Weekly Commentary 11th June 2022

 

Utility Regulators without Teeth

The report this week from OFGEM about the storms earlier this year and the failures of Network Providers is yet another example of toothless regulation. They have been fined, of course, but despite that and allegedly scrutinising performance and capital expenditure by the Regulator it is evident that they have not failed in profits and dividends (see ENWLtd for example). It is as if this Utility privatisation was designed for that specific purpose. That is, a profit and dividend created Company with an Electricity Network Provider attached not the other way round! In detail we also have the further extortion of money from customers not only through usage charges but via the “Standing Charge”. This charge is for the wired connections, meter reading and customer service. If that is the case why does it vary so widely between suppliers but also on different tariffs with the same supplier. Is it not the case that those three elements are the same or very similar for all! I know the argument will be made that recently it has been necessary to use the charge to recoup losses where another company has ceased trading but that does not explain the huge disparities. In my own case 20.83p per day in February 2021 and 33.22p per day in September 2021 (prior to most company collapses) and with the same supplier! Moreover using the charge to accommodate customers from collapsed companies hurts the poorest most. So we have a failed regulation in relation to the resilience of the network, a failed regulation in relation to continuity of suppliers, yet profits are still made and dividends paid!

The Soap Opera Continues

I have long held the view that present day politics in Britain is a Soap Opera and continues to be so as the participants engage in mutual ego massaging. This week is a good example. Boris Johnson is doomed. Boris Johnson is saved but only for a while (don't kill the story just yet). Huge opportunity for Keir Starmer – Oh no! He’s fluffed it. The similarities all round are hard to ignore. Principally the lack of substance. Boris Johnson, his persona is deliberate superficiality (although History may attach more importance to Brexit, Covid and Ukraine than glasses of wine and birthday cake). But what can you make of Keir Starmer – it has to be more than I am not Boris Johnson. It also has to be more than “we would spend/invest more”; “we would be quicker”. I’ve been burrowing around looking for Labour policies as to what their government would be like. Apart from a “Green Paper” on Employment that is all I could find! A lot of work to do here both in the substance and giving Keir Starmer a personality.

Constancy, Stoicism and Leadership

It has been very interesting to read the commentaries on the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee. I find it strange that some avowed Republicans praise Queen Elizabeth’s longevity and contribution to Britain and the Commonwealth and others while recognising that (contribution) seek to sow doubt as to the future for the monarchy. Part of the latter is, of course, the stock in trade of speculative journalism, (it is also a plea for continued employment). What these personages seem to forget is that the future history has yet to be written and that their views (speculation) and comments reveal their own ideology and purposes.

I am certainly not a rabid Monarchist but divorces and bad behaviour in the Royal Family are not rare occurrences. Before elaborating just give some thought to a Presidential alternative. Perhaps (most likely) a former politician – a bit like the House of Lords only more grand and more expensive. Surely we could not have both! But to return to the point of an alternative – would President Blair or President Boris be able to keep their own counsel and not meddle. Of course not – constitutional mayhem would ensue. Now as to Royal Family behaviour it is worth reminding ourselves about Henry VIII, Civil War, Republican Protectorate, Parliamentary coup to prevent Jacobin succession (William of Orange), Edward VII, Edward VIII, the present Prince of Wales, the death of Princess Diana and latterly the presumed guilt of Prince Andrew without trial. Against that background the relative tranquillity of the reign of Queen Victoria and our present Queen might seem to be an aberration? Moreover the Prince of Wales would have to be spectacularly dim and wilful not to have learnt from his mother.

So what are some of the lessons we might learn. First there is the sense of what you have been entrusted to do. To lead a Parliamentary Democracy as Head of State conforming to the established and developing conventions. Second to provide a focus and historical perspective for the country. Third to be an exemplar of the best in public service and duty to the nation and commonwealth. This can only be done with the characteristics of stamina, fortitude and a strong belief in what you are doing and have done. That you learn from your experience and continue to work hard to implement the belief(s) that you have. It is perhaps a striking reminder of the present day that these virtues (and to my mind they are virtues) seem old fashioned and dated. However the sheer presence of the Queen, 96 years of age, celebrating a reign of 70 years and still working exemplifies the real value of those virtues as compared with the extravagant individualism, self indulgence and the many (allegedly) liberal fashions of today. There is very much to say in leadership by example, constancy, stoicism in the face of adversity and belief is worthwhile now and in the future.

