While flicking through the Sunday papers yesterday, this headline caught my eye:
Cameron has the makings of a truly great prime minister
and I wondered how anyone could be seriously making such a claim at this time.
The author of the think-piece was Peter Oborne, sometime editor of the Spectator and now a columnist on the Daily Mail, so there could be little doubt about where the author was coming from politically. But in the preamble to his contention, there was an interesting canter through post-war political history.
There have only been two great prime ministers since the Second World War: Attlee and Thatcher. Attlee achieved greatness because in barely five years he established the basis of postwar Britain: the National Health Service, a universal welfare state and a managed economy – all funded by massive personal and corporate taxation.
Attlee’s vision was so powerful that for three decades all prime ministers, whether Conservative or Labour, accepted his fundamental insights about social and financial management. By the mid-1970s, however, it had failed. Not until 1979, and the emergence of Margaret Thatcher, did Britain discover a leader capable of challenging the vicious cycle of decline.
Like Clem Attlee, Thatcher redefined the British state. By cutting taxes, taming the trade unions, and encouraging the market, she unleashed tremendous productive forces. Like Clem Attlee, her vision was so powerful that all prime ministers since have found it hard to escape from her shadow. But the Thatcher settlement could not last forever: by the time Gordon Brown was evicted from office exactly one year ago, the British state was facing a crisis of comparable’ magnitude to the 1970s.
I couldn’t find much to quarrel with there, except that one very important word seemed to be missing: nationalisation.
This was an essential ingredient of the ‘managed economy’ that Atlee created, and Oborne refers to, which some might recognise as a step towards a planned economy on the soviet model. Henceforth, ‘the people’ were to own at least some of the means of production: the energy industry and other essential public services. And there was a an inevitable spin off from this which also had far reaching consequences. A significant part of the working population became state employees overnight, and the trades unions, whose activities until the war had been confined to moderating the rapacity of private employers, could now claim a seat at the top table, with not only a brief to protect their members interests, but also the power to influence, and even dictate, government policy. At the same time they had control of productivity, or lack of it, over a vast swathe of the UK’s industrial base.
Atlee’s achievement in setting up the National Health Service and the welfare state are undeniable but, with the wisdom of hindsight, it is also clear that the policy of state interference with market economics that he initiated was a disaster. Until Margaret Thatcher dismantled the nationalised industries three decades later, and ‘tamed the trade unions’ in the process, the UK economy was hobbled by the high prices and high taxation required to keep hopelessly inefficient and uncompetitive nationalised industries afloat.
So what has all this to do with David Cameron joining Atlee and Thatcher in the tiny pantheon of ‘truly great’ post-war prime ministers? According to Oborne, it is possible that our present prime minister’s willingness to meet the challenge of mending an economy wrecked by thirteen years of mismanagement by Gordon Brown head on, allow Ian Duncan Smith to rebuild Beveridge’s outdated model for the welfare state, and encourage Michael Gove to insist on high standards in state education, Cameron may be able to implement an economic, social, and political framework that will last for a generation. If he succeeds on all these fronts, then Cameron will indeed deserve to be ranked with Atlee and Thatcher.
This blog is not the place to discuss welfare reform or the failings of state education, with the very obvious exception of JunkkMale’s fascinating thread here. However for the last year and more I have been drawing attention to the parallels between the problems posed by the old nationalised industries and the Conservatives aspiration to launch a green industrial revolution using the slogan, ‘the greenest government ever’. There is ample and growing evidence that these policies may be as misguided – and could be as long lived – as the UK’s post-war excursion into nationalisation and a managed economy.
Of course if one considers nationalisation in the context of how the world looked in the late 1940’s, it is easy enough to see why such a policy seemed attractive and feasible. In the aftermath of the great depression, the hungry thirties, and the vastly increased control that government had on people’s everyday lives during six years of war, the idea of sate ownership of energy production, transport and much more must have seemed pretty sensible. Also, at the end of the war, it was still possible to foster the illusion that in the Soviet Union a planned economy was promoting an economic miracle, whatever the human cost might be. But the fact that something looked like a good idea at the time doesn’t mean that it really was a good idea.
We are living through a period when the illusion that there is convincing – even conclusive – evidence that fossil fuel use has already altered the climate is in vogue, for politicians, broadcasters and other media types, for industrialists of course, who see no harm, and ignore the danger, of cashing in on government subsidies. It is no more difficult for Cameron to persuade people that the nation needs a green industrial revolution than it was for Atlee to win support for nationalisation. The question is whether the consequences will be as long-lasting and devastating.
It would seem that the operation of the UK energy industry in future, as conceived by the coalition, will be controlled not by market forces – supply and demand – but by government regulation, just like the old nationalised industries. In an attempt to compensate for the handicap of making the means of energy production totally uneconomic, the government will provided vast subsidies – and also rig the market by regulation, and even legislation – in order to attract investment. Which brings us to taxation.
