August 2008 Archives

OK, I should include two alternative takes on the last few weeks' US campaign to make this a serious post. First, Scotland on Sunday has just realised that either candidate could win. Andrew Sullivan makes the case for Obama the strategist in the Sunday Times - recommended.

While it's often said that the first responsibility of a Chancellor is to talk the economy up, when everyone knows better it just sounds Panglossian and out of touch. So I think he's right this time, albeit for the wrong reasons. 

It's not primarily about a credit crunch. Like the dot com bust before it, we're seeing the end of a bubble spun up by market players and governments to try and fend off something worse. Its symptoms are grim, sure, but the underlying problem is that we're well into the dying days of the cheap oil economy, more commonly known as globalisation. 

Oil prices have dipped again, but as the FT says, this is just a lull in the storm. Colin Campbell and the good people at ASPO told us a long time ago what would happen, and so far it's all following their predictions. 

As global oil output starts to plateau in 2007, they said, prices will spike. Given the total dependence of our economic model on cheap oil, we'll see a serious economic slowdown. This will lead to a drop in demand for oil, easing prices. Demand destruction, they call it. However, with maximum production matching supply so closely (i.e. in the absence of a swing producer), even small threats to production will cause significant price changes. 

So far, so recognisable. We can expect the easing of prices below $100 again to lead to a small economic rally, and thus an increase in demand. My guess is that's probably not due before the spring, although I'm reluctant to make predictions. 

As demand then picks up, and as oil output starts to drop properly, probably 12-18 months from now (click on the chart above for a bigger version), we'll see another spike, almost certainly higher than the $147 peak seen in July, although that partly depends on the strength of the dollar. Cue even greater demand destruction.

No-one in government in London or Edinburgh, nor amongst their main oppositions, has any idea about how to cope with this. They're just hoping it'll all go away, and dammit, it won't. The timescales above may be out, but sooner or later it's coming. 

Darling tells the story of a member of the public who said to him "I know it's to do with oil prices - but what are you going to do about it?". His response? "People think, well surely you can do something, you are responsible - so of course it reflects on me." 

The man at the pump knows more about the problem than Darling, because he knows Darling can do something about it, a fact that seems to escape the Chancellor. Perhaps this random member of the public should do the job instead. 

Of course Darling could do something about it: he could divert spending away from wasteful projects and wars and into renewables, R&D, public transport, etc. He could set an objective of energy independence. Any politician who doesn't tell you that getting off our fossil fuel addiction is their top priority doesn't deserve your vote.

The alternatives if we don't achieve that are likely to be dire. Coal's already back with a vengeance, and there's no dirtier fuel except old car tyres, so any idea that decreasing oil use will help climate change is a pure pipe-dream. The hard right and neo-Nazis may well start to do better as the economic situation worsens. They certainly think so: see point 4 on the top link here (that's a google link -  I'm not directly linking to the bloody BNP's site!).

A lot of the goods and services we take for granted will become incredibly expensive, and fuel poverty will hit levels last seen when Good King Wenceslas famously looked out. Poverty as a whole will rise. I wouldn't bet against more resource wars, either. 

There's no point worrying about it, though, when you can spend your time working to get more Greens elected instead. 

Back to Darling's interview. His economic warning has understandably overshadowed his line that "This coming 12 months will be the most difficult 12 months the Labour party has had in a generation." 

It's a pretty extreme prediction too, though. What, it'll be worse than the last 18 months where you lost every election going? Worse than a million people marching against a Labour-led imperial war? Worse, Darling, than any given part of 1978-1993?  

How has it come to this, for Labour to have no imagination whatsoever about how to use a working Parliamentary majority? Here's a tip: why don't you address the looming energy crisis with something more constructive than nuclear and coal? 

All Labour has left is angst about themselves, fear of being exiled into opposition, and fear of being shown up by the Tories. Their absence of vision is now absolute, and it does indeed sound as though Darling's had enough. Perhaps he, like his namesake from Blackadder Goes Forth, is about to go over the top. 

It's also a good pitch for the PUMAs, although if they check out her position on abortion they'll be back with Barack. But won't she make McCain look, well, extremely old in a way that only Lonesome George normally looks?

It's Republican convention week too, which is alarming McCain's team, and they say they'd postpone the balloon-drop if need be. 

He started his leadership very clearly (by Liberal standards): "I am not intuitively against making sure that people have a choice and opportunity to vote on these things."

Then he rotated completely, saying he was opposed to a vote that could introduce independence "by the back door".

Pressed to reconcile these two contradictory statements, he refused. His policy on the constitutional future of our country? Fuel prices are too high. It's as absurd as saying your policy on fuel prices is independence. And no-one would do that.

Eventually Gordon got an answer: "I don't see how a multi-option referendum could work."

Here's a thought, Tavish. It could work like the leadership race you just won. It would be a preferendum, and if, say, three options are offered - independence, Calman or status quo - then the public rank their preferences. 