Weekly Commentary 26th May 2022

 

A view from Clough Brook Cottage

An weekly commentary on current affairs from an imaginary cottage in the Peak District.

An end to Partygate (hopefully)

A dangerous demagogue with Imperialist pretensions is rampaging through Ukraine with a bestiality not seen since WW2. As a result the world could be facing famine especially in developing countries. Total employment in the UK has declined by nearly 1m in the past 30 months. The cost of alleviating the impact of Covid19 is about £30bn. Inflation is steaming ahead. Yet what does the media in Britain talk about – minor offences related to Covid19 regulations. What a load of sanctimonious, hypocritical guff. I shall just give a couple of examples of media hypocrisy – Kay Burley of Sky News December 2020 – “I was desperate to go to the toilet” (of course she is still there – on Sky News!); on a different note but hypocrisy related, George Eaton of the New Statesman set up the late philosopher Roger Scruton by de-contextualising and removing parts of an interview (April 2019) – an apology was not given until July, by which time Professor Scruton had been removed from a Government appointment as the actions of George Eaton gave the impression that the Professor had expressed anti-Semitic views (he did not!). George Eaton is still at the New Statesman.

The Pandemic Regulations were created in haste and have poorly defined advice. They provided for Fixed Penalty Notices and relatively small fines. A “party” does not appear in those regulations. As is the established case Police Officers have discretion. Hence there is a high likelihood of differential application across the country.

The real criticism of the Government (and for that matter the Opposition) is that there is a distinct lack of strategic thinking beyond tomorrow’s headlines, poor planning and attention to detail in the application of policy. The news media should do much better than they have, so far, and prove themselves capable of rigorous analysis and criticism not pandering to Westminster “tittle tattle”.

Cost of Living

Yes it is a crisis but all crises should be put to good use. In the case of energy this means rectifying the faults in the present model of supply. This present model is based on the belief that the market is self regulating and therefore intervention in relation to the structure is not necessary. Actually the market has failed simply on the basis that it allowed far to many under capitalised retail and trading entities to exist resulting in multiple business failures. The measures today by the Chancellor (26^th May) are aimed at sustaining the existing (neo-liberal) model not reforming it. The retail and trading sectors of the energy market would be hard pressed to show any added value. On the other hand many of them support excessive executive pay, high dividends and profits which are drawn from a vital necessity (a public utility).

In an emergency, which this is without doubt, the requirement should be to take the opportunity for reform. First the country should enhance the role of the National Grid so that it becomes the Monopoly purchaser of electricity and gas for onward transmission to domestic customers. Second National Grid, in it’s new role would have to show transparently that rigorous international price comparisons had been undertaken. There would need to be for some time, price controls, dividend controls and excessive executive pay controls. The accounts of the retail and trading entities should have their accounts independently audited – the results of which should be made public. The Government should provide loans to these companies, perhaps over a 20 year period as their contribution to keeping prices down. I will not hold my breath for either the Government nor Opposition to do anything like this!

The debasement of political debate and dialogue

 

A view from Clough Brook Cottage

An weekly commentary on current affairs from an imaginary cottage in the Peak District.

Debate in Parliament and about Government has always been robust but has it also been crass. This is Benjamin Disraeli about William Ewart Gladstone:

“A sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity.” Compare this with Chris Bryant in the House of Commons Chamber, Autumn 2021: “The Prime Minister is a f…… liar.”. He was only mildly admonished (“we are not having that here”) by the Speaker and left the Chamber immediately having gauged (most probably) that the punishment would be prohibition from the House for at least a day. Moreover Chris Bryant is an ex Anglican Priest.

To my mind nothing exemplifies the decline in standards than this comparison. Perhaps it is yet another expression of the overwhelming hypocrisy so prevalent. We all deserve “respect” but many who make such a demands are themselves deficient in offering it!

Many things have changed since the time of Disraeli and Gladstone in relation to political dialogue and debate. I am not saying they are to be deprecated. Far from it! It is the use to which these new features are utilised by individuals. I am referring here to 24 hour news (most of it in the visual media) and Social Media.