By the late 1970s, it was the tax burden, massive level of national debt, and the cost of underwriting the inevitable losses of hopelessly inefficient nationalised industries that made the Thatcher phenomenon possible, and very, very necessary. Yet the crippling effect of successive government’s attempts to run major parts of the economy had been recognised for many years before. There is a terrible irony in our present government contemplating a policy that could probably be safely described as the most inflationary since the war while it is also facing the worst dept crisis since the war . Energy costs will inevitably rocket, and the increased subsidies that will be needed to minimise the effect will do nothing to reduce borrowing and help build a viable economy once again.
In the post-war era, the enormous tax bill for keeping the nationalised industries afloat could be passed off by governments, to some extent at least, as part of the cost of maintaining the welfare state in the aftermath of Atlee’s relatively short lived administration. Now Cameron seems content to embark on policies that will require increased taxation or borrowing in order to find the the subsidies that will entice investors into the strange, strange, world of ‘renewables’, where demand is created by political subterfuge, and profit is acquired, rather than earned, either by tapping into government subsidy, or by greatly inflating market prices with the connivance of government.
And although the trades unions may not be at the top table calling the shots these days, there can be little doubt that that the green eNGOs are rapidly replacing them, and that their single-issue campaigning is capable of being every bit as corrosive of good governance as that of the unions. What political party would have the nerve to fight a general election with Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, WWF and a dozen other immensely wealthy operators on the political scene using their vast resources to persuade the public to vote for another party of their choosing.
Peter Oborne has chosen as his two ‘truly great prime ministers’ both the author of the ‘managed economy’ and the author of its destruction. It will be interesting to see if Cameron’s ‘green industrial revolution’ and proposals for the decarbonisation of the UK economy will continue to enjoy public acquiescence, and if he manages to turn his vision into reality, it take a generation before a new ‘truly great prime minister’ comes along to put the economy back together again.
You are correct, of course, that the “Greenest Government ever” is in the process of massive state intervention in the market for energy in the UK. It’s amazing to watch intelligent people claim that increasing energy costs is good for anyone, except to reduce prosperity and amongst the extreme to reverse that prosperity back to an agrarian fantasy that cannot exist.
State intervention is back in vogue and there appears to be no party immune to the fashionable nonsense about “sustainability” and “renewable energy”.
Hummmm… does sound a might premature to be giving this little man so much credit for victories yet to be fought AND won. Oh well, we do need some new World and National Super Heros, right? Superman and Wonder Woman are a might over the hill. He must have a super PR department there at No.10. But, honestly, it sounds more like a country of desperate fools grasping at straws and trying to make a quick raft before they freeze in the cold ice waters of the North Atlantic. I really think any country would have more luck going back to basic, old fashioned, cut-throat capitalism AND church on Sundays.
Hi folks, after having more than a decade of Labour nonsense about taking over Nature’s job of controlling the different global climates I had faint hopes of common sense putting in an appearance when Cameron became Prime minister. After a year of more nonsense from DEFRA sources such as:
– 25 August 2010 QUOTE: .. Environment Minister Lord Henley today visited .. Cumbria to see the impact of a year of weather extremes on the area and to discuss the changes needed over the next 30 years to adapt to the changing climate. Lord Henley said: “The climate in Cumbria and across the world is changing due to the emissions already locked in the atmosphere .. UNQUOTE (http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2010/08/25/cumbria-climate-change/),
– 9 May 2011 “ .. The climate is changing .. we are likely to experience more flooding, faster coastal erosion, more heat-waves, droughts and extreme weather events .. What can you do? .. general advice for citizens on how to cut emissions .. ” (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climate/).
– 17 May 2011 “ .. There is very strong evidence that people are changing the climate with actions that create emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane .. Human activity is the main cause of the changes seen in climate .. The changes seen over recent years, and those predicted for the next century, are considered to be mainly the result of human behaviour .. ” (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Environmentandgreenerliving/Thewiderenvironment/Climatechange/DG_072920).
So there we have it. The politicians have spoken. Regardless of the poor understanding that scientists have of the processes and drivers of global climates and the significant uncertainties they have about what nature has in store for us, the politicians are certain that we must control our emissions of that essential life-supporting substance CO2. I wonder if raising taxes has anything to do with their conviction.
No, Cameron is not worthy of being ranked alongside the UK’s greatest PM’s.
