Big Sticks and Small Carrots

I have Listened and I have Learned

Selective hearing is a condition which appears to afflict an ever increasing number of people. In the days when I spent too much time hanging round in bars it was easy to spot. A number of my friends would immediately respond to the question “do you want another beer?” but saying “it’s your round, isn’t it?” never seemed to elicit quite such a hasty response. I suffer from the condition myself to some degree. I’m far more likely to hear “would you like a cup of tea?” than “I think the dishes need doing”. It does seem to be mostly, but not exclusively, a male condition.

Our great leader has developed selective hearing into something of an art form. The general election result is a case in point. Labour’s share of the vote dropped by 5.5%. The Tories share increased by a tiny 0.6%, and the Liberal Democrats share increased by 3.7%. Mr Blair hears this as an endorsement of his policies and a sign that he needs to step further to the right.
That goes beyond selective hearing and reaches a whole new level. I call it twisted listening.

Here’s another recent example. The Independent commisioned a poll which showed that 62% of people favoured a switch to a fairer voting system. Our great leader’s response was to send out his old flatmate, Lord Falconer, to tell the nation that there was no “groundswell” of support for changes to the system. Blair also put John ‘Herod‘ Prescott in charge of the committee examining the case for electoral reform. Here we see a further evolution to the listening strategy being employed. I think of it as the “not listening but talking” strategy or alternatively the “I’ll continually tell you what you think in a loud irritating voice ” strategy. I believe this can be used to best effect when you’ve already made a cast iron commitment to listen on a particular issue. Like this, for example:

We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system.
Labour Party manifesto, 1997

I suppose this could also be called the “selective willingness to listen when listening might mean your grasping fingers will be removed from the levers of power” strategy (not really a catchy one that though).

The latest piece of news to reach our great leader has travelled all the way from France. The French have said no to the EU constitution. There are a number of reasons for this “no” vote but it seems partly due to the fact that many French people believe the constitution is full of Anglo-Saxon liberal free market ideas. It is a very complex problem and it will require some careful and considered listening in order to understand where the EU goes next. Our great leader is currently on holiday in Tuscany (I wonder if he has bruschettas for breakfast?) but here’s what he had to say:

“The problem is there is another debate going on in Europe, among the people of Europe, which is to do with jobs, economic security, public services and welfare reform in an era of globalisation, illegal immigration, organised crime - issues to do, in other words, with the economy and security that seem to them the issues they want to see leadership from Europe on.”
He argued that the constitution was a “perfectly sensible set of rules to govern Europe”, but added that there was a “bigger debate now in Europe….
How do we give our citizens proper protection, proper welfare and public services and at the same time remaining strong and competitive and prosperous in this modern world? Now that, in my view, is the question that we need to debate in Europe, alongside whatever decisions are made about Europe.”
The Guardian

The Guardians says: “Mr Blair’s response is a bit like offering a child a vindaloo curry after they have just said they don’t eat spicy food.”
The Times says:
Tony Blair seized on the French “no” vote yesterday to back his case for greater economic reform, telling EU members the result showed they must face up to the challenges of globalisation.

Mr Blair takes over the EU presidency in July. It will be a difficult period. The future direction of the EU is up for discussion and many views will have to be reconciled. I hope our great leader takes the time to listen to the debate. Unfortunately for our European friends, I feel it may be beyond him.

The title of this blog is a reflection of the workings of international relations between nations. These relations are often said to be conducted in an environment of Realpolitik. In the days of British Empire it was called Gunboat diplomacy; a heavily armed gunboat at the mouth of the harbour would soon get the natives in line. In these more enlightened times we like to believe that international politics has progressed beyond such actions. The story of the former inhabitants of the Chagos Islands puts this belief into perspective.

Last week, the Guardian Weekly reported on the fact that a number of Chagos Islanders are to be allowed to visit their former home islands. These visits will be for a period of no more than 12 hours. No journalists will be allowed to accompany them.

The full story of how the British government has treated the former inhabitants of the Chagos Islands shows how far international relations have progressed since the days of Gunboat diplomacy. The Information Clearing House has put the documentary “Stealing a Nation” online.

The Blair government once talked of an “ethical foreign policy”. Sadly, it was no more than talk.