The physical separation of the protagonists is key. If you are doing a TV interview there is some physical inter-action, however via Facebook and Twitter for example you are shielded from your opponent.

Though not always an accurate reflection non-verbal communication can be very important – sometimes contrived and subject to manipulation. See for example during Prime Minister’s questions the camera pans to the questioner during the answer and if it is not the answer desired we have the deliberate head shaking and mouthed contrary view.

It is worth re-calling that when Parliament was first televised only the question and the answer were shown. Lobbying by the BBC led to control of camera views being given to the the provider not Parliament.

However I would argue that this has been part of the process whereby the oral and written contribution to debate has been downgraded to the detriment of real substance as it is that, (written and oral statements) which are the foundation of the legislature’s work. Whether somebody shook their head at the answer is not relevant in any degree when interpretation is carried out by the Courts! So it may be “good” TV but that does not mean it is enlightening. Perhaps (I would say certainly) its diversionary nature impedes understanding and does not provide enhancement. Removing control from Parliament opens the door to greater exposition much under the claim of improving democracy and transparency. I am not disputing those claims but doubt their complete veracity when news and current affairs become “shows”; e.g. Andrew Marr, Beth Rigby, Sophie Ridge and Andrew Neil. The purpose of these “shows” is to get an audience and thereby, in the case of the Commercial sector to secure a revenue stream via advertising; in the case of the Public broadcaster it is to secure competitive audience ratings. We therefore have a multi-objective provision overlain with the protection of the brand. Thereafter we see the exaggerated question, the production of ‘worst case scenarios’ and “grandstanding”. No don’t ban it just be aware that the visual media is a deceiving and deceptive medium.

The separation is even more marked in the Social Media. Many have described Twitter as an “anger- fest”. These keyboard warriors do not have to face their protagonists and this has led to their views being both judgemental and dismissive of opposing views. Just as you would have expected where there is a limit on the number of characters you may use in a post. Staccato debates rarely produce anything meaningful! This to, is a multi-objective business with the main requirement to have a revenue stream not to enhance knowledge and proper understanding of politics and current affairs. Again don’t ban it - read more books and quality printed media. So in this consumerist society always pay particular attention to the maxim ‘caveat emptor’.

Some further quotes which support the view of the primacy of the written and oral tradition over the confusion and downright nastiness of today. Many of the, are apposite for the present day.

“Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends of every country save their own”. Disraeli 9^th November 1877.

“This shows how much easier it is to be critical than to be correct”. Disraeli 24^th January 1860.

“All the world over, I will back the masses against the classes”. Gladstone 28^th June 1886.

“A desiccated calculating machine”. Aneurin Bevan on Hugh Gaitskell anticipating the Labour Party leadership contest on the retirement of Clement Attlee. 1954.

Weekly commentary

A view from Clough Brook Cottage

An weekly commentary on current affairs from an imaginary cottage in the Peak District.

The war in Ukraine rumbles on with continuing medieval bestiality from the Russians. If one has to take sides in this sad affair I am with Ukraine. Ukraine is an internationally recognised sovereign country invaded by Russia. The Russian regime is, by any reasonable analysis, a government of gangsters and kleptomaniacs. This is not to say that the present and previous Ukrainian regimes are/were “lily white”. However to take the Russian regime at its word – correctly interpreted as subjugation and permanent subordination of neighbours to ensure its security - is a reversion to great power politics which has served humanity so badly in the past 500 years. We must stand together to support a rules based system of international order and this includes the USA remembering Vietnam and Iraq for example.

The cost of living crisis is aptly described as distinct from much other of the ‘news hype’. Energy price increases may reach or even exceed 100% by autumn! I have to admit not being a supporter of energy privatisation (Gas and Electricity). A diffused and fragmented business was never going to be able to deal with such a crisis in cost increases. Rather than dance around the edges as the present government does with a small rebate and a loan. Nor the opposition’s proposal for a windfall tax which is only a very short term partial solution. Why not offer loans to suppliers – possibly paid back over up to 20 years – where energy costs are stabilised (controlled). Suppliers will, of course, scream that it is nationalisation by the back door and it may be. But it will provide stability while the transfer to renewables takes place. Just a thought!