I came across this blog while looking for information on Oxford University Professor Brian Cox, besides his other activities “ .. has enjoyed huge success as a science presenter and as a spokesman for physics in the media at a time of severe budget pressure .. ” (http://www.iop.org/activity/groups/subject/hepp/prize/society/page_40790.html). You may have seen his Hugh Weldon lecture 2010 presentation (http://wn.com/Brian_Cox__Science_A_Challenge_to_TV_Orthodoxy) in which he talks about politics, science, climate change and balanced television broadcasting. These are all topics that this blog has talked about, e.g:
– in “Warm Words II: When facts become fantasies .. a cynical strategy for misleading the public about anthropogenic climate change for political purposes .. ” (http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=60),
– in “Professor Brian Cox’s Wheldon Lecture: an exercise in arrogance .. Apparently Cox considers that the current impact of science on public policy – particularly global warming – places great responsibility on broadcasters who cover this subject. Strangely, he makes no mention of the infinitely greater responsibility that this places on the scientists who brief the media about their work .. ” (http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=364).
I was checking up on Professor Cox after being involved in exchanges on the “Science Forum” of The Naked Scientists, of Cambridge University, including its founder Dr. Chris Smith. I posted three questions on the forum, all of which were locked out before the discussions had been properly concluded and despite attracting significant viewer interest. It appears to me that the moderators on that forum strongly object to any opinions that contradict the “consensus” view of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis. I was ultimately denied access to the forum and told “ .. you are banned from using this forum! Evangelising”, indicating that the moderators and administrators of the forum have an aversion to the sceptical viewpoint.
I suppose that if you don’t like the opinion expressed in a debate and can’t argue against it logically then the only option left is to squash any discussion by gagging any challenger.
I have written to Professor Cox about this and about what he said about balance in television reporting/presentation of climate science to the general public, particularly as practised by Professor Stewart in the BBC’s Climate Wars. If you are interested I can tell you more about this, meanwhile you may be interested in looking at a coujple of the threads that I opened on The Naked Scientists “Science Forum”:
– “Another Hockey Stick Illusion” (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38675) and
– “What does Iain Stewart’s “CO2 experiment” Demonstrate” (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38723).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
[TonyN: I assume that you saw this gem at Bishop Hill …… and it would be interesting to see the questions that fell foul of the forum.]
Hi TonyN, I wasn’t aware of that Bishop Hill article so thanks for that link. While watching the initial part of Professor Cox’s Weldon lecture I started thinking that at last I’d found a scientist and TV presenter of science who was prepared to both look at the “evidence” that the CACC hypothesis is based upon and present it to the general public in a balanced manner. By the time I’d finished watching the entire lecture I had changed my opinion somewhat. The main reasons for this change in attitude was Cox’s:
– insistence that peer review is impartial,
– apparent support for Professor Iain Stewart’s approach to presenting the CACC hypothesis.
My E-mail to Professor Cox mentioned this change in my opinion about him as a TV science presenter. I was impressed by his words about the importance of TV not only in educating the general public about science but in influencing the support of the general public for scientific research and how ” .. television has a big responsibility to get its science programming right .. “. He also referred to ” .. the Gold Standard .. ” in science broadcasting (to which he claims to aspire) established by that brilliant scientist and presenter, Professor Carl Sagan. He then talked about science at its best being ” .. rigidly accurate in its observation and merciless to fallacy in logic .. ” and presented an excellent excerpt from Professor Richard Feynman’s BBC “Messenger” lecture. The words that stood out for me in the Feynman lecture were “Guess” “Compute” and “Compare” ” .. if it disagrees with experiment then its wrong .. that simple statement is the key to science .. “. Cox’s comments about consensus counting for nothing and ” .. when it comes to the practice of science the scientist must never have an eye on the audience .. ” are equally significant.
(I loved Cox’s comment about astrology being a load of rubbish, his reference in that context to the irrational community and its fight against reason.)
He also commented on the BBC’s editorial guidelines about ” .. impartiality is at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC’s commitment to its audience .. ” but then went on to talk about peer review and its impartiality, mentioning climate change in the process. That’s where I became disappointed in what he was saying, because up until then I had the impression that he was promoting honest reporting of science by the media.
I was delighted when Professor Iain Stewart appeared on the screen talking about climate change, accompanied by his little girls whose future he is so concerned about in that regard. Only recently I had been watching Professor Stewart’s performance at the launch of the Green It Like You Mean It (http://www.youtube.com/user/greenitlikeyoumeanit#p/u/4/hrPjddK2t-I). (GILYMI was a private “community interest” company – CIC – so I’m puzzled about why its launch took place in the House of Commons). All of the 8 presentations at that launch are revealing and I was able to form a better understanding of what motivated Professor Stewart to present the BBC’s Climate Wars program in the manner that he did. Stewart’s ” .. the fundamental science is pretty clear .. ” is just the kind of exaggeration that I have come to expect from Professor Stewart after looking into his “Climate Wars” offerings.
