it has gotten a whole lot better.

This blog needs help.....

2009-07-23T11:08:00.002+01:00

I've been doing this blog for almost eighteen months now. It started off as a travelog of my trip to America to cover the Barack Obama campaign. Then I started writing a bit more about British politics. Like many blogs on the left it is driven more by commentary than gossip. I make no apology for that. It is part of a family of blogs that includes (and I'm sorry for any omissions!) LabourList, Next Left, Liberal Conspiracy, Progress, Hopi Sen's a blog from the backroom, Rupa Huq, and Don Paskini. These blogs are thoughtful, generally speaking of the left, and concentrate on quality rather than volume (I make no apology for that.) You will find other excellent blogs by looking at the signatories of the 'Why we blog' statement. I should also mention the PoliticsHome website that kindly links to my blog posts and that is very valuable indeed (and it's a great site!)

This blog has developed into an important thing for me. It kept me in touch with the Obama campaign on a day to day basis and now his presidency. It gave me an opportunity to market the book. And it has led to a number of appearances in the media (with a mixture of success!)

However, it is still the same old deliberately amateurish design. I want something new and fresh. Over the Summer, I am looking to port the blog from Blogger to Wordpress and I'd like a very new template- that will allow me to showcase individual elements like 'Climate change Thursday.' Can you help? There will be a reward to be determined......If so, please contact me: anthonypainter AT yahoo.co.uk.

Finally, Total Politics have launched a top 100 blogs vote. The results will go in a book (hmmm, why a book?) to be published in September. If you like this blog then please click on this link and vote. I will be voting for all the blogs mentioned above and one or two surprises. But please if you value the left blogging space please vote and get others to vote to.

Climate change Thursday #1

2009-07-23T10:32:00.002+01:00

The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference begins on December 7th. In the run up to that every Thursday on this blog will cover an aspect of the climate change issue: the facts, the politics, the debates, the controversy. This feature will be called Climate change Thursday. Why Thursday? Because today I'm in in the mood to kick this off and today is Thursday.

So the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference is a motivation for this column. The bigger motivation is the utter nonsense peddled by climate change deniers. If you want a sample of the arguments, please see the comments in response to my piece which covers climate change on LabourList a couple of weeks ago.

We start off with James Hansen whose research into atmospheric conditions on Venus and the impact of volcanic activity on the climate led him into the refined science of modeling the earth's climate. His testimony before a Senate committee in 1988 first brought the notion that the earth was warming to significant attention. His models have proven to be remarkably accurate.

He even factored in what might happen if there was a major disruptive volcanic event (which cools the earth's atmosphere for a years or so). Randomly, he placed the event at 1995. It actually happened in 1991- Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. Its impact was exactly as James Hansen had predicted- the model was looking good. His predictions- the middle scenario he used- have strongly been matched by observed climate change.

So James Hansen's contribution is massive. He is under no doubt that man-made factors now outweigh any natural factors in explaining climate change. He makes the point that climate change is a cumulative process so it's historical activity that is important. And guess what? This makes the UK one of the largest contributors to climate change if not the largest. So we, as the earliest industrial power, have a responsibility to act. We are beginning to but we must keep on striving more and more.

This feature has been made possible by Peter Sinclair's Climate Change Crock of the Week series (which he posts as greenman3610) which is available on YouTube. In turn, he relies very heavily on NASA data. Yes, NASA. You know, the cleverest people in the world. Subscribe and watch the videos but they'll all be featuring on here in coming weeks. Here is his video on the career of James Hansen.

Oh, if there's anything you feel I should link to: blogs, reports, videos, outrageous claims, please let me know. Hopefully, the Climate change Thursday feature can build up a good stock of material on the environment in one place.

Priority number 1: electoral reform

2009-07-22T14:23:00.002+01:00

My LabourList column is now up. Alex Smith, LabourList's editor has sourced an amazing picture of a Chartist rally in Kennington- just as worth looking at as the article itself!

The piece concludes by arguing:

Labour must revisit its radical roots. Radical politics depends on political reform. A pluralistic and open politics is a necessary corollary of social justice. The next year may or may not be the last opportunity to do this. Why take the risk?

There is no worse prospect imaginable than sitting in opposition and ruing what might have been. And by demonstrating that Labour is committed to fundamental change, it may just show that, whatever they claim, the Conservatives are the status quo. That would be a timely reminder in an election year.

Why am I on the left?

2009-07-22T12:48:00.003+01:00

Demos' Open Left is asking people on the left to explain themselves! Pitch in here and my responses are below:

What is it about your political beliefs that puts you on the Left rather than the Right?

The Right is inclined to see the failure of people to reach their full potential as a result of some personal flaw. The left sees it as mainly as a result of impediments to success or lack of opportunity. Beyond the abstractions of 'freedom' and/ or 'equality' it comes down to this: the left believes that we can improve lives through collective action. Indeed, not only this but morally we should improve things through collective action where we can and that will create a society that is fairer and more creative. All must be able to participate and thrive in this better society. That is my fundamental belief.