Oh I suppose I shall have to comment on the Northern Ireland Protocol. A little analysis and removal of partiality would help! To do so requires acknowledgement of the facts not as some would wish them to be! The Good Friday Agreement and the Protocol are not synonymous. The GFA precedes the Protocol by 22 years. The GFA is about peace and stability in Northern Ireland. The Protocol is about trade. Of course there is an overlap and I would suggest that is one reason that the Protocol is written in the way that it is and for the provision of Article 16. Article 16 provides for “unilateral” action (see EU proposal surrounding Covid19 vaccines). Taking such “unilateral” action is not illegal as it is specifically provided for in the TCA (the Protocol is part of the TCA – UK-EU). “Unilateral” action is exactly as it says. It is not subject to agreement – maybe consultation but any party may institute it (see above about EU and Covid19 vaccines). The reasons for unilateral action are serious difficulties relating to societal, political and/or economic matters. (Words taken from the Protocol itself). The diversion of trade UK – NI and NI – Republic and the inability to form an Executive in the Province are strong indications that the test for unilateral action may have been met. If such action is taken it should not be confused with repudiation of whole or Part of the TCA which may well be illegal.

Keir Starmer is a hypocrite Boris Johnson is only a player of Games

 

“If I am fined for breaking Covid lockdown rules I shall resign.”

Thus by this manoeuvre hoping to wrong foot the Prime Minister.

I have long felt that attacking the character of Boris Johnson was a

mistaken strategy encouraged by other Political Journalists as BJ had

previously made up stories and they did not want any of the muck to

stick to them! Well that train left the station many years ago. So

do some real hard work instead of taking the lazy and easy way out.

Yes BJ has character flaws and probably is not suited to being PM.

That does not mean that KS has none and is the next best thing to a

saint although he is certainly sanctimonious.

Let's look at his record in Parliament. Well he definitely has a

a dubious past. He thinks he knows better than the voters. He provided

advice and support to a foreign International Organisation in attempting to

reverse the Brexit referendum result. (He would deny it but still stood on

platform in 2019 demanding that it be re-run). He is arrogant, supercilious,

behaved in an under hand way, continues to play low politics and is anti-democratic. Moreover Labour under his Leadership has drifted rudder-less with,

at best, a policy offering so opaque as to be meaningless.

So he is not the sort of liberal democrat that would be recognisable in

intellectually rigorous circles. To refer to Isaiah Berlin and John Stuart Mill

the removal of choice in a democracy is an unfreedom and can only be justified

where there has or will be an egregious removal of basic human rights.

Unless you are of a peculiarly messianic nature there is no way that

the Brexit referendum result comes into that category!

Anyway look at BJ's other character traits: he does not do detail; there is a

trail of incompetence; there is a lack of strategy or if there is one it is

to get through another week of this 'game' and the importance given to chasing headlines, a perennial fault of Political Journalists in the Westminster

bubble

It really is a strange and downright weird world in which having a cake or curry

during the pandemic restrictions qualifies for media space of any size.

There is a war in Europe, an economic crisis (in part brought about by the pandemic) is going to get very much worse and inflation will make many poorer. These are the real issues that need to be addressed not ridiculous posturing by Westminster politicians.

Ukraine, Invasion the EU and UK – Defence and Security Part 3

Having dealt with the (spurious) argument about “proximity” requiring the UK to re-engage with the EU (alleged – no evidence!). Let us look at the facts of existing defence and security. Of the 27 members of the EU, twenty (20) are already members of NATO – a defence and security treaty of over 70 years with the UK as a founding member. Additionally Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Austria are neutral! So to allege a lack of engagement is close to being preposterous! If there is a wish to replace NATO then this should be made explicit. I could go into a lot more detail but EU behaviour has to be taken into account. Thus far their record has not been error free. Germany’s “ostpolitik” has failed spectacularly. French desire to lead Europe (after de Gaulle) depends on German money – the bus always has to be driven by a French person no matter who pays the bill. The UK has very superior intelligence capabilities which is why the EU wants us to be with them but their way of working would be very difficult for an independent nation state – as many MEP’s have said they are in the process of building an Empire. It will take the EU many years to shed itself of the view that the only way to do things is the EU way. So let us put this away in the filing cabinet under “Another Nonsense Idea”.