If one option gets 50% of first preferences outright, as you did, that's the result. If not, the least preferred option is eliminated, and the second preferences of those who picked it are counted. It's not "independence by the back door", it's the electoral system your party brought in for local elections. It allows a nuanced point of view - presumably you'd back Calman 1, status quo 2. I'd go for independence 1, Calman 2 (assuming Calman ever reports, and the result isn't absurd).

Even those opposed to independence should back a vote. If they're right about public opinion, we can all put this issue to bed for a generation and get on with tackling poverty and climate change. If they're wrong, then there's a popular will for change, and they shouldn't obstruct it. What's so complicated about that?

The last Euro qualifiers should be seen as the culmination of one element of our national destiny - to lose in the most courageous and unlikely manner, in the narrowest of ways. By this argument, the whole of the last phase of Scottish football, from 1974 onwards, led up to that defeat by Italy. What could be more appropriate than beating France at home and away yet still not qualifying?

On Iain Gray and Andy Kerr: "The two men spoke first and frankly it was vacuous nonsense focused on what positions they held and bash the nationalist no mention of policy, Kerr if anything was to the right of Gray who is apparently Browns favoured candidate."

Cathy Jamieson: "talked about working with trade unions and for the party to be involved in making policy, whilst much of this was vague it was considerably more political and to the left of the other two."

She won his support, but it was hardly wholehearted: "I came out of the husting believing that was I in Scotland I would have little choice but to vote for Cathy Jamison despite the history of privatising the prison service and her dreadful appearance on question time were she seemed to support DNA collection of all UK citizens from birth."

He thought Bill Butler was clearly the best candidate for deputy, but: "didn't entirely agree with every thing he said such as his view that PFI should compete on a level playing field with other public sector financing, why it needs to be in the field at all I don't know."

Does anyone know why anyone with views like this, so antithetical to the modern Labour Party, would continue to support the party of PFI, war, privatisation, ID cards, and the rest? It's a mystery to me.

Some of the media picked up that this was the big story. Others buried it or ignored it altogether. At least I didn't see Jenny Dawe or Steve Cardownie, the prime suspects in the Case of the Missing Cycle Track, lording it up on the bus. That would probably have led to an egging. Or at least to a lot of angry bicycle-bell-ringing.

But Jack saunters around the Holyrood building with the top two buttons of his shirt undone, clearly loving the fact that it's all someone else's problem now. 

It's not a Hawaiian shirt, but it clearly will be soon, and the medallion is already implicit. Even his walk is laid back, almost gravity-defying.

Liberal members have looked at their party's response to minority government, i.e. resist any cooperation with anyone except Labour, and they like it. Personally I think that could be costly, but only time will tell.

I'm pleased to see someone yanked Jeff's chain, though.

Update: Tavish Scott seems to have had a massive and absurd rush of blood to the head. "Thank you for this, the gold medal in the Lib Dem Olympics. I'm with Chris Hoy. I'm comfortable and confident in being part of a federal political party."

So what would the events be at the real Liberal Olympics? Synchonised boredom? Bulldozer relays? Graph manipulation time trials? Long-distance fence-sitting?

In any case, I doubt Chris Hoy actually said he's "part of a federal political party". If he was a Liberal, he probably left after they led the campaign to demolish his beloved velodrome.

I never understood the "but it's dolphin-friendly" argument when tuna themselves are so endangered. I may be a smug vegetarian, but surely, my meat-eating friends, there have to be some limits? Would you eat a rhino? A polar bear? A mountain gorilla?

They included Des Browne, top Minister at the War Office, and therefore ultimately responsible for the decision to deny John Macdougall compensation for his asbestos-related lung cancer. 

Coincidentally, I got a letter today from my local Liberal candidate claiming that voting for them was "the safest way to ... protect our traditional civil liberties". Odd, then, that they abstained on the issue in 2005 when Patrick had a motion down opposing ID cards.

With this in mind, on the 12th of August, I asked William Hill if they would offer odds on the Liberal contest, and I was told that "the odds compiler has informed us that we do want to bet on Scottish Lib Dem leader, but the market is not been compiled yet".

No matter. My good friends at Gristmill have posted a summary of Biden's environmental credentials. They seem decent for a US politician, bearing in mind the certain disappointment such situations always bring. Miles approves, too.

On the plus side, Biden's quoted as saying his number one magic wand request would be a solution to the energy problem, which does suggest a shortage of here-and-now ideas, but at least it's his top problem. He co-sponsored the toughest of the various climate change bills floating around the Senate, opposes extra drilling whether in Alaska or offshore, and backs renewables.

On the flipside, he's still pushing biofuels, although those positions may be old, so I won't rush to judgement there. His ideas on targets remain inadequate, but he's hardly alone on that in US politics. And one of the videos on that summary has him talking about "clean coal", which is always a clear sign that someone's been bought.

Still, compared to McCain... Just so long as the 1988 campaign doesn't turn around and bite him and Obama.

He disputed an advert for Foxy Bingo (Foxy seen left with the ever-classy Jordan) which offered free money to play bingo with on the traditional "hey kids, first sample free" basis. 

Except not kids, because, well, it's bingo.