The Independent has word on our great leader:
Blair steps in to end ‘yob culture’ feud

Tony Blair will chair the first meeting of the cabinet committee on antisocial behaviour to end a turf war between ministers who are battling for control of the “yob” agenda.
Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, and Hazel Blears, who is responsible for the police and antisocial behaviour orders, have been battling to seize control of the agenda…
There have been continuing reports from Whitehall that Mr Clarke was being “highly obstructive” by refusing to give up responsibility for antisocial behaviour.

Yob culture? You’re not kidding. There’s obstructive behaviour, a bit of battling, and a freaking turf war going on in the mofo cabinet office. I’d say Clarke packs an Uzi, Blears goes for a Glock. That’s just speculation though. I’m sure our great leader will bring out the big guns and whip them into line.

In other news, the Independent also reports that Brown’s supporters are calling for him to make an early push for the leadership. One nameless former minister says:

“Blair is going to continue messing up the health service with the private sector and education with city academies. That is sufficient reason for Gordon to start manoeuvring.”

Now that’s what I call respect. Bo!

I’m against ID cards. I think they’re an infringement of my right to privacy.
But some people tell me “if you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear”.
It sounds sensible, and I understand why people say it, but is it really true?

Do you mind if the government wants to record every phone call you ever make?
Do you mind if the government wants to fit a CCTV camera in every room of your house?
Do you mind if every civil servant with a computer terminal has access to your medical records?
After all, if you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear.

You might have nothing to hide, but I’m guessing you’d still feel very uncomfortable with any of the above. One of the three is about to become passed into law.

The NO2ID campaign is the first port of call if you’d like to register your discontent.
And if you think ID cards are a stupid idea, here’s a pledge you can sign.

Real world interference means I have to be extremely brief. I can’t not mention this though. It’s another hit count frenzy!
That’ll really please the conspiracy theorists mentioned here. Pure coincidence but rather amusing.

Here are a couple of posts which I felt the need to comment on.

The first, $70 Million for Whitewater, $0 for Downing Street Memo, points out a slight double standard in US politics and links to a new pressure group which aims to do something about it.
The memo in question was first published in the Sunday Times. It’s the one from July 2002 which said:

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime… It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

This wasn’t what Mr Bush was telling his country in July ‘02 though. Many Americans, quite understandably, aren’t too happy to have been lied to by their leader over such important issues. Unfortunately, I have to add that I know the feeling.

In the second post, Nosemonkey highlights a spectacularly wrong headed statement. The author proudly assures us that it will be printed in the Times. And it has been. Remarkable.

Normally I try not to comment on the sites who believe the BBC has a left wing bias. I did write a spoof post about bias in TV media and I think it makes my feelings reasonably clear. Anyway, I just couldn’t stop myself from commenting on this post about the BBC radio show, “Off the Ball“.
Self described as “the most petty and ill-informed sports programme on radio”, I’m amazed that people can get so worked up about it. I left a comment, I couldn’t restrain myself. I wasn’t trying to be a troll.
Just in case I do get any new visitors, I thought I’d do a quick post to pose three questions. Be honest now:

1 Do you believe privatised news sources tend to have a right wing bias?
2 Have you read this story?
3 The water mentioned in Qu2 is no longer available in the UK, but do you know if it’s still available in other countries?

It’s worth reflecting on. I’m happy to have at least one mainstream news source which is not subject to the pressures of advertisers.

Tim Worstall has posted his weekly Britblog Roundup, the roast beef of British blogging. I normally try to visit every Sunday but it does seem particularly notable this week. Good man that Tim, excellent judge of quality posts, he really can spot talent… (that’s enough, put your ego back in its box, Ed).

I had to quote this from the roundup:

Perfect.co.uk is also strongly opposed to the ID cards. In fact, even with all my wandering around blogs, I’ve not yet come across one that is actually putting the case for the scheme. Would anyone want to point me to a UK blog that tries to do so?

I haven’t seen one. I wonder if Labour MPs realise how big an issue this is going to be in 2009/10? There are a lot of Labour MPs in marginal seats who really ought to be paying attention if they want a long term career in politics.

Edit - I didn’t add a title. It’d only irritate me all day if I don’t fix it, so I couldn’t let it lie (even though I still can’t think of a decent title).

It’s the strangly addictive Throwpaper (via doctorvee).
My best result so far is 16.

