The Well Educated Journalist - An Oxymoron?

It is good to know that journalists are well educated. At a lunchtime event at Chatham House today titled Opening Up the Arctic: Prospects, Paradoxes and Geopolitical Implications one of the audience who identified herself as a Reuters employee asked of the Shell representative who was on the panel whether there were any economic circumstances that would make Shell decide against exploiting oil and gas lying beneath the Arctic. Instead of responding by saying what an idiotic question and why should anyone imagine any business would do something unless there was an anticipation of profit to be made, Mr Blaauw politely answered that Shell was in it for the return they believed they would make on the enormous sums they are going to spend exploring in this most inhospitable region. There was a representative from Greenpeace there who did not so much ask a question but go on and on making some propaganda point which left one with the impression that they abhor any exploitation of the planet's natural resources and thus want us all to go back to a subsistence existence. The Ambassador from Sweden was also on the panel as well as a Chatham House research fellow on energy, environment and resources and the panel was chaired by Roger Harrabin, an environmental analyst from the BBC (who I think is not liked by many sceptics). The Ambassador spoke about climate change and none of the other panellists objected when  the Ambassador referred to the huge adverse effect CO2 emissions have had on the Arctic. Mr Blaauw did though dare to say that there were areas of the Arctic (the Barents Sea) where the summer ice was greater than 12 years ago even if there was less in other areas. Climate change could also open up sea lanes and perhaps even the North West Passage. The North East Passage has had 36 boats using it this summer instead of just the 10 last year so global warming (if it is happening - Piers Corbyn of Weather Action thinks we are approaching a mini ice age) which could make it easier to explore for oil and gas. Mention was made as well by one of the panellists of the Arctic ice cap disappearing altogether in the next thirty years but this is refuted in many quarters and no doubt by Piers Corbyn. The fact is the world is getting more populous and we need more energy. Wind farms are useless and this fact will be eventually accepted and wind farms will be pulled down. No doubt there will be other forms of renewable energy which will be found to be both affordable and plentiful but in the meantime oil and gas are needed and the oil companies will look at places they have not previously properly explored but where the economics make sense. The risk is that they do not find fields big enough to justify the huge cost of exploration in a tough environment like the Arctic. In the meantime we will have to rely on things like shale gas of which there is thankfully plenty here in the UK.

BLOGGING WILL BE NON EXISTENT FOR THE NEXT FEW DAYS - I'M AWAY

Osborne On The Ropes And Miliband Duffied

It is now open season on Osborne. Iain Martin was always against him even as shadow Chancellor. Others have more recently come out against him too but perhaps none with as big a clout as Trevor Kavanagh of the Sun. However perhaps surprisingly, surprisingly to me since I had thought with his complaint about Osborne doing too many jobs Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome would be happy for him to drop one - even the Chancellorship, Montgomerie believes Osborne should be left in place and I must say I agree with him for the reasons given here. This does not mean that Osborne should not reduce his other roles in particular so that he may concentrate as a matter of urgency over the recess on producing a growth plan along the lines referred to in my previous blog post. Once he's done that and if if he wants to, he should be allowed to go after Balls and the rest of the Labour leadership. Ed Miliband has opened up a goal wide enough for millions of points to be scored against him as a result of his attendance at the Durham Miners Gala this last weekend at which he ignored the questions of a 14 year old boy, all caught on video. If you haven't seen the video it's captured in this piece from the Commentator blog here. The 14 year old's surname is Duffy as was the surname of the lady into whom Brown ran before the last election with unfortunate results. One wonders whether in future all Labour leaders will need to make sure they never get near anyone called Duffy, at least if a camera or or microphone is present also. Brown as you will remember was caught calling Mrs Duffy a bigot having forgotten to switch off his mic when he got into his car following her question to him about immigration. The joy of it all and which Cameron is bound to make much of at PMQs.    

Give Us Sunshine

All right the weather no doubt has something to do with the general depressed air that seems to hang over us this summer. It is truly depressing to see our summer ruined by rain but all would change if the temperature went up and the sun stayed out for even a couple of weeks. Perhaps the disappointing weather also colours our view of the economy and makes us worry that there is no way out or that at best it will take several years before we can feel confident that we are over the worst. As I was told by a family member's psychiatrist about that relation's deep depression that the patient would come out of it although it could take up to seven years as no depression ever lasted longer. The signs of the financial disaster were evident in 2007 although did not become full blown until 2008. Using the depression analogy we could therefore be in a slump until 2014/15. Part of the despair we feel is that the Government haven't really got a grip of it. They started with good intentions but were too optimistic so ended up doing too little. They did not cut spending nearly quickly nor deeply enough. Osborne really has to use the summer recess to come up with a bold and imaginative plan that is specifically tailored to our economy even if it means ignoring EU directives and other holy cows. It is an abdication of good governance to defer to others' sensibilities since we can only help others if we surmount our own troubles. Charles Moore has an excellent piece on this subject in the Telegraph today which you can read here. If the weather won't give us a smile we sure as hell need Osborne to do so and soon.