Have a look at the third paragraph of the assessment, in which the ASA show how players either lose their free tenner or get to take their winnings out. Shouldn't a Shadow Secretary of State have been able to work that out? Do real Secretaries of State do stuff like this? Why am I even wasting my time writing about it?

Update: I recommend the following judgement against "Margaret". Now there's some unsubstantiated claims!

The story's not yet posted there, but PA reports some pretty unattractive comments by the First Minister about not minding the economics of Thatcherism, just the social side. 

However, this caught my eye. Four horses were caught taking capsaicin, and will be banned. Capsaicin is one of my favourite things, being the active ingredient in chilli peppers. If you're not a horse, or at least not a horse at the Olympics, may I recommend the chipotle tabasco? 

Whether it's party policy or just his policy isn't clear - if you search for it, Google thinks it's called "Front Page Nick Only". They seem to have decided to go really personal, because they think that's worked for the Tories. 

Their own finances normally tell a different story. Labour and the Tories have long shown substantial and damning incompetence with their own money, even if their bankers bale them out over and over again.

Also, the table tennis never seems to be on.

I'm on Barack Obama's spam list, just out of curiosity. Like at least hundreds of thousands of others, I'll be the first to know who his VP pick is. 

It's Hillary. No, it's not.

Tonight I got an email signed "Barack" which told me about the ten "ordinary people" who get to meet him backstage before he accepts the nomination. It's like rock'n'roll, politics, you see.

The ten names interested me less than the ten states these individuals come from (links take you to coverage about them). Montana, North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Alaska and North Dakota. Now take a look at today's electoral-vote.com map.

It shows twelve swing states, including some you might not expect, like Montana, North Dakota, and Indiana. Virginia's the swingest of them all just now, as liberal Washington DC spreads south. 

In short, Pennsylvania and Alaska are the only two on Barack's little list for hometown coverage that aren't currently showing swing-ness. But Pennsylvania went for Kerry by just 2%, and it's Clinton country, so Barack's just spreading the love. And Alaska has a very close Senate race going on, with a Republican in some very hot water. 

Now this could, of course, be coincidence. And I'm Willy Wonka (both versions included - take your pick). The lady from Montana, incidentally, makes the same joke.

Labour-run NUS Scotland was "bravely" arguing for their poorest members to lose their grants, incidentally. Labour most recently voted to impoverish students in December last year, but fortunately there were enough SNP, Liberal & Green votes to overturn the fees that Labour and the Liberals had brought in.

Anyway, we worked out of Andrew Welsh's office that week, and made good contacts with the Tories, in particular David Willetts and Teddy Taylor, both of whom were very hospitable solely because we were there to try and make Labour's life more difficult. Teddy was particularly impressed with a bit of research we'd done, and waved a copy of it at the Minister during the debate. 

That was the first and last Commons debate I ever went to, and I left thoroughly depressed by it, except for the passing satisfaction of our report being used in anger. I had had low expectations of Labour Ministers, but still thought they'd be an improvement on the Tories. 

However, when I closed my eyes, I heard Labour (I think in the form of Brian Wilson) making Tory arguments about competitiveness in higher education, indistinguishable from their predecessors in government.

Meanwhile, Willetts and other Tories were making the social inclusion case for poor students, arguing for equality of opportunity, just like their predecessors in opposition. 

It made me think of that 70s anarchist graffiti - no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in. And something Teddy said to us over tea has stuck with me.

"We'll do what we can for you now, but don't trust us if we ever get back into office."

Good advice, I always thought. And it came to my mind again this week when I read comments on air travel from their transport spokesperson, Teresa Villiers. She apparently told Today that the economic and environmental case for a third runway had yet to be proved. The BBC quote her saying:

In case you're wondering what the peak of Labour hypocrisy is on this issue, I give you ... the Minister responsible for Post Office closures arguing with himself.

A 4.7% drop amounts to a staggering 12.2 billion miles. In other words, one year's reduction in U.S. driving is equivalent to 489,940 fewer car trips around the world, a standard unit of mega-distance.

Looking at the bigger picture, the total American mileage over the last year is 2,954,326,000,000 miles, roughly. That's a little more than half a light year, the next largest such unit. Now, the nearest star system to our own is, as everyone knows, Alpha Centauri, which is 4.37 light years away. 

Over George Bush's term of office, therefore, Americans will have collectively driven as far as Alpha Centauri, more than 25 trillion miles, and all at about 24.6 miles per gallon. Other sci-fi dorks may find this as shocking as I do.

The theory is that you attach a big hose to a coal-fired power station's chimney, and pump the CO2 back into empty oilfields.

The Nats, Labour and the Tories think this is a magic bullet to allow business-as-usual power generation. Our position has always been "well, if you can prove it works and is more cost-effective than renewables, it's a possible transitional technology".

But the evidence is growing that CCS simply won't work. The reason is that the CO2 doesn't just magically get itself underground - it has to be pumped, and that takes more energy, specifically about 30% more coal power. 

Once you factor in the lifetime consequences of extracting, transporting and burning