Cox said that he believes that Stewart gets it right in the manner in which he presents climate change science so I have asked him if he also agrees with Stewart’s misleading demonstration in Climate Wars of how CO2 absorbs IR (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo). In his opening statement about his demonstration Stewart says “I can show you how carbon dioxide affects earth’s climate using this .. ” before describing his apparatus set-up. Of course Stewart’s demonstration does not show how CO2 affects earth’s different climates, then he missed out the most significant item of apparatus that had been used in the set-up to grossly exaggerate the extent to which CO2 absorbs IR, a 4nm IR filter. (You can find a more detailed comments about that on the “What does Iain Stewart’s “CO2 experiment” Demonstrate” (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38723) thread, Page 3, 4th May @ 19:42 and subsequently.)
I recently sent Professor Stewart and Dr. Jonathan Hare, the designer of the experimental set-up, an E-mail pointing out what I saw as the deliberately exaggerated effect of CO2 and the misleading claim made at the start of his demonstration. Professor Stewart has observed a strict silence but Dr. Hare was good enough to respond with some very interesting comments. I asked if he had any objection to me quoting him elsewhere but he was not prepared to let me do so. If you are interested I am happy to post what I have said to Dr. Hare, Professor Stewart and Dr Smith relating to this issue of biased TV presentation and blog/forum administration/moderation with regard to CACC doctrine propaganda.
In my opinion moderators and mainstream media science presenters like Professor Cox, Professor Stewart and Dr. Smith should show a totally unbiased attitude and encourage open but respectful exchanges between contributors. I do not subscribe to the view expressed by Professor Steven Schneider (deceased) QUOTE: .. perhaps the most media-exposed Greenhouse expert, having developed a charismatic speaking style, complemented by his 1970s good looks, and penchant for extravagant claims about impending environmental disaster .. “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.” – Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider (in interview for “Discover” magazine, Oct 1989) .. UNQUOTE (http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm).
To me anything other than being honest is simply lying and once someone is found to have lied they can never be trusted again. Since the “Hockey Stick Illusion”, the “evidence” of global temperature change during the past decade and the Climategate revelations I believe that the climate science community has lost the trust of much of the general public. In the same way the apparently biased manner in which global TV broadcasters like the BBC present their CACC programs has damaged their credibility in the eyes of the general public (simple example – frequently when reporting on CACC the BBC shows a picture of a cooling tower pouring out that vile pollutant H2O).
If you do take a look at those locked threads of mine on The Naked Scientists blog then please also have a look at my profile, where I describe being asked by The Naked Scientist founder Dr. Chris Smith to stop making any further comments on the Science Forum. Prior to being banned from the forum I had several exchanges of E-mails and messages with Dr. Smith in which I pointed out what I saw as bias in favour of the CACC doctrine demonstrated by his administrators and moderators, but you better be quick before that is removed by the administrators. They removed a link that I provided to another blog where I had taken the discussion but overlooked the link to my blog which also provides the same link. I’m keeping my eye on my profile to see when they cotton on to that oversight.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley
I read your coments on co2 over at naked scientists.
Fractionation is a highly contentious subject of, I believe, dubious merit, which is presented as settled science. I ran this long thread over at The Air Vent in which this subject amongst others relating to co2 was discussed
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/
tonyb
TonyN,
Maybe you can take a look at this graph:
It seems to me that UK GDP rose continuously in the postwar period with the exeption of three periods, the last of which was the GFC. The other two look to have been in the early 80’s and the early 90’s.
[TonyN: An economist can always find a ray of sunshine somewhere]
So I’m just wondering where is the factual evidence that Attlee was a disaster and Thatcher was the Messiah? Can you show any real economic evidence at all to back up this assertion?
[TonyN: Read the Oborne quote again. That is what the post is based on. Then name three countries were a general policy of de-nationalisation has been replaced by one of general re-nationalisation during the last three decades.]
Also what about UK debt being at record post war levels? Is this really true?
TonyN: That’s what the government and most economic commentators, on the Beeb and elsewher, say.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good rant!
[TonyN: And I’m sure that is a sentiment that you fully endorse]
Images don’t seem to have worked. But here are their links:
http://www.tutor2u.net/blog/files/UK_GDP_1_0609.gif
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9yblPaA3R8A/S78NhycQkpI/AAAAAAAAAAk/ewEbDvLIw9E/s400/uk_debt_100_p.png
One difference is that the nationalised industries were intended to be efficient thus to be able to com pete with theunnationalised part. This proved impossible hence “socialists” no longer claim their system is more eficient and indeed make it not being so an advantage.
However GNP is closely related to energy production and a society intentionally making electiricty 10 times the cost it need be or indeed unavailable is not going to get out of recession no matter how much “economic freedom” the Tories may wish to allow to some very small part of the economy (no longer financial services).