The Libor Inquiry and Ageing

It would be interesting to know why Andrea Leadsom has not been chosen to sit on the Parliamentary Inquiry panel into the Libor scandal and banking standards. It seems a pity to have excluded her after the successful way she questioned Bob Diamond at his appearance before the Treasury Select Committee the other day. It is obvious why John Mann, another Treasury Select Committee member, has not been chosen. His questioning of Diamond was both boorish and publicity seeking and thus his style is most unlikely to elicit any worthwhile answer of the big beasts who will be asked to appear before the Inquiry panel. It is good though that like inquiries carried out by US Congress committees the Tyrie led Inquiry is to be able to appoint Counsel to interrogate the witnesses under oath. Some of the evidence should be illuminating and I wonder what the Governor of the Bank of England will have to say now that it seems he was made aware of the Libor scandal in 2008 but did nothing about it. If true did he do this off his own bat or were Brown and/or Balls involved in the decision? Turning to another issue or rather to another semi independent government body, the Office for Budget Responsibility has reported that because of our ageing population current policies will result in non interest public spending increase by something like 15% by 2061. As such an increase is unsustainable it is clear that our present spending policies will have to change dramatically. Allister Heath has a good article about this in City AM today which you can read here. You would have thought that with this kind of tsunami coming at us that the Government would be looking seriously at further significant cuts in spending as well as at ways to increase growth. That is why it is so crazy for the Government on the basis of uncertain and largely debunked science to embark upon a costly green policy and why it is negligent in not pushing the private sector to exploit shale gas.              

Would You Buy A Secondhand Car From A Banker?

We all know that politicians dissemble if not downright lie, like Blair and his spin doctor Alistair Campbell about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. We do not think though that institutions like banks will  behave in other than an exemplary fashion since banks in particular have always exuded this rather pompous, superior, stodgy and forbidding aura. This feeling about them has been engendered by their attitude that you are lucky to have been accepted as a customer and perhaps confirmed by their giving the impression that they are meticulous about how you, their customer, behaves towards them. For example if you go over your overdraft limit by a penny they will immediately come down on you like a ton of bricks and insist you transfer the penny straightaway from a deposit account or anyway made good or else. With the way the banks have behaved there has been a complete sea change in our view of them. They can now be seen as a bunch of shysters who have no more claim to be a pillar of anything and indeed are as bad as any politician. They take our money, misuse it, lose it and charge us for doing so, for the great service they pretend they give us. No bank should be allowed to be too big to fail and our banking system should perhaps be changed to the same system they have in Canada and Australia. Their system seems to have saved them from the banking crisis everyone else in the world is experiencing. Matt Ridley has a great post on his blog about banks here. His suggestions or rather those of Douglas Carswell MP need to be seriously evaluated by the Chancellor whilst he also considers the merits of the Canadian and Australian banking systems.        

Back To The Middle Ages

Went to a Chatham House event this evening to hear Ed Davey our Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change give a talk on the UK's Vision of Climate Change. He is a passionate believer quite clearly in anthropogenic global warming and that the heat wave in the States and flooding in Russia is proof positive of climate change. All very depressing since he is hell bent on cutting emissions and meeting all renewable targets and is unconvinced that the cost of doing so cannot be afforded, it being of the greatest urgency to press on and achieve a low carbon economy. He also clearly thought that by the use of contracts for differences the cost of renewable energy will be reduced to levels similar to those of fossil fuels. according to Mr Davey renewables cost huge sums to instal but nothing to run whereas fossil fuels cost nothing to instal but huge sums to run so a contract for differences would even out the capital and running costs of the two. I think he's barking mad. This was about the only reference to fossil fuels he made and it seems from what he was saying that his Energy Bill will have nothing in it about fossil fuels so fixated on renewables is he. I fear for shale gas and despite in answer to a question about nuclear power him saying that nuclear energy has a role to play I doubt his heart is in it. Well, it's back to the Middle Ages and what is worse the despoliation of our beautiful countryside. If it were only the Lib Dems pushing the green agenda from which we are apparently making billions and employing masses of people it would be OK but it is all the other parties too. When will these fanatics come down to earth? Not before they've spent all our money, I fear.    

Lords Reform And A Libor Cover Up

Cameron is being blamed for the fiasco over House of Lords reform as he should have known a vast number of Tory MPs were against the Clegg proposals for reasons of principle and would therefore vote against it and in particular against the Timetable Motion. I think though that Cameron took the only course open to him. Despite the fact that the Coalition Agreement only provided for a Committee to be set up to consider Lords reform Clegg insisted on bringing in a Reform Bill as after his defeat on AV he wanted something on the Statute Book that represented a Lib Dem legacy from the Coalition. For fear of the Coalition coming to a premature end Cameron was unable to deny Clegg his demand even though Cameron knew Tory MPs were against both 15 year terms and proportional representation. Cameron had made it known that he would not hold it against those MPs who voted against the Bill and thereby in effect announced that he was not wedded to the Bill and would be glad to see it kicked into the long grass but to keep Clegg happy he had had to insist on a three line whip. Cameron could not have been in favour of the Bill anyway as he knew that Clegg's main reason for wanting the Bill was because it would entrench more Lib Dems in Parliament, albeit in the Lords, as a result of proportional representation. Cameron gave Clegg what he wanted, no doubt warned Clegg what the consequences might be, and then let the action play out. Clegg is surely screaming at Cameron that he did not try hard enough to whip his party into line but even Clegg must know that it was clear for some time that there were going to be a significant Tory rebellion against the proposals. Even Clegg's advisers must have told him that. Since what was anticipated came to pass Cameron could sensibly only take one course of action and withdraw the Timetable Motion. The question now remains how long the Coalition will survive. There is also the question of what will happen to Osborne. There seems to any number who think George was ill advised to tear into Balls as he did last week in the Commons. But did George know more than he was saying? On Jeff Randall Live this evening we learned that it is thought Tim Geithner knew all about Libor fixing in 2007. If he knew it is puzzling that the scandal didn't come out then? It seems most unlikely that if the Bank of England weren't told about it by Geithner when he became head of the New York Fed that he didn't tell the FSA? If the FSA knew they would surely have told their political masters. As nothing leaked it begins to look like a cover up at the highest levels. This story has legs.