What do you consider made you Left wing?

My background. I look back at my family biography and see the improvements that have been made to their lives over a century or so of progressive reform. This family tale is the same as so many others- the emergence of a new professional middle-class out of striving, struggling working-class communities whose ethic of hard-work was galvanising. That was only possible as result of education, housing, healthcare, and welfare. I don't believe that my ancestors in Ireland, England and Wales lacked drive and ambition. They just had no means of moving on up. Had it not been for the left over the last century or so I would not have had the considerable life chances that I have enjoyed and continue to enjoy- nor would my parents' generation. An awareness of this was always communicated to me.

How would you describe the sort of society you want Britain to be?

A humble society that is self aware, open and generous. We realise that we are in this together and if we let millions fall by the wayside the collective and moral consequences will be dire. We will be a country in which people ask not just 'how can I benefit?' but also 'how can I contribute?'

What one or two changes would make the biggest difference to bringing that about?

What is important is that we start to vision how things can be different. We acknowledge that things can different. We start to talk about different ways of doing things- together, inclusive, open. This can't be an elitist or technocratic pursuit. We change Britain by convincing people of their value and the contribution they can make. We look into our past and show how we have rallied and made things better. Then we summon that urge for a different type of society now. Then the policies flow. But first people must feel part of something.

What most makes you angry about the way Britain is now?

The way we have turned on one another. This has actually become quite an angry nation- and that imbues a sense of cynicism. Certain groups are caricatured or demonised then marginalised and resented. Mutual suspicion and anger proliferate. So, in a sense, I'm angry about anger.

Which person, event, era or movement from the past should we look to for inspiration now?

Undoubtedly, Martin Luther King. When researching my book on Barack Obama, I looked back at that whole era of American history and what was achieved by the non-violent civil rights movement was monumental. "The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice." For me, that sense is the ultimate expression of hope. Beyond that, his achievements and those of his movement will stand as a beacon of human possibility.

At that time, you also had Robert F Kennedy who was as profound as King in many ways but never quite got to put it into action. And you can’t forget President Johnson either- a titan for all his flaws and foreign policy catastrophes!

But the United States from 1955 to 1968- when it spectacularly ran out of steam- is one of the most radically important places and periods of history ever. It went from the gross injustice of segregation to civil and political equality. Reverend King was a major instigator of that- if not the major instigator.

Taxpayers £22 billion 'out of pocket'- really?

2009-07-21T10:39:00.001+01:00

So scream headlines like this one in the Independent this morning (they weren't the only ones but I picked one at random.) Really?

Well, if we take a look at the Budget Report 2009 we see that total tax take from HMRC was forecast to be £437.4 billion for the financial year 2008-09 (see p.231). Now what is the reported outturn? It was £435.7 billion. The gap is £1.7 billion. That is not insignificant but it is not £22 billion. The reporting of the NAO report makes it sound like this was unexpected. It was not. Any large organisation- and we are talking about a government here!- budgets then measures outturn against budget. The worrying thing is when your budgeting is off.

So the sensationalist reporting this morning doesn't match the situation. Nonetheless we are in a very fraught period of time for public finances what with global financial meltdown and all. What is scarier as I have have argued time and time again is that we focus on the deficit and forget about the recovery. If we retrench expenditure and raise taxes too early then watch things get really, really scary- economically AND fiscally. Over to you Messrs Cameron and Osborne.

Climate change- any old deal is not enough

2009-07-20T16:11:00.003+01:00

The G8 leadership came to an understanding of sorts on climate change in L'Aquila. The 2°C target is kind of progress. What is needed in this year's UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is not just any old deal, however. The right deal that is going to have some chance of hitting that target and reducing the risk of catastrophic climate change.

As reported in the New Scientist this week, the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Climate Change (try saying all that while eating a bowl of Rice Krispies) believes that even if the developed world manages to reduce its emissions by 80% on 1990 levels by 2050 there is still only a 4-5% chance of staying within the 2°C limit. We have already churned up the environment to the extent that we will find it desperately difficult to turn back.

Of course, climate change deniers have a full array of excuses and bogus science at their disposal. A good deconstruction of their arguments can be seen on YouTube through Peter Sinclair's Climate Denial Crock of the Week series. A taster is below:

The harsh reality is that we are taking increasing, multiple, and layered risks with our world that could well have catastrophic consequences. Why take the risk? Using science, markets, and political will we can build a world where we are not taking those risks. We are up to the task so let's get to it.

This is why the G8 was so disappointing. The glacial pace with which the governments are moving is simply not good enough. In the case of the UK government- one of the exceptions- the Low Carbon Transition Plan published last week was exceedingly well received and rightly so. As the environmental guru Jonathon Porritt pointed out, it was the first time that a coordinated plan of action that will have a measurable impact on carbon emissions has been produced. Ed Miliband and his department deserve credit for that. It will have legs as it matches environmental improvements with economic opportunity and jobs. That is the golden mix.

The Prime Minister also deserves credit for forcing the pace of agreement with Mexico's idea for a $100 billion a year green fund. However, developed countries are still not doing anywhere near enough. Far from all have made the type of commitment that the UK and a few others such as Sweden have made. We built our prosperity on pollution and so have a moral responsibility to ensure that the developing world does not have to choose between the environment and growth. Finally, our consumption- and this is where the government still falls short- means that others pollute on our behalf. An 80% cut in emissions by 2050 is in the emissions we produce not the emissions we consume is not enough. We have a broader responsibility.

So amidst all the self-congratulation of the G8 there is still a very long road to travel down. As for those climate change deniers: it is very unlikely you are right so why on earth should we take ever increasing risks with our world? If you have the vast bulk of scientific evidence saying one thing that predicts disaster, why would you choose just to ignore it or cry conspiracy? It's bizarre.

I argued that a more radical approach needed to be taken in my LabourList column a couple of weeks ago (see comments also.) That article concluded with a quote from Thomas Homer-Dixon which is the strongest riposte to those in denial:

“Driving fast in the fog is, of course, not sensible. But it’s exactly what we’re doing today.”

And the world's leaders have to take more responsibility in order to slow us down.

Mountaintop- the real Martin Luther King

2009-07-17T12:07:00.000+01:00

I had the pleasure of seeing the astounding Mountaintop by Katori Hall at the Trafalgar Studios last night. The play, directed by James Dacre, and is set in King's room- 306 - in the Lorraine Motel. It features a final night conversation between Reverend King ("Preacher King", "Michael") and a maid who is not what she seems. He was to be assassinated on the balcony outside the room. The play absolutely captured the essence of King.

An FBI file bigger than the bible is enough to make a man understandably neurotic, but he was also vain, afraid, and his personal conduct failed to live up to the morals he preached. J Edgar Hoover was obsessed with King- officially because he suspected communist motives-and bugged his every move. Tapes of King's extra-martial affairs were sent to his wife Coretta Scott King and played relentlessly to journalists. Mountaintop captures these human frailties magnificently. At times, David Harewood became King. Not a mythologised or demonised King but a King, warts and all. Lorraine Burroughs' intelligent, wickedly humorous, but beguilingly sexy foil for Harewood was intoxicating.

The fact is though despite the flesh being weak the will of this man was strong, oh so strong. His flaws only serve to underline his greatness. Without pause or hesitation we can say Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and King and right there we have a list of the finest that the United States has ever produced.

Reverend King changed America. The Civil Rights Acts was essential and with a little help from his not such a friend, President Lyndon Baines Johnson, he got that through Congress. But it was the Voting Rights Act in 1965 that serves as an even greater legacy. Again, that mangled historical figure, President Johnson, gave what was one of the great speeches to Congress ending with the words of the the gospel hymn that had become the anthem of the civil rights movement, "We shall overcome." Martin Luther King cried. America was changed forever. That legacy of greatness is King's for eternity. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act constitute key components of the American canon- along with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Emancipatory Proclamation. Rivers run from the mountaintop to the valley. King stands astride the mountaintop.

So Mountaintop holds the flaws and the greatness of this preacher from Atlanta, Georgia in constant, artful tension. It only loses its way at one point when the maid gives what is basically a Malcolm X speech- black nation and pride. Kings gets sucked into it but that would never have happened. It was Malcolm X who genuflected to King. In the play, he pulls back but non-violence, equality, and integration were King's unshakable philosophies. He engaged with early Malcolm X only to dismiss him. In fact, when he was shot, he was planning his Poor People's Campaign which would almost have undoubtedly failed given the cultural and political stresses that the US was facing. But he was reaching beyond ethnicity into class and poverty.

And finally, were the Barack Obama references really necessary? Another 'one' is to come who will also have King's golden tongue- starting to get a bit Hollywood for a brief moment. Hmmmmm. The play ends on 'yes, we can.' Hmmmmm. Firstly, it is not just 'one.' Secondly, Barack Obama has his place in history- as do many others. But greatness? Only time will tell. It jarred in what was otherwise a marvellous take on one of America's truly great figures.

Don't let this detract. The writing, direction, performances, honesty, and energy of this production are intensely accomplished. King's premonition of his death- more concrete than the simple everyday feeling of threat would have created- is one of the great mysteries. Let's not ponder the explanation. Let's just enjoy the words. Oh, what words.

Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!

Post script: I meant to mention a book I read recently alongside this. Eric J Sundquist's King's Dream dissects the 'I have a dream' speech magnificently. It dissects the influence on the speech- biblical, popular cultural, political, historical, personal- and the influence of this greatest speech given before 250,000 or so in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

David Cameron's summer of retreat

2009-07-15T16:19:00.002+01:00

When did David Cameron become an orthodox Conservative leader? I pinpoint it to the Summer of 2007- when Gordon Brown became Prime Minister, Andy Coulson became his Director of Communications, and Northern Rock collapsed. My latest column on LabourList is below:

David Cameron's summer retreat and the long drift right

I also picked up the theme of President Obama and torture on Guardian America. It is below:

Do the right thing on torture

The article after mine is by Sarah Palin. Some light relief!