Hi tonyb (Brown?), thanks for the link to that very interesting article “Historic variations in CO2 measurements” (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/).
BTW, the first link in the article section “Modern evidence for escalating levels of CO2” didn’t work (message “Sorry, your request could not be processed because the format of the URL was incorrect. Contact the Help Desk if the problem persists. [SD-001]”) so can you provide an updated link?
Early on I wondered why the author (you?) had made no mention of Ernst-Georg Beck but an explanation was given in the comment of 8th March 2010 @ 4:16 am. I haven’t looked at all of those interesting links or read all of the equally interesting comments because I am presently concentrating on the issue of size-dependent fractionation in the deep firn. My intention is to consider the other possible fractionation processes that distort the concentration of CO2 in air “trapped” in ice as the sheet develops during decades, centuries and millennia, starting with the distortion arising from adsorption of CO2 in the snow as it forms and falls to earth.
As Professor Eric Wolff acknowledged in his comment of 2nd May @ 12:12 on my “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” thread (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38675) on The Naked Scientists science forum QUOTE: .. I think that none of us has a definite molecular-level understanding of the physical process occurring at closeoff, and it would be great if someone can do the experiments in the lab to understand that better. But it won’t alter the empirical facts .. UNQUOTE. My position at present is that those “empirical facts” may simply be incorrect conclusions arising from misinterpreted data. I was in the process of preparing a response to Professor Wolff along those lines but the moderator appointed by The Naked Scientists admin team (who hides behind the false name yor_on and is a dedicated CACC supporter) decided to prematurely lock the thread a day later.
I am still corresponding with Professor Wolff on this and in his latest E-mail he repeated the point he made on the thread on 27th April @14:53 relating to another possible fractionation process that appears not to be given due attention. Professor Wolff said QUOTE: .. I agree that one could imagine constructing a model in which the kinetic diameter is important (and because of it’s non-spherical nature, CO2 has a smaller kinetic than collision diameter). However, in such a model, Ar would be more fractionated than O2, whereas Severinghaus et al’s data shows it is only one-third as fractionated; and as you are implying, CO2 would be somewhat more fractionated than either Ar or CO2, which the data of Etheridge shows not to be the case. But again, I want to be really clear, while you can argue whether their model is right, the conclusion about CO2 is based on the data, and the data are clear that there is no fractionation of CO2 compared to N2 .. UNQUOTE.
That statement raises two further questions for me, one being can we be sure that the ice core data are correctly interpreted and the other being how important molecular shape is as a fractionation process. Professor Euan Nisbet, Professor of Earth Sciences, Department of Earth Sciences, Royal Holloway, University of London, who originally suggested that I talk with Professor Wolff, mentioned the difficulty he’d had when transporting CO2 from site to site compared with CH4. As I recall he was able to use plastic containers for the CH4 (collision & kinetic diameter 0.38nm) but had to use steel one for CO2 (collision diameter 0.39nm, kinetic diameter 0.33nm). He commented on the “needle-like” CO2 molecule, which reminded me of its linear shape, compared with tetrahedral for CH4. This makes me wonder if the linear shape of O2 could explain why O2 is fractionate more than Ar despite its larger kinetic diameter – any ideas anyone?
Professor Wolff has commented about the lack of understanding of the molecular-level processes taking place during close-off and the benefits of a relevant experiment. I have been playing around with latex balloons filled with CO2 and atmospheric air and was delighted to find on my first attempt that the CO2-filled balloon deflated much more quickly than the other. I swopped the balloons around stoppers around. I was the one who was deflated most because the balloon filled with atmospheric air was the first to deflate this time. I was a bit happier when I found a pin-hole in one balloon so am now preparing a new set-up using new balloons and ice plugs. I was also given new hope when I found that a youngster had done a similar experiment using three balloons, one with He, one with CO2 and one with exhaled air and found that the order of deflation was He, CO2 then air. Now I must get out the malt vinegar, baking soda, malt whiskey bottle (empty), balloons, ice plugs and foot pump and try again.
BTW, are you the same Tony Brown who commented in September 2008 on “BBC Climate Wars Part 2” (http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/17/bbc-climate-wars-part-2/)? If so you may be interested in looking at another of my locked threads on The Naked Scientists forum “What does Iain Stewart’s CO2 experiment Demonstrate” (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38723). Just before that thread was locked the question was asked “ .. what motivated Stewart to screen the demonstration .. ”? I have looked into that and found the answer to what motivated his presentation of the entire program. If you’re interested have a look at the presentations made at the launch of the Green It Like You Mean It company (see my previous comment).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Pete
Yes, that was my article. I wrote up my research before I contacted Ernst who I obviously recognised early on was a major contributor to the Co2 debate. I did not want him to influence my thinking hence I ploughed my own furrow and I also kept him at arms length in the article becaiuse his name immediately arouses fierce passions on both sides of the debate. I subsequently corresponded with him frequently and had hoped to meet up with him at some point, but as you know he sadly died. He did make a substantial number of comments though within the thread.
I will read through your other naked scientists comments this evening.
Yes, that was also me who commeted over at CA. I actually went to see Iain Stewart give his Climate wars lecture at at Southampton University togerher with Lucy Skywalker and Ferdinand Engelbeen. The latter has tried to persuade me for years that the ice cores are highly accurate and indeed that Ernst Beck is entirely wrong. It is worth contacting him as he has lots of information on fractionation and is a very affable soul who remains highly sceptical of the dire impact of Co2. He did a good four part series over at WUWT on Co2.
Tonyb.
Pete
Just a footnote to my earlier comment. One of the hazards of writing an internet based article is that over time links no longer work for one reason or another, hence the error message you received.
Tonyb
Pete Ridley and tonyb
If you want to talk Co2 then please head for the New Statesman thread.
TonyN,
I’ve just returned from a trip to Europe, including the UK, and I know that everyone there is brainwashed into thinking that the country is close to bankruptcy, debts are at record levels etc etc. You should know better not to just accept what ” the government and most economic commentators, on the Beeb” say without checking yourself. The Beeb? Are you serious? :-)
However, a quick glance at the actual facts tells a very different story:
http://emsnews.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/uk-national-debt-1650-to-2010.png
This link shows that although debt has risen and, of course, its fair enough that Governments should keep their eye on the level, its really not that high by historical standards.
Neither is it that high relative to other countries. Its less than in Germany and France, for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_public_debt
So it strikes me that you Brits are getting yourself all depressed and worked up unnecessarily and seemed determined to turn a relatively manageable economic issue into a national disaster.
[TonyN: I really think that you should tell the UK government. No doubt they will be immensely relieved once you’ve explained things to them.]
PeterM
I don’t think you quite got to grips with the UK debt-just like heinz there seem to be 99 varieties
http://www.debtbombshell.com/
As well as public debt and the ‘current account’ deficit, there is alarming private debt including mortgages, credit cards etc, unfunded pensions, several hundred billions through the private finance iniititative and lots of other debt hidden under a variety of stones. It comes down to the ability to pay it all back.
Mind you we seem to be making a better fist of it than the Americans whose continued devotion to racking up debt threatens world stability.
tonyb
TonyN,
On your point about nationalised industries = bad , privatised industries = good:
I’d just suggest that you do the same as I’ve done and take a few rail journeys in Germany (nationalised) and compare your experience to those in the UK (privatised)
Are the German trains dearer? Are the toilets dirtier? Are they so overcrowded that passengers have to sit on their suitcases in the corridor? Well no they aren’t.
You can book a rail ticket in Germany over the net, complete with a seat reservation, pay online with a credit card, and print out your own ticket. All very straightforward.
In the UK its a bit harder. You can do most of it but you have to figure out how to reserve a seat online which didn’t seem that easy. I didn’t bother and was very lucky that I didn’t have to stand up for 4 hours. Also had a bit of a hassle putting my Aussie credit card in the machine to get the ticket at the station. It didn’t like it and refused to cough up my ticket! And , there was no ticket office! Yes they did get me there in the end, but the air in the train wasn’t good and a couple of days later I started off with a pretty bad head cold which left me thinking I should have rented a car!
TonyB,
Your link shows £900 billion of UK debt. GDP of the UK is £1500 billion annually.
So, that’s like someone who’s earning £150k pa having a debt of £90k.
OK he’d rather not have the debt but it hardly seems worth losing too much sleep over.
TonyN,
I think you’ve made the mistake of believing things you might read in the Daily Mail. Just like they can’t, or won’t, get it right on scientific issues they can’t, or won’t get it right on economic issues either.
For isnstance you make the following totally unsubstantiated stement:
“By the late 1970s, it was the tax burden, massive level of national debt, and the cost of underwriting the inevitable losses of hopelessly inefficient nationalised industries that made the Thatcher phenomenon possible, and very, very necessary. ”
Of course everyone knows that’s true, don’t they? It must be true. But is it?
Lets take a look at UK National Debt again.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zlRiw3p-yXg/TBZyOjkEr_I/AAAAAAAADUI/rZqa8_rnsYU/s1600/uk-national-debt-ifs-751552.jpg
So debt was falling in the 70’s, from the high levels which had been accumulated during WW2, and there is really no evidence at all from this graph that the good Mrs T had the slightest effect, one way or the other. Maybe you have some other data to support your case?
And what about Tories cutting UK taxes? Another myth I’m afraid. They actually increased them.
http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/03/ben-brogan-and.html
[TonyN: You seem to be confusing war dept with current account debt, and I don’t have time to get involved in a silly arguments.
The point of the post, which seems to have passed you by completely, is that for the second time since the end of WWII we are building large scale government subsidies into core industries that are inefficient and uncompetitive. Once should have been more than enough. In the case of wind generation there is not even a market for the end product without government intervention, which makes the situation even more difficult to rationalise. What is so strange about this is that a Conservative prime minister seems to be content to preside over such policies.]
PeterM
Bit bemused about your comments re buying UK train tickets. The link here enables you to book online, print out tickets, reserve seats and pay by your Aussie credit card as my sister did when she was over from Adelaide last week. It also gives the best deals, for example the £150 quoted price from London to Wales came down to £22.
http://www.thetrainline.com/buytickets/?
I agree the German railways are on the whole better (especially the headline city to city ones) but after public ownership the UK was starting from a much lower point after decades of lack of investment by governments of all colours. They are much better than they were a decade ago but prices are much too high.
I suggest you have a closer read of the debt bombshell link where it shows your graph and makes the following comment:
“Historically, Britain has borrowed on a large scale to finance wars. Our creditworthiness as a nation has long been to our advantage. This graph shows the history of public debt as a percentage of GDP using the traditional National Loans Fund measure. This statistic was discontinued by the Treasury in 2004 as it no longer accurately reflected the true liabilities of the modern state. Now, after decades of relative peace and prosperity, our national debt is sky-rocketing once more. In 1997 Public Sector Net Debt stood at £352 billion. From there it took only 12 years to double, and the Government forecasts it will double again by 2014. “
So we have an annual deficit-spending more each year than we are taking in- plus the various ways that the public debt is racking up, which will double again in three years and potentially cause great problems in our ability to secure external funding with all that entails (Portugal, Ireland, Greece) The previous Labour Govt was profligate and lived far beyond our means.
Your analogy of someone earning 160k a year and having a debt of £90 is completely inappropriate because that debt is owed by everyone but only falls on those paying tax. If they were the only breadwinner in a family of four that public debt is in effect 360K for that family, to which needs to be added their families personal debt. The personal debt is greater than their portion of the public debt
http://www.grant-thornton.co.uk/press_room/uk_personal_debt_exceeds_uk_gd.aspx
So to that 90K individuals public debt must be added another 100K which is all multiplied by the number of dependents in that family.
Now in all this we must keep a sense of perspective as Govt and individuals need to borrow and part of it will be backed up by assets such as a house. Credit card purchases or the Govts use of Unfunded pensions and the printing of money through QE which were not backed by an asset clearly falls into another category.
By any reasonable criteria we are living way beyond our means and rely heavily on interest rates remaining historically low or the pack of cards topples. Most responsible people would see the need to pay off debt and live within their means.
tonyb
PeterM Just as tonyb has mentioned to your figures are wrong and do not include all of the creative accounting used by the last administration. Just our public sector pension liability takes our debt to 3 billion. Even if this country had no current account deficit, which is a smallest of all the figures banded about, and the one beloved of politicians, and the 900 billion soon to be 1.1 trillion public sector debt did not exist, we would still have 3 billion of hidden public sector debt. It is a disgraceful position to be in. And then we have all the personal debt, and company debt. My concern is that people are not take it seriously enough. So much for your fact finding tour.
You should have told us you were over. None of us bite and we could have shared a joke or 2 over a beer. never mine its back to arguing over who’s figures are correct.
Peter Geany
Debt has been hidden under all sorts of stones-not all of which have been turned over. PeterM-and many in the Labour Party- fail to see anything but the headline debt, whch in any case can not be viewed in the simplistic fashion he chose to highlight with his graph. Public sector pensions, QE and PFI all contribute to an alarming position without even going into personal debt. The idea that we have a spare £35 billion a year to spend on reducing our carbon emissions so we can make a theoretical two thousandths of a degree temperature reduction is pure fantasy.
Whilst I am very surprised that PeterM obviously expended vast amounts of carbon in order to come here-which seems to be against his personal philosophy- it is a shame he did not mention he was coming. As you say we don’t bite and it would have been good to meet up.
tonyb
TonyN,
Silly argument? I’m just asking you to show that you know what you are talking about. I’d just make the point that economic popular peception in the UK, currently, seems to be a long way off the mark factually. You’ve mentioned “national debt”, “war debt”, “current account debt”, “levels of tax burden ” etc without presenting a single reference – except perhaps what you’ve read in the Daily Mail to justify your argument. If you actually took the trouble to do that: substantiate your own argument with economic data – you’d realise that it would need to be somewhat modified to make any sense at all.
TonyN. A very good piece and you hit the nail on the head with the reference to regulation. Regulation is the new Nationalisation, but without having to pay for it. I will come back to this.
On the point of great prime ministers I’m not sure that Atlee will endure as a Great PM. He was voted strait out by the people of the day, and nationalisation set in motion the destruction of innovation and competition. His reputation rests solely on the formation of the National Health Service, which success or not is not for debating here. But I’m not sure all the plaudits that he gets for coming up with the NHS are deserved. I believe that the UK would have ended up with a similar system no matter who was in power, and who knows it may have been a better system. Margret Thatcher it seems has more hate thrown at her today than during the 80’s when she was in power and won 3 victories greater than those of T Blair. Some things she did must have please the core of the electorate. But even she failed on some fundamental reforms and allowed herself to be side tracked when trying to reform local taxation.
History is littered with attempts to manipulate economies and control people. They all end in failure. In engineering failure is what drives innovation and development. Lessons are learnt and for the most part remembered. Today I think that many academics and teachers fail absolutely and fundamentally to understand what drove the industrial revolution, and why Britain was so successful and why we have singularly failed to continue that success save for the brilliance of a few manufacturers that our regulator can’t destroy. And by forgetting the reasons behind the success they singularly fail to understand how to stimulate new success.
If we look at success in electronic consumer products we notice one fundamental truth. Very little Government regulation. Take how we record audio and now motion pictures for playback. We started with the drum, then the record disk, analogue tapes, then digital tapes, then optical disks of various sorts and densities. Along the way have been some monumental battles. VHS v Betamax being one, where the better quality product lost out to the greater acceptance by the consumer of the better value product; this should have been a lesson for all. The consumer will determine the direction not the manufacturer.
We have just had the same battle played out again this time with HD digital media, but this time the manufacturer that lost out last time is also a major player in content provision. They manipulated availability to ensure they gained an advantage from a position of monopoly. Result; the rejection of both competitors’ products on the grounds that they are not value for money. Ok Blu-ray sort of won on the grounds its competition gave up, but it has not been a runaway commercial success. The big lesson here for both industry and regulators, who were once more asleep at the wheel, is that competition needs to be open and any restrictive practises need to be stamped out early or the consumer is not protected. Also that allowing companies to dominate and dictate hardware availability by restricting content is not in anyone’s interest.
Now whatever industry we care to delve into we will find lessons that are always the same. In the UK once the production of energy had been sold off and a degree of completion introduced amongst the producers we had continuously falling energy prices. The last administration destroyed this, and David Cameron has continued its destruction. Since the introduction of the climate change bill we are back to the bad old days. That it will fail is written in history. If it does not fail it will be the first time ever. So the olds are not good for the Government. Everything they should be doing to stimulate manufacturing, they are in fact doing the opposite. Inflation is self-inflicted, with energy at the core of many price increases.
Fundamental cost pressures that had been building in the economy have been released in the last year of the Labour administration but only being realised now. It is as if we have children in power who are playing a board game in which they don’t understand the rules. Of course the architects of much of the current mayhem are now leader of the opposition and shadow chancellor. So in terms of acting as a foil and a good opposition they are useless and too easily batted away.
I go back to the fact that there is no money, that turmoil is yet to come in the euro zone, and our American friends are likely to extract vengeful retribution at the polls on those that have doubled US Debt in just a few short years. Just perhaps Cameron will be rescued by events outside his control, when the US ditches all the climate nonsense, Europe descends into nationalistic arguments that will necessitate ditching of excessive expenditure and the UK will quietly pretend to be leading the world against climate change and settle down to the real task of re jigging the economy.
I do have to travel for work reasons from time to time and I’m not against anyone else having to do that whilst saying its Ok for me. In time, the problem of CO2 emissions from air travel will need to be tackled – possibly by using hydrogen fuel or synthesised kerosene – but from nuclear power as the primary energy source. However the first priority needs to be to reduce the use of fossil fuels, particularly coal, in electricity generation.
PeterG,
You’re just as bad as TonyN. Maybe it is my scientific background but it always strikes me that comments along the lines of:
” In the UK once the production of energy had been sold off and a degree of completion introduced amongst the producers we had continuously falling energy prices. The last administration destroyed this,”
Should really be backed up external references. Facts, figures and graphs etc.
TonyB,
You say “Your analogy of someone earning 160k a year and having a debt of £90 is completely inappropriate because that debt is owed by everyone but only falls on those paying tax.”
OK I do realsie that I need to scale this at least by a factor of four to reflect UK incomes. So we’d have someone on £40k with a debt of £22.5k.
I’m sure you’ll be aware that VAT in the UK is 20% and just about everyone pays that. Debt has been five times higher in the past , in the middle of the 19th century, when the tax take was relatively low by comparison.
It may surprise you to learn that most companies, and most countries, even healthy well run ones, have debts. If being debt free was a good indicator of economic prosperity we’d all be copying the example of countries like Equatorial Guinea and Azerbaijan !