A Slight Digression due to a Letter

I have to be honest and admit that I don’t know a great deal about wind power. It seems a reasonable idea to generate at least some of our electricity this way, although it doesn’t look like it’ll ever be able to produce a large percentage of the electricity we need. I do support windfarms in principle.
[Click on Permalink to read more…]

Here’s a potted version of my thinking:

• Scientists may or may not develop new technologies to replace our reliance on non-renewable fossil fuels before they all run out. Most advocates of the free market are reasonably confident they will. They might be right. I’m not sure either way.

• Windfarms are not permanent structures. If a new wonder energy source is discovered, our children and grandchildren will be able to remove wind farms (and would probably be able to recycle the materials for other purposes).

• There is currently no technology available to dispose of nuclear waste. Suitable methods may be discovered in the future but again, I cannot say with certainty that this will be the case. As things stand, our children and grandchildren will not have the option to say no to nuclear waste. They might not be too happy about this, especially if no safe method of waste disposal is discovered.

• So, I don’t mind if lots of windfarms are built all over the country. Our grandchildren can remove them if they want. I do mind if lots of nuclear power stations are built all over the country. I’d rather not pass a nuclear hot potato onto the next generation. I know there is more to the argument but this is the potted version.
  

Right, on to the letter in question. It appeared in today’s P&J letters page. (It should be online tomorrow.) Here it is as printed:

Windfarm noise misery
SIR - Frank Bellamy complains that the pulsing sound of the Causeway Mire windfarm may force him to move away (Noise from windfarm making life a misery, May 25). I have noticed this low-pitched “whoomph whoomph” of big wind turbines, and have also heard it before, in disturbing circumstances. Who remembers those Vietnam war movies with atmospheric soundtracks of slowed-down Chinook helicopter rotors? The whoomph is caused by the blades of one rotor encountering the blade-wakes of the intermeshing second rotor. It is not the only disturbing thing about these enormous machines. The sudden emergence of a giant blade from behind a hill-slope, or out of a cloud base, triggers that primeval “corner of the eye” fright which saved our distant ancestor from leaping predators. I am not surprised that those who live in sight and sound of the wind-monsters have their tranquillity stolen and their health damaged.
Dr John Etherington,
Llanhowell,
Pembrokeshire.

To be honest, I laughed. Living near to a windfarm means you’re going to be napalmed by a US military helicopter and have your intensines removed and eaten by a wolf. It’s bit silly, a bit tabloid sensationalist nonsense. It stuck in my mind because I though it was funny. Then I started to think about it a bit more. Pembrokeshire, isn’t that in Wales? Why is Dr Etherington from Wales writing a letter to my local paper? I’m almost certain he can’t hear the Causeway Mire windfarm from down there. Curious.
You know me, I like a mystery. I thought I’d do a bit of google sleuthing. Here’s what I found:
From the Guardian

“Why are we building wind turbines and paying three times the odds for their electricity when other options are so obvious? Why are we building the biggest passenger jet the world has ever seen? Why do we not reward people for saving energy?” says Dr John Etherington, a retired academic regarded as the intellectual guru of Country Guardian.

and from the same article:

The anti-wind lobby took off in 1992 with a group called Country Guardian, which was worried by wind power’s potential to damage landscape. It strongly denies accusations of having close links with the nuclear industry (its chair is Sir Bernard Ingham, who is a paid lobbyist for British Nuclear Fuels). Its arguments were supported by many conservationists who feared the visual impact on lovely places, but also by old Labourites who supported the unions in Britain’s nuclear industry, and others who accurately foresaw that wind power could scupper plans for new nuclear stations.

But is this the same Dr John Etherington?
What about this, or this, or this, or this, or this or this or this?

There are a few more but you get the idea. Dr John Etherington from Wales is an anti-windfarm campaigner. It’s not a shocking discovery given the letter but perhaps he should have been more explicit about it. It might also have been more productive to have used one of his more rational sounding arguments rather than resorting to tabloid scaremongering. Not that I’m an expert in anti-windfarm campaigning, perhaps subliminal negative association tactics are very effective. I really wouldn’t know.

I did find one other interesting reference to Dr Etherington:

Members complain it is very difficult to pin down the costs of wind power. This summary of a letter to the Western Mail on October 6 by Dr John Etherington, a leading critic of wind power, may be helpful. He took issue with a reader who claimed that the cost of wind power was 2-3p/ kWh since that, he said, was only the cost of generation.

That’s from a meeting of SONE, Supporters of Nuclear Energy.

Obviously I’m not suggesting Dr John Etherington has any connection to such an